Minnesota is surrounded by states that have a Citizens Conservation Advisory Council or conservation commission. It’s time for Minnesota to join them.
Why do we need such a council? Transparency in government is a national issue today. A council is essential to improving fish and wildlife management in the state and ensuring that informed Minnesotans are a part of the process. Our generation and especially future generations of Minnesotans deserve clean waters, abundant wetlands, fertile grasslands, and healthy forests.
Minnesotans who feel their voices are being heard about conserving these resources is an important component of continuing and energizing this proud conservation legacy.
When we come together, we can succeed. The Legacy Amendment is a great example. The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council is proof of the value of community building.
Another example is this year’s Minnesota Duck Summit. Presentations from state and federal agency staff and nonprofits such as Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever focused on the need to work together and their reliance on Legacy Amendment funds. Perhaps unwittingly, Duck Summit presenters documented the need for a Citizens Conservation Advisory Council to play a major role in fostering collaboration.
RELATED FROM OUTDOOR NEWS:
Push is on to create a ‘citizens conservation advisory council’ in Minnesota
The path forward in the land of 10,000 lakes requires all on board, telling it like it is, working together. DNR working groups, such as the walleye working group, make valuable contributions and should be continued. A Citizens Conservation Advisory Council will take a much broader look, including whether the state is sufficiently funding repair and/or replacement of hatcheries for example, not just to benefit walleye fishing, but fishing of all types in Minnesota.
The council also would review whether state support for wildlife management is sufficient to ensure the future all Minnesotans want for their state.
MORE COVERAGE FROM MINNESOTA OUTDOOR NEWS:
Outdoor Insights: We don’t need more roads in wild places
Do more sightings outside core range equal hope for Minnesota’s moose?
Natural foods vary as Minnesota’s bear season arrives
As we envision it, a Citizens Conservation Advisory Council of perhaps nine members would meet monthly around the state to gather information from Minnesotans about fish, wildlife and the lands and waters they need to survive. Prioritizing and delivering this information to the DNR, the governor, and legislators, the council would act not only as a conduit to these decision-makers, but a catalyst for action.
Minnesota can do it. Our state is a leader in establishment of state Wildlife Management Areas. Minnesota initiated the “Save the Wetlands” program, the Richard J. Dorer Memorial Forest, the BWCA, Voyageurs National Park, and state scientific and natural areas.
There is much more to do. Strong citizen participation is a vital and necessary piece of this process as we move toward a better conservation future.
The time is now! Both major candidates for governor, Amy Klobuchar and Lisa Demuth, support the idea. Let’s get it done!
The author hails from Duluth and is a past national president of the Izaak Walton League of America. He was the 2013 Outdoor News Person of the Year.



2 thoughts on “Commentary: Minnesota needs a citizen-led Conservation Council”
I have never lived in a state–MN is my 9th–that is so far behind the curve on adopting modern more streamlined regulations or science based conservation actions. There is absolutely no need or science behind having so many deer units; 4 or 5 max would do for MN. Managing at the county scale is not feasible, something most other states stopped doing in the 90s. One 4-6 week long statewide spring turkey season will do and move the limit up to 2 birds per season. No public shooting ranges, I mean really. Start using Pittman-Robertson 90/10 TARMARK funding to build public shooting ranges, it is practically free money from the feds. Saving wetlands is awesome, but improperly managing or failing to replicate moist soil conditions is nearly just as bad as filling them in. And the whole 3 duck limit will only serve to durther disenfranchise an already frustrated base of waterfowl hunters. And what is actually happening with Elk and the Elk reintroduction efforts–the DNR is once again taking a backseat and letting politics prevent progress. The DNR needs to get with the times, stop wasting conservation funds on admin and overhead and start applying it to on the ground habitat improvement projects, streamlining regulations, building public shooting ranges, and start listening to hunters and anglers–not politicians or non-paying bird watchers.
Absolutely! This should have happened years ago!!