I realize that this month’s column might fall in the category of NIMBY — “Not in My Backyard!” — but when things beyond your control threaten to affect things near and dear to you, you speak up if you don’t like it, or you go ahead and take your medicine. Sometimes, it tastes like castor oil, and this is one of those times I’d rather not have that slide down my throat.
What’s near and dear is the S.C. Department of Natural Resources. Because the state is facing a budget shortfall of nearly $600 million for 2009 — and has a governor who refuses to support any tax increases, whatsoever — all state agencies are having to tighten their belts and trim away any excess fat.
Except that the SCDNR is being asked to trim away some bone.
In 2001, the SCDNR operated on an annual budget of $31 million. Last year, the operating budget was $22 million, and budget cuts of between 16 and 31 percent are being discussed for the next fiscal year. State officials have already informed SCDNR that a 15.8-percent cut will be the minimum, and Pat Robertson reported in South Carolina Sportsman last month that the legislature may cut another 15 percent.
Clearly, we’re not talking about cutting things that we as sportsman can do without. The fat has long been trimmed from the SCDNR budget. Fishermen and hunters may not feel the effects of the latest proposed cut for a year or so down the road, but it will hurt — a great deal.
The SCDNR shut down its field office in Conway in late November. On the chopping block next could be the Waddell Mariculture Center, where the millions of redfish fry and fingerlings that are stocked in South Carolina waters are hatched and grown out. Oyster bed restoration and artificial reef construction programs are on hold. The recreational saltwater tagging program is no more, and biologists will have to get by without programs that pay for sampling some fish stocks.
One of SCDNR’s most-valuable commodities is its personnel, and they are about to start disappearing. Since 2001, the total number of employees has been cut by 25 percent, from 1,200 to 900. Employees who retire are largely not being replaced, and those close to retirement — some of the DNR’s top-drawer employees — will likely be offered buy-outs to get them off the state payroll.
Now, try this one on for size. Wildlife enforcement is down 40 positions, officers are being limited in the number of miles they can drive while patrolling, and they’re going to double up on patrol — in boats and vehicles. While this may be a great money saver, who would dare argue that it won’t cut into the officers’ effectiveness? You’re already down almost one officer per county, and now, instead of putting two officers on the road in different parts of the county, you’re cutting by half the amount of patrolling they’re able to do.
If that doesn’t sound like much, think how it would affect you the next time you call a wildlife officer about a poacher who keeps sneaking onto your hunt-club land, or somebody who’s easing up and down your rural highway, spotlighting deer.
So, if you like your redfish, you love the protection your wildlife enforcement officers provide, and you’d like to see the game and fish in the Palmetto State remain healthy and under the care of professionals, you might want to think about not taking this one sitting down.
Be the first to comment