Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Muskiefool

Outdoor Heritage Fund

137 posts in this topic

Representatives from Sportsmen for Change will will be at Cabelas in Owatonna this Saturday with information on the fund and the huge potential it holds for MN Hook and Bullet interests if voted in this November 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why go to a place where you probably have at least half the people already? Go to the MOA and hit those who haven't even heard of what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe town hall meetings have been attended as well, I'll talk to Gary about MOA possibilitys, I think thats a great idea, they had several booths up at the State Fair to attract the local gentry that I saw.

I really don't know if half the sportsman agree with it, as of now Ive talked to many that are totally hung up on giving the Guthrie $$ and trails $$, unfortunately to get 200 million $$ for clean water, Fish and Game; the theater may get a new remodel as well, I wish it could all go to adding buffer zones in residential and agricultural run off areas, cleaning up septic, Aquatic Management Areas, Wildlife and such but we'll have to settle with 200 million for these efforts with a citizens counsel that we can all apply for as oversight if voted YES.

Game and Fish licenses cannot undertake this type of needed effort, especially with dwindling numbers of hunters and fisherman.

Take a kid into the outdoors and show them what we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is smart to solidify the base of support. I've ran into a lot of people that I know who fish and hunt and have no idea that this thing is on the ballot. If voters don't know what the issue is all about they may skip it and all non votes count as NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 Reasons Why You Should Vote NO

1. It’s $11 billion out of Minnesotan’s pockets. The almost half percent sales tax increase will generate $11 billion over 25 years, paid for by you, the taxpayer, and given into the hands of government.

2. It’s a Constitutional Amendment. If passed, the question on the ballot will be an amendment to the state Constitution, which will never go away. The Constitution is a document formed for the purposes of giving rights to the people and limiting the rights of government. A mandated tax increase and a mandated way to spend that money is an abuse of the state Constitution.

3. It mandates where $300 million each year will be spent. If passed, $300 million each year will be dedicated solely for the purposes of the arts and outdoors. Although these things are important, the role of the state legislature is to decide where taxpayer dollars are spent each 2-year budget cycle. We elect representatives to the legislature to prioritize spending. This amendment would allow $300 million of taxpayer money to bypass the legislative process and force them to spend it on the arts and outdoors, even if that year there were higher-priority needs for other things, like roads and education.

4. There’s no lack of current funds. Although few know it, millions of taxpayer dollars already go to fund environmental projects. The Department of Natural Resources has a 2-year budget of $1.5 billion. A portion of the state lottery proceeds goes to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The market value of this fund is currently at $415 million. Clearly, there is no lack of funding for environmental projects.

5. We can’t follow the money. If this tax increase passes, hundreds of non-profit organizations will lobby to get their hands on these government grants. As opposed to government departments, non-profits do not have to report where and how they spend their money. Once these non-profits receive government grants from the dedicated funding, taxpayers will never see where their money is spent.

6. It creates a scary precedent. This will be a precedent-setting amendment if it passes. Once our Constitution begins to dedicate money to specific spending projects, there will be no end in sight of coalitions and special interests enticed to seek constitutionally dedicated funding for their own pet projects. Just in September, Speaker Anderson-Kelliher (D-Minneapolis) mentioned she can now start planning a constitutionally dedicated gas tax. If this $11 billion ballot question passes, we can guarantee we’ll see many more and many higher tax increases on future ballots.

7. The first version of the bill was better. The tax increase on the ballot didn’t start out as a tax increase at all. Initially the idea was a bill to dedicate a portion of the existing sales tax to environmental conservation programs only. But that plan proved unpopular with liberal legislators who didn’t want to divert current sales tax revenue to rural environmental programs. So instead they are asking voters to increase the state’s sales tax by an additional almost half a percent and direct billions of those dollars to arts and cultural heritage.

8. Look who’s supporting this tax increase. Just looking at the 200+ groups supporting this tax increase shows that this is nothing more than a slush fund for special interest groups. Over half of the groups are arts and theater organizations. The only reason they are supporting this and are willing to give large donations to the vote yes campaign is because they know they will receive free taxpayer dollars if it passes. Don’t let them tell you this is for Minnesota’s outdoor heritage alone; billions of dollars will go to art and theater organizations.

9. The government is not a charity. We’re all supporters of the outdoors and we all love beautiful Minnesota. But that doesn’t mean the government should mandate a tax on Minnesotans so that non-profit organizations can get funding. Thousands of non-profits exist strictly off of charitable donations from people who support their causes. There’s no reason that these organizations should be any different. For infrastructure and environmental projects that benefit all of Minnesota, there’s plenty of money available through the DNR and the lottery.

10. We already pay enough taxes. Minnesota is home to one of the highest sales tax rates (6.5%) in the country, plus we have a high income tax rate too. If the ballot question passes, the sales tax will increase to 6.875%. Next add county and city sales taxes already implemented, and in Hennepin County alone, we’re looking at almost an 8% sales tax.

.

ballottstop.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are getting too darn much money of mine to waste already. They have plenty of money to do what needs to be done, they just need to manage it better.

I will be voting a big fat NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Who doesn't want clean water, clean air, etc? The problem is always in the details. A constitutional amendment is not the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all the funding decisions should go through the legislative process just as all other state programs and projects have to. If we add this amendment to our constitution, the only way this can be decreased or eliminated will be through another vote. If it gets corrupted or is flawed, we will be living with it for 25 years.

By voting "no" the lakes will not all automatically dry up, and the waterfowl will not stop coming to Minnesota. We will have good drinking water, and so will our children. The lakes, rivers and streams are cleaner today than they were 50 years ago. Programs like CREP, CRP, EQUIP, RIM and others have been working to minimize runoff along highly erodeable lands. Because of the education that groups have offered, there are more steps being taken by farmers to reduce soil erosion, fertilizers are being applied at varied rates across the field according to soil tests; building contrators must put up barriers to reduce soil erosion on a building site, and must take steps to slow the flow of water in a newly formed ditch. If a wetland is removed during a building project, then a new one must be formed elsewhere. None of these practices were in place 50 years ago.

I would much rather give a dontation to local sportsman's groups, DU, or Pheasants Forever than have an increase in my sales tax. At least then I have an idea on how it will be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 Reasons Why You Should Vote NO

10. We already pay enough taxes. Minnesota is home to one of the highest sales tax rates (6.5%) in the country, plus we have a high income tax rate too. If the ballot question passes, the sales tax will increase to 6.875%. Next add county and city sales taxes already implemented, and in Hennepin County alone, we’re looking at almost an 8% sales tax.

.

Taxes will go up whether you vote yes or no. I will be voting yes to protect future resourses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great analysis,chick. I hadn't thought about it before, but no one is stopping Cabela's from making a contribution to the environmental organization of their choice...

Everyone of the agencies, NGO's, and University of Minnesota subsidiaries promoting this trough have contribution options.

You can even contribute to the International Conservation Officers Green Fees account if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I pay the same tax as everyone in the state but I don't feel .375 cents per hundred dollars is going to devastate me in comparison to the cost of the many things that don't make my life worth living; Hunting, fishing and the outdoors are 3 things that have made a sometimes miserable world a much better place over my years, some may not see it, some will try to politicize it to a illogical level when considering this and that is their choice.

I see allot of need for funds in this state that cannot be met from banquets, raffle tix and muddy fingers alone, these issues need money to fix the 100+ years of abuse to our waters alone.

Whos going to pay to divert a 60 year old tile dumping into a lake from an agricultural operation to a buffer??, DU?? PF??, the farmer??, our own kind hearted donations???, probably not.

It costs money that is not there without taxes.

I have a tremendous bitter pill to swallow as do all of us with the arts but I have to consider that .80 cents for every $1.00 will go to the outdoors, there is citizen oversight, the DNR does not get the money directly and the legislature cannot turn this around to rip us off like the Lottery was eviscerated.

I'll work around the increased taxes to put roughly $200 million dollars back into MN lakes, streams, rivers uplands timber and wildlife each year for the next 25 years, all the stamps for the next 25 will not touch what this will do in one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Whos going to pay to divert a 60 year old tile dumping into a lake from an agricultural operation to a buffer??, DU?? PF??, the farmer??, our own kind hearted donations???, probably not.

It costs money that is not there without taxes.

The lottery money was supposed to take care of that and it did until it got diverted. There is nothing to say that money wont' get diverted at a later day. Yeah, yeah, I know they would have to change a law, but that is not that difficult especially if it they can change it without the public voting on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article from the Duluth News Tribune, and you want to give them more money to mispend?????

Quote:
Top DNR official resigns after audit review

By David Shaffer, Minneapolis Star Tribune

Published Sunday, September 28, 2008

St. Paul — Minnesota’s chief conservation officer resigned Friday after an audit that found his agency misspent public money and illegally solicited donations for a game warden conference last year.

Col. Mike Hamm walked into the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources headquarters in St. Paul and submitted a letter of retirement, ending 36 years with the agency. For the past five years he has led the division that enforces fish, game and other natural resources laws.

Hamm’s retirement came a day after he was allowed to read an investigative report about himself at a meeting with DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten and DNR’s personnel director, Denise Legato.

Legato would not discuss the meeting, and Holsten was out of town and unavailable for comment.

The investigative report has not been made public. But an earlier Legislative Audit concluded that a conflict-of-interest law was broken and $300,000 in public money had been misspent on the week-long event that featured a golf outing, fishing on Lake Mille Lacs, a fish fry and other entertainment.

Hamm, who is 55 and eligible for retirement, has served in the DNR since 1972, first as a parks worker, and since 1977 as a conservation officer and supervisor. In May, he and his wife, Capt. Cathy Hamm, a supervisor in the enforcement division, were placed on paid administrative leave during the investigations, which were prompted by a StarTribune story about the conference spending.

His resignation may be just the beginning of the shakeup at the DNR. Legato said several other DNR employees face investigations as a result of the investigative findings. It’s still undecided what will happen to Capt. Hamm, she said.

Mike Hamm did not return telephone calls for comment. But his friend Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, said Hamm is a scapegoat who was pushed out the door — and that high-level DNR officials deserve the boot instead.

“Holsten has said he takes responsibility, but what does that mean if nothing is going to happen to him?” said Cornish, referring to a comment the commissioner made at a legislative hearing.

Other legislators had critical words about Hamm and DNR higher-ups.

“Minnesota can’t have a chief law enforcement officer who doesn’t know the law and doesn’t enforce it — that’s the bottom line,” said Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, chairwoman of an environmental oversight committee that held hearings on the DNR conference spending.

The investigative report by Minneapolis attorney Tammy Pust has not been released because officials say they must redact non-public information. Legislators said they had not seen the report. The redacted version is expected to be released next week, officials said.

In previous statements, Hamm has defended the conference spending and fundraising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the DNR HSOforum:

"The money dedicated under the constitutional

amendment will be appropriated by law. The

dedicated money must supplement traditional

funding sources for these purposes and could not

be used as a substitute.

Will the DNR receive this money?

These dollars will not go directly to the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

(DNR). The Legislature will make final funding

decisions based on the merits of any proposed

projects. Projects can be proposed by the DNR

as well as other organizations and agencies.

The constitutional amendment states that funds

can only be used for projects that meet the

criteria established by law. That is, they must

restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies,

forests, and habitat for game, fish, and wildlife;

protect, enhance, and restore water quality in

lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater; and

support parks and trails of regional or statewide

significance."

All these proposals will go through the Citizens Committee that any of us can apply to be a part of.

That money that Mike Hamm took for that came from yours and my fishing license's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these proposals will go through the Citizens Committee that any of us can apply to be a part of.

That's a joke, try to apply for it and see how far you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

All these proposals will go through the Citizens Committee that any of us can apply to be a part of.

For now. As we all know that is subject to change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Whos going to pay to divert a 60 year old tile dumping into a lake from an agricultural operation to a buffer??, DU?? PF??, the farmer??, our own kind hearted donations???, probably not.

It costs money that is not there without taxes.

The lottery money was supposed to take care of that and it did until it got diverted. There is nothing to say that money wont' get diverted at a later day. Yeah, yeah, I know they would have to change a law, but that is not that difficult especially if it they can change it without the public voting on it.

The Legislature changed the way the lottery proceeds were divided up before the first ticket was even sold!! They'll do the same with this too, and since they did it with the lottery I see no reason to believe they wouldn't change this as well.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is going to magically create crystal clear lakes and whatever other pie in the sky promises the special interest groups are using for voter bait. Over half of the people pushing for this are of the arts ilk. What does that tell you??

This is a disaster, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these proposals will go through the Citizens Committee that any of us can apply to be a part of.

You think Joe Public is going to be assigned to this committee? Ha! I've got some ocean front property for sale if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks sure seem to get awfully torqued out about the amount of money. From what I've read it is going to be about $60-75 a year per family on average. I guess if you can't afford that things must really be tough.

For me it's pretty simple. The cost of outdoor recreation is skyrocketing due in large part to boomers having the ching to do what they want to do. As land prices skyrocket the costs of doing the long term projects that are needed will get even further and further out of reach.

Sure, the money might get diverted. But I promise you one thing - if this doesn't pass there's never going to be enough money to get done what needs to get done. The legislature simply is never going to allocate enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Folks sure seem to get awfully torqued out about the amount of money. From what I've read it is going to be about $60-75 a year per family on average. I guess if you can't afford that things must really be tough.

Here is a little fact. Prior to 1967 there was no sales tax, OMG how did we ever get by back then? You want to know how? The spent money wiser than they do today. I'd like to see us get back to that kind of financial spending. They don't need more money they need to learn how to actually budget money and say no to more spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about $60-75 per year.

I would vote "yes" in a heartbeat if the arts weren't attached to this bill. Adding the arts is nothing more than bribing the democrats to vote for it. Besides, I think we already pay enough to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0