Your Opinion is needed on Dedicated Funding

[Ray Esboldt]

As a body of dedicated outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen, we here at OutdoorMinnesota.com/FishingMinnesota.com have a chance to influence the governing body of Minnesota by supporting a version of Dedicated Funding. Dedicated Funding can mean more money for the things we hold near and dear; quality fisheries, high-grade wildlife habitat, access to public hunting and fishing grounds, and clean water. Dedicated Funding is too important to let our voices go unheard. Unfortunately, despite some progress towards drafting a referendum, there is dissent amongst the interested parties on what version of the referendum would be supported by the general public of Minnesota. This dissent is an invitation to us to sound off on where we stand. So, I invite you to participate in the following poll.

[cybermuskie]

Should have added another option: I don't like either version! I really have no interest in the zoos or metro parks, and I am not a museum kind of guy. So I guess I wouldn't vote for either. I am all for the quality fisheries, high-grade wildlife habitat, access to public hunting and fishing grounds, and clean water, but not some of that other stuff I have mentioned! Kinda seems like someone is trying to slip some stuff in, and the only way we are going to get the clean water etc. is buy helping their pet projects! It just mean less money for the thing we as sports people are really trying to achive IMO.

[tunrevir]

Ray, I am all for the dedicated funding but tacking on all of the other garbage is what ticks me off. Let's use it for the good of the natural resources. My fear is that the anti hunting/fishing lobby might get their hands on the money due to the wording used. For the good? For the protection, For the enhancement, Another thing that comes to mind is the lottery. I thought that the lottery money was going to help fund natural resources but it seems that putting the money into the general fund where it can be used at the legislatures discretion is a better option. If it goes to fund the resources that we can all enjoy I'm all over it. To make it another discretionary fund for the politicians to delve into I want nothing to do with it. Sorry for the rant but that is my opinion over and above the poll. Thanks for putting it out there Ray. Contact your local government and let them know you want this to pass. Hopefully, my kids and grandkids will see the benefits from the generation that went before them.

Tunrevir~

[DTro]

Quote:

---

Should have added another option: I don't like either version! I really have no interest in the zoos or metro parks, and I am not a museum kind of guy. So I guess I wouldn't vote for either. I am all for the quality fisheries, high-grade wildlife habitat, access to public hunting and fishing grounds, and clean water, but not some of that other stuff I have mentioned! Kinda seems like someone is trying to slip some stuff in, and the only way we are going to get the clean water etc. is buy helping their pet projects! It just mean less money for the thing we as sports people are really trying to achive IMO.

---

yes, I voted no opinion for that same reason, not only that, but I don't buy into the dedicated funding part. Next thing you know, some brain wizard decides to use part of this money to add some more light rail or erect some goofy statue

[Giant_Jackpot]

Keep in mind that if this passes and we get to vote on it next fall, part of the bill is to put a citizen’s panel (hopefully experts in their field) in place to dole out the money. This would be in hopes of keeping it from getting political.

I too wish to arts and zoos were not involved, but I think we have to compromise in order to get anything. I would hate to see it not pass because of the arts and zoos.

What really ticks me off is the addition of the marriage amendment to one of the bills (can’t recall if it was House or Senate). Hopefully that will get dropped before it goes to vote.

[deepportage01]

This is the way it's done guys, I know it sucks but the reason they lump things all into one is to get more votes. I say take what we can get and move on to the next thing that will help us enjoy the outdoors more!

[BarryG]

Down here several years ago we voted on a 1/8 cent sales tax that goes to the Conservation Dept. It passed and we now have what could probably be called the best funded Conservation Dept in the nation. It has done ALOT of good!!!!!!!!

[Giant_Jackpot]

Don’t forget the rally at the capital next weekend on Earth Day. It sounds like there will be a lot to do and it is for a great cause. I was at last years rally and had a good time. This year should be even better. If you can make it, please do. We need to show our representatives they need to get serious about protecting our natural resources.

[Ray Esboldt]

I hear you guys with regards to the tacked on stuff. These are condensed versions of the two leading versions of dedicated funding (no marriage stuff on either one). This is good feedback.

I know a few guys in the House, and I will keep directing them to this poll and our comments throughout its existance. So, lets get some more participation.

[Hogzilla]

This is a tough one for me as I am opposed to any kind of dedicated spending. With that said; if this comes up on my ballot next year I will vote for option 2. I think Zoo's, museums and the Arts are every bit as important as Hunting and Fishing. MPR? They have been around long enough now that they should be held accountable to generate enough revenue to function on their own.

[Finns]

Please reread BarryG's post and see if anything like that can be done in your state. Good luck.

Finns.

[Captain B.R.K]

Great post Ray and way to keep us all here on FM informed about this important bill being worked on as we speak. As outdoors people, we are instrumental in knowing what this bill is all about. Because if it is passed, we'll have to be the ones to push (inform the state) for it's passage this fall! Yes there are several versions out there (listed in Ray's first post), but you should have a thought on one or the other or neither.

It was just stated in the Minnesota Outdoor News that came out last week that funding for outdoor resources is at an all time low. With the introduction of this bill, that should help beef up the funding for our outdoors. Sure zoos, the arts, humanities, museum, and public broadcasting aren't exactly conservation items BUT it's what has to go into the bill in order to get it passed.

I believe by the time this all said and done, every one in the bill will have a 4 way cut of 25% of the whole fund. That's quite a bit of money for our wildlife, wetlands and waters!

[Jackpine Rob]

As any of you who follow the political discussions that take place in the Discussion area, I have consistently supported getting some dedicated funding in place, getting a citizen's board, and most of all, getting involved by letting our legislators KNOW where each of us stands.

That said, I cannot support either version, and will actively work against them. The addition of arts, zoos, MPR, museums and the like just makes me sick. Sorry people, but this piggy-back garbage added on is a deal-killer for me (and I suspect, a number of others). Of course, that's probably why its been added!

[BobT]

The biggest problem I see is this. Since when has a dedicated tax ever remained fully dedicated. As has been mentioned, consider the lottery, gas tax, Social Security. These began as dedicated taxes but placed into the hands of our congress persons who are trying to satisfy wants and needs from 360 degrees and they rarely remain so. There are just too many ways that we citizens keep finding to spend the general fund and sooner or later the dedicated taxes get sucked in.

It's like placing a candy bowl on the table in front of your children and telling them they can only dip in under specific circumstances. Sooner or later, they'll find other ways to draw out.

Bob

[Hogzilla]

Bingo. You can also add Social Security to the list of dedicated tax dollars that are used for a myriad of things having nothing to do with Social Security.

Like I said in my previous post, I am against dedicated spending, however, I do see the need to start swinging some tax dollars towards the environment.

[Mark Christianson]

I dont like the extra tacked on "dump" like others.

Its better than nothing I guess. I want SOMETHING!

[Swimmer]

Biglake is right...we need SOMETHING. I'm in the camp that I will happily pay the extra 3/8 and a cut for the arts, ect. Most bills have extra dump stuck into them...sometimes after midnight when no one is around to challenge. This bill sounds reasonable to me as long as nothing else "changes".

[DTro]

If I'm not mistaken, the "two line" rule for winter fishing was tacked on to another bill

[Captain B.R.K]

Tacking on other speciality areas on top of the environment is hard to swallow, but if it doesn't get the support and momentum this year I just see it fizzling out for years to come. The politicians have worked hard for the past 2-3 years on getting something like this pushed through the House and Senate. This year is the year for SOMETHING.

I'll take something vs. nothing!

[hanson]

Quote:

---

I'll take something vs. nothing!

---

Amen! Get-R-Done!

I'm afraid if it doesn't happen this year, its toast!

BTW- Does the arts really need more funding? Cripes! How many more museums, theaters, and libraries does Mpls need? I can't drive anywhere in town without bumping into one. So that leads me to ask this question, they must have more vocal voters than us outdoorsman. No?

[blue_healer_guy]

It's good to see the "no" votes for the arts, museums and all that dump. I have 1 dog, 7 fish and a frog. I have a county museum 6 miles away. I own 4 radios, none of which has ever been on MPR, throw a stadium in the plan and I'm all for it.

[Swimmer]

I think it is important to remember that the zoo, MRP stuff in the bill is neccessary since people will be voting on the as an amendment. With this other stuff in it, the amendment will have a better chance with the voters. A LOT of people listen to MPR and visit parks and zoos. For the 2/3 of funding this amendment would garantee to the outdoors and clean water...wow, not a bad price to pay.

[Roughfisher]

Good point.

I'll vote for it if it's going to provide more funds for clean water. You have to realize that a lot of that money goes directly into habitat improvement. Lands come up for sale all the time that will either end up being a 300-unit lakeside condo or (if the state can afford it) a public access, parking, and a preserved spawning area. With all the land getting bought up and turned into minimalls and lakeside condos, we need to put as much wildland into public trust as we can. It's a win - dedicated funding means if a choice bit of land, providing new access, new opportunities for the public, or better water quality comes up, then the state can do the deal, instead of begging for money for years until the deal falls through and we get another chunk of our outdoor heritage destroyed.

[senkoskipper]

I hope none of you guys are buying into this. Its just another carrot on the stick so the politicians can get their pet projects funded or whatever. MN is prolly one of the best places to fish in so we are doing something right. Sure more funding is better but the slipping extra stuff in that has nothing to do with outdoors like the museum and zoo is ridiculous.

[Down Deep]

I voted for #2, but when funding is constitutionally dedicated that means that those with political power (any governor) can set the agenda for what the funding is used for having more latitude, not less. It is almost impossible for the legislative body to stop it. As a radical example a governor could determine that shoreline restoration was building nice stone retaining walls and construction of nice docks for all the home owners on certain exclusive lakes. Leaving funding undedicated seems to insure that enviromental projects will sink or swim on thier merits and the current needs of the citizens of MN.