The truth dies in the dark. So does Wisconsin’s wildlife—and Scott Walker is anxious to bring down the curtain.
On the surface, it would be hard to find a clearer example of state government success than Wisconsin Natural Resources magazine. A publication of the state Department of Natural Resources , the magazine is beloved by Wisconsinites—so popular, in fact, that in this day of failing magazines, more than 80,000 families subscribe to WNR either directly or through the purchase of “deluxe” hunting and fishing licenses. As a result, the publication is completely self-funding, requiring not a dime of state revenues.
So why, then, does Gov. Scott Walker want to kill it?
Walker and his allies argue that the move will allow the agency to focus on its core mission. “It is not the government’s role to produce magazines that duplicate what is available in the private market,” said Walker’s spokesperson Tom Evenson in a statement to reporters.
The idea that the state-focused content of Wisconsin Natural Resources is a “duplicate” of other magazines on the market is laughable. Not only does the publication provide a much more regional view of plants, wildlife, hunting, fishing, gardening, and general outdoors issues than national magazines, it also directly reports on state policy. And it’s that last point that seems to be the real focus of Walker’s hate.
Public outreach and public involvement has always been part of DNR’s mission, says David Sperling, who served as the magazine’s editor from 1987 until 2011. And because the magazine delves into conservation initiatives and policy decisions happening at the DNR, it provides content that isn’t duplicated elsewhere.
The magazine provides transparency. And transparency is the enemy of people like Walker.
Under Walker’s regime, the magazine has been under tighter and tighter censorship, with the editor constrained by having to submit every story in full to department chiefs before publication, and several apparently innocuous stories cancelled because they might offend Walker’s industry supporters. Now Walker wants to cancel the entire magazine, arguing that it could be continued as a private enterprise.
Many examples are available for what happens if a magazine like this is tossed into the private market—including one that’s right next door.
[The Michigan] Department of Natural Resources decided to privatize its natural resources magazine in 1993. By 1998 the publisher had stopped making payments, and a year later it had halted publication.
Wisconsin Natural Resources isn’t alone in its position as a state outdoors publication. Many states, including strongly conservative states, have a similar magazine that not only provides information on local issues, but provide outlets for local writers and photographers. Some have consistently been named as among the best outdoors magazines in the nation. The quality of writing in these magazines can be exceptional, and the stories they tell are unlikely to be relayed by magazines attempting to reach a national audience. They serve to provide insight for residents, a welcome slice of home for ex-residents, and enticement for visitors.
A magazine like Wisconsin Natural Resources provides not just excellent outdoors reporting, but a rare instance of government transparency that goes beyond a soundbite. They cover local issues in detail and in depth. Which is why Walker wishes the Wisconsin magazine dead.
The magazine’s editor resigned last year after Walker’s team blocked some of the most important work done at the publication.
Agency leaders also prohibited stories on frac sand mining, privatization of groundwater, and climate change, Kassulke says. And they told her she could no longer use the terms “global warming” and “climate change.” In fact, the 2013 insert on climate change was the last time the magazine mentioned the issue. A search for “climate change” or “global warming” turns up zero hits after 2013.
Walker pretends that the cancellation would save the state more than half a million dollars. But that’s not at all true.
The state estimates that eliminating the magazine would save nearly $545,000 a year. That’s just 0.001 percent of the state’s $45 billion annual budget. And that money doesn’t come from taxpayers. The magazine is fully funded by its subscribers. About 48,000 people pay the $8.97 annual subscription fee, and another 40,000 receive the magazine as a perk when they purchase a premium hunting and fishing license. Content comes from non-profits, unpaid freelance writers and photographers, and DNR staff.
Scott Walker wants to close down a beautiful publication that produces valuable articles for the people of Wisconsin to guard against the possibility, no matter how slim, that they might put out something that offends his bosses. Among the stories recently cancelled …
One piece focused on efforts to bring back the American marten, an endangered species in Wisconsin. The story included a map of the animal’s habitat, Kassulke says, which overlapped a proposed iron mine site in Northern Wisconsin. “So that story was killed,” Kassulke says.
Supporters inside and outside the state are working to save the magazine both by contacting state legislators and DNR officials, and by putting their money directly into the effort.
Supporters have found another way to protest too. Subscriptions to the magazine are up. Between mid-February and mid-March, the DNR received 2,300 additional subscriptions, an increase of three percent. Another 350 subscribers renewed.