A question about coordination

To the Editor:

Your April 16th piece protesting the Pelican River Forest Easement raises questions. This letter will raise more.

The PRFE is a conservation easement sold by the Conservation Fund to the State. You quote Publisher Gregg Walker as calling the easement “essentially a state taking of land.” The Conservation Fund willingly sold the easement, and the land will remain private. So, what exactly was “taken” from the owner?

This easement ensures that thousands of acres of land and miles of roads will be available for timber production and recreation. With logging and recreation being essential to our economy, who would oppose this project?  Certainly not the Wisconsin Council on Forestry, the Wisconsin ATV/UTV Association, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, the Ruffed Grouse Society, or the Oneida County ATV/UTV Council, each of which supported it. Certainly not the City of Rhinelander, the Village of White Lake, or the towns of Pelican, Schoepke, Pine Lake, Lake Tomahawk, Wolf River, Ainsworth, Elcho, or Langlade, each of which passed resolutions supporting it.

Some who opposed the project spoke in favor of development of the land. Does anyone really believe that there would have been significant housing or business development in those remote swamps and forests, miles from the nearest cities and utilities?

A few years ago, mining exploration took place on the land. Did some of those who opposed the easement do so because they wanted to see a mine on the land? Does anyone really think the headwaters of the Wolf and Pelican Rivers would have been a good site for a mine? It’s hard to believe that the citizens of Oneida County do, given that they voted two to one against a mine in the Town of Lynne in a public referendum.

In your article, you insist that the federal and state governments had some sort of duty to “coordinate” the project with local governments. You use the word “coordinate” and its variations 15 times, claiming that state and federal laws require “coordination.” 

A bit over a decade ago, the concept of coordination came to Wisconsin in the form of towns demanding “coordination” in lieu of comprehensive planning. A great deal of public resources were wasted pushing the idea.  Then, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion indicating that the towns had no right to demand coordination. 

Now, “coordination” is again being bandied about. Given that you are championing the concept, please tell your readers exactly which parts of which laws you believe require “coordination”, and what is meant by the term “coordination” in the context of those laws. 

Finally, Mr. Walker is also quoted as saying: “Federal and state laws require coordination, and we’d like to see how the DNR thinks it satisfied that requirement without ever contacting local governments in the impacted area”  

If he believes that there was no contact, what do you hope that your open records request of the DNR will yield?

Tom Wiensch

Rhinelander