There's no doubt about it. From a hatchet job on the state fisheries and parks budgets to an amateurish effort on behalf of a group of watermen who really need a hand, the people who do the people's business have to be closely watched.

In Annapolis, where the General Assembly has 90 days to give state government an annual allowance and enact laws, mischief is condensed like a best-seller in Reader's Digest.

And, as we all know from playground rules, it's the little guys like the Department of Natural Resources and its customers who take a beating.

For example, the O'Malley administration followed through on its pledge to help DNR's cash-poor fisheries service only to see the money "zeroed out" by the budget gurus at the Department of Legislative Services.

That move would destroy a sweeping plan worked out last session to assist fisheries biologists. Anglers saw their license fees double last July in exchange for the administration agreeing to hire three people to oversee data collection, habitat protection and tidal black bass management; add $750,000 to the fisheries budget; and form a task force to help rewrite fisheries management policies.

Tough noogies, anglers, the deal is off. But that's not all. The legislative budget gurus are suggesting that DNR raise fishing and boating fees even more to pay for an upgrade of the licensing system.

The merry band of ax wielders also hacked away at the long-neglected parks service budget. DNR leaders had persuaded the O'Malley administration to allot about $4 million to fix up state parks and promote 38 longtime contractual workers to full-time status. That would free the contractual money to hire real seasonal workers such as lifeguards and day-use staff.

But the budget gurus who work for the legislature decided that loyal contractual workers don't deserve benefits and decided to lower park fees instead of improving the properties.

The bottom line: It will be less expensive to go to crummier places.

All told, it appears that 58 new DNR positions might be in jeopardy if the DLS recommendations are followed. If lawmakers leave things as is, the operating budget for DNR and the departments of agriculture and environment (they are lumped together) will decrease 9 percent - more than at any other agency.

So much for all this public kissy-face about caring for the planet.

Luckily, these cuts are not a done deal. House and Senate budget subcommittees will weigh DLS advice against counterarguments by DNR leadership and the public.

The Senate subcommittee that monitors the Department of Natural Resources budget held its hearing Friday. The House subcommittee will do so Wednesday at 1 p.m. in Room 120 of the House Office Building in Annapolis. You're all invited.

If you can't make it, Sen. James DeGrange, chairman of the Senate budget panel, can be reached at james.degrange@senate.state.md.us. Tawanna Gaines, of Prince George's County, chairs the House group. You can reach her at tawanna.gaines @house.state.md.us.

But wait, there's more.

The Eastern Shore's always amusing Sen. Richard Colburn wants to pay off clammers who will no longer be allowed to work the Atlantic coastal bays as of Oct. 1. Last session, the General Assembly banned hydraulic dredging to protect marine life and grasses on the bay bottom.

Senate Bill 673 would set up a compensation board dominated by watermen to pay clammers for their gear and possibly pay them for "diminished earning capacity."

To be eligible, a licensed clammer has to show proof that he sold bivalves anytime between Sept. 15, 1994, and the cutoff.

The bill requires DNR to provide staff for this operation. Of course, the senator does not include money for either the compensation (Colburn admitted to reporters that he doesn't know how much it will cost) or DNR staff. Always a good sport, he would allow DNR to take the money from any part of its budget it likes. And - get this - the bill doesn't require clammers to relinquish their gear in return for the cash. Such a deal.

Under the Clam Act of 2008, members of the compensation board would get a two-year term. Why?

Colburn says there are fewer than 10 clammers. All know they will be out of business in eight months. How long does it take to review their receipts, appraise their gear and cut a check?

There's nothing wrong with compensating these watermen. That's the price of eliminating clamming in coastal bays.

But why should someone who decided to get out of the dredging business a decade ago be entitled to anything now? Why do we need a commission whose members are entitled to get paid for their "expenses," whatever those are?

Someone needs to rewrite this bill.

candy.thomson@baltsun.com