Anderson: Minnesota DNR commissioner says no plan to raise state park or hunting, fishing license fees

Sarah Strommen has been commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources since January 2019, the first woman to hold the post. Before that she was an assistant DNR commissioner and also worked for various conservation nonprofits. She holds an undergraduate degree in biology from Grinnell College in Iowa and a master’s in environmental management from Duke University.

The late Joe Alexander, Minnesota’s longest serving DNR commissioner, once said the only difference between the agency’s top post and a duck is that “the hunting season closes periodically on ducks.” Strommen nevertheless says that while her job “isn’t always easy, it’s always rewarding.”

In the interview below, which has been edited for length and clarity, Strommen addressed a range of issues including whether Gov. Tim Walz’s possible election to national office will yield changes at the DNR and whether the agency will seek hunting and fishing license fee increases in the coming legislative session.

Q: It’s possible Gov. Walz will be elected vice president in November as part of the Harris-Walz ticket. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan would then become governor, the state’s first Native American to hold that office. How well do you know her and would you expect any significant changes at DNR if she were governor?

A: Lt. Gov. Flanagan and I have worked together very closely. She’s been a great advocate for state parks and for getting more people outdoors. But she and Gov. Walz are different people. I’m not going to speculate what differences her administration might bring to state government.

Q: In 2023, the Legislature rejected the DNR’s request for hunting and fishing license fee increases. Resident fishing licenses would have risen from $25 to $30, for example. The DNR said it needed the money to keep the Game and Fish Fund solvent. In the coming legislative session will you again ask for these increases?

A: No. As you said, we had proposed increases. But the Legislature had concerns and ultimately didn’t approve them.

A: No. The Legislature was very clear, both the Senate and the House, that they didn’t agree with the higher fees.

Q: But if state parks needed money in 2021 and 2023, they must still need money.

A: We are exploring ways to increase funding for state parks. But I don’t have anything to share at this point.

Q: Also regarding money, in 2021, the DNR began a multiyear effort intended to address demographic changes that threaten the state’s natural resource funding. Baby boomers are aging out of traditional fee-based activities such as hunting and fishing, and fewer members of follow-on generations are participating in these and other outdoor activities. Is there progress on this initiative?

A: The first of four parts of that program, which we call the 4 The Outdoors Report was to optimize use of funds we already have. For example, due to a decision by the federal government to match with Pittman-Robertson funds the amount of money the state pays local governments in PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes), we’ve added about $7 million annually to the Game and Fish Fund. We’re also modernizing fish hatcheries, for example, which will yield savings over time. A major remaining challenge is securing new revenue sources for base and operational funding.

A: Any of those actions by our Fish and Wildlife sections were made in order to operate within their budgets effectively. There have been no budget cuts (to those sections) since I’ve been in office.

Q: Are you satisfied that conflicts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over DNR timber harvesting on state wildlife management areas (WMAs) have been resolved? [At issue was whether DNR timber cutting primarily benefited wildlife on the areas, as the law requires, or was instead intended primarily to achieve agency and industry timber harvest goals.]

A: Yes, with the caveat that we have an ongoing project internally intended to enhance cooperation among our Ecological and Water Resources, Wildlife, and Forestry divisions regarding timber harvesting on WMAs. There was a gap between what was intended to occur with these cuttings and what was occurring in the field, and I asked for solutions to close the gap.

Q: But wasn’t the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s fundamental complaint — one that the Legislative Auditor’s office is reviewing — that the DNR Forestry Division had too much power in deciding what and how much timber got cut on Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and that as a result wildlife habitat enhancement wasn’t prioritized in the process, which is required when timber is cut on these areas?

A: People’s perceptions on things will differ. I’m not going to say anything was wrong with what we were doing. What I’m saying is that the Fish and Wildlife Service never provided us anything that said there was a concern over our management of timber cutting on WMAs. There was a concern about the documentation, and we can do better. That’s what our internal project is about. It’s not about completely reshaping our approach to timber harvesting on WMAs.

A: Various state and federal agencies are being involved in developing a deterrent plan, including the Wisconsin DNR, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers. Also, there are a couple of similar deterrents around the country and we’re looking for lessons to be learned from them. The time frame calls for engineering design to begin next year, culminating with construction and installation of the deterrent by June 2029.

Q: Is DNR hiring someone to oversee the project?

A: Yes. For a large, complicated project like this it’s typical for us to hire someone to manage the process.

Q: Finally, is the new DNR electronic licensing system still scheduled to go live in March of next year, when hunting and fishing licenses must be renewed?