Democratic Party says Scott Walker proposed selling state parks [Rated: FALSE!]

Many aspects of Gov. Scott Walker’s 2015-’17 budget have come under heavy criticism, but this headline on a state Democratic Party news release really caught our attention:

The Iowa part didn’t surprise us -- it’s just the party’s latest dig at Walker for spending more time out of state as he weighs a potential 2016 presidential bid. That includes Iowa, home to the first voting in that contest.

But would Walker’s budget "sell off Wisconsin’s state parks"? As in, to private bidders?

When we asked Democratic Party spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff for evidence to support the claim, it became evident that there was some false advertising in the news release.

"We are referring to the proposals by Walker administration officials at the DNR to sell off naming rights to the state parks to offset his budget cuts to the state park system," Baldauff wrote in an email, adding "the people who do live here aren't likely to want to see our richest natural resources sold off to corporations and campaign donors."

OK. But selling naming rights is far, far different than selling any of Wisconsin’s 64 state parks, forests and recreational areas. And even that is not in the budget itself. Rather, naming rights is an idea that came up in questioning during a March 3, 2015, hearing of the Joint Finance Committee.

Under Walker’s budget, state parks would have to sustain themselves through higher admission and camping fees. That stirred questions from lawmakers when Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp, a Walker appointee, testified.

State Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, quizzed Stepp about her plans for keeping the state parks in business.

A video of the meeting shows that Stepp said there was sufficient money to run the parks for the next two years, and said officials would use the time to consider ways to best fund parks beyond that.

Said Stepp: "We also are going to be engaged in conversations with external partners and opportunities for us to be able to leverage -- I guess for lack of a better word -- more support within our state parks."

Despite her answer, Erpenbach pressed on and asked if sale of parks had been discussed within the agency.

"We have not discussed that at this point...it’s very premature. I don’t anticipate that’s going to be a problem," she said. "We’re talking about engaging with external partners for opportunities for, say, concessions, sponsorships, while still maintaining the integrity and the unique state park experience for our users."

Stepp declined Erpenbach’s invitation to say what the state might be willing to accept for, say, a sponsorship of Devil’s Lake, the most-visited state park.

When we reached out to the department, assistant deputy secretary Michael Bruhn said in an email that Stepp was drawn into the selling of parks discussion by the questions.

"Cathy’s testimony did NOT say anything about selling state parks. Senator Erpenbach made the claim," he wrote. "We are NOT considering selling state parks."

The state Democratic Party of Wisconsin said Walker’s budget "would sell off Wisconsin’s state parks."

But that is not included in the budget, and Stepp said during testimony it was not under consideration. At best, what is up for discussion is the potential sale of naming rights as a way to derive extra revenue for the parks.

Here's a "Pants on Fire" one:

June 4, 2012: Recall challenger Tom Barrett says “Scott Walker has a plan to privatize state lands” and “wants to sell our deer to the highest bidder.”

Picking up on chain email and internet rumblings, Democratic gubernatorial recall challenger Tom Barrett is hunting for votes in the June 5, 2012 election by aiming for Wisconsin’s 600,000 deer hunters.

Here’s the pitch:

"Scott Walker has a plan to privatize state lands," Barrett says on his campaign web site. "Don’t let Scott Walker take away your right to hunt deer on public lands!"

There’s even Facebook page called "Save Wisconsin Hunting" set up that is connected to an effort by the liberal Daily Kos web site to highlight the hot-button issue.

The Barrett campaign also bought a Google ad. Type "James Kroll" in the search box, and you get this message: "Scott Walker wants to sell our deer to the highest bidder" with a "Join us!" link goes to the campaign website.

The target is Republican Gov. Scott Walker, but the man at the center of the issues is James Kroll, the Texas consultant hired for $125,000 by Walker to recommend improvements to the state’s deer management system. Kroll is known as "Dr. Deer" from his articles in hunting magazines and his appearances on hunting shows on TV.

His recommendations are expected in late June 2012.

So where does Barrett’s claim Walker wants to "privatize state lands" and "sell our deer to the highest bidder" come from?

Hunting on public land has long been part of our state’s deer hunting tradition. Of the 339,261 deer killed in 2011, about 60,012 were taken on public land, according to the Department of Natural resources.

The Barrett campaign did not respond to our request for their backup on the claim, but a return to Google shows an on-going back and forth between the two sides.

Many of the attacks on Kroll -- and Walker -- stem from Kroll quotes in a Feburary 2002 story in the Texas Monthly. The full story is behind the magazine’s pay wall, but here’s what the most cited portion says:

"Game management," says James Kroll, driving to his high-fenced, two-hundred-acre spread near Nacogdoches, "is the last bastion of communism."

And it continued:

"People who call for more public lands are ‘cocktail conservationists,’" he says, who are really pining for socialism. He calls national parks "wildlife ghettos" and flatly accuses the government of "gross mismanagement."

But the article is 10 years old and there has been no public indication from Kroll that he advocates turning Wisconsin’s public lands into a game farm where you have to pay to hunt. Nor has there been any indication Walker supports such an approach.

This was made clear in a May 26, 2012 piece by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel outdoor editor Paul Smith: "While he is a controversial figure among wildlife professionals for his extensive work in high fence deer management and captive deer breeding, at no point has Kroll advocated for privatizing deer hunting in Wisconsin."

Kroll told Smith his comments were distorted by a liberal publication. But they’ve caught fire. In a chain email, those who receive it are asked to pass it along since it is sure to cause a wedge among Walker supporters.

Here’s one post from the Barrett site: "Kroll has an extreme philosophy of turning public hunting grounds into profit-making entities. This would have dire consequences for average Wisconsinites, and make it far costlier to take part in this Midwestern tradition."

Kroll responded with a lengthy blog post of his own:

"The blog reports of what I said about ‘communism’ is a distortion of my real feelings, as well," Kroll wrote, in part. "We discussed how the top-down approach to game management was the wrong approach (sound familiar in regard to Wisconsin?), and if you give people the incentives and support to manage game animals on private and public lands, as well as a say in how these resources are managed, it is a ‘win-win’ for everyone."

And he told Smith: "The last thing I want is to make it harder for hunters to participate in the great sport of deer hunting in Wisconsin on public land."

We asked Walker’s office about the governor’s plans for deer hunters.

"Governor Walker supports hunting on public land, always has supported hunting on public land, and will continue to in the future," Walker spokesman Cullen Werwire said in an email. "Governor Walker will not enact ‘steep fees’ to hunt on public lands. That is crazy."

Our rating

Barrett claimed "Scott Walker has a plan to privatize state lands" and "wants to sell our deer to the highest bidder."

The evidence for the claim goes back to a 10-year-old article that describes Kroll’s views about hunting in his home state of Texas, not Wisconsin. His final report has not been made, there is nothing about privatization in any preliminary recommendations, and Kroll has stated clearly he does not support private management of state lands for hunters. Walker has said the same.

Without any direct evidence, this claim looks like all heat and no light.

Pants on Fire!"

Please name me one private park like Yellowstone, Smokey mountains, etc(I know I can't)

Long, long ago when I had young children, I took them on a trip to the Grand Canyon. They were bored and restless after a short while. In contrast, our visit to Busch Gardens in Williamsburg was a big success. I think that's a concrete example of private enterprise doing things well. We may disagree on this but that's my experience from a few decades ago. And I also enjoyed Busch Gardens more than the Grand Canyon.

As is/was "naming rights" to state/national parks (Even the thought of the former Texas stadium, now AT &T stadium makes me nauseous)

Again, with respect, I differ. One of the reasons -- among the many, I enjoy NASCAR -- are the sponsor logos, endorsements and relationships formed with the brands. As I see it, it's the American spirit of free enterprise to use a variety of venues to acquaint consumers with products and services. It's a long tradition -- going back to the outfield fences adorned with advertisements at Little League fields. And President Calvin Coolidge nailed it on January 17, 1925 when he stated:

After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.

That's among the reasons why I can't understand those who decry "commercialism" in sports or any other pursuit. A vibrant, free economy depends upon creating a need in the market and then fulfilling that need. Indeed, that's the business of America. Let freedom ring!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.