Where are the $$$ for Fish and Game

[AnglersfoHabitat]

This past year, Minnesotans voted a sales tax increase for hunting, fishing, the arts and parks. A new council was put together to spend the Fish and Game dollars and is called the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Council (LOHC). The following is a short report/commentary about how dollars aren’t going to fishing and to a large degree not to aquatic habitat. Please feel free to respond.

Fish out of Water

After a week of attending a series of collaborative Fish, Wildlife and Habitat proposal meetings, we might still be landlocked. Over thirty groups met and brought habitat restoration, acquisition and enhancement requests, totaling 94 million. And through a process of self sorting; 19 of the requests were heard by the Lessard Council. These requests are about 41 million worth, but it is likely the LOHC may only be able to fund half that amount.

The rest of the money goes to forests, prairies and wetlands. It appears unlikely that aquatic habitat for lakes, rivers and streams will get their fair share. But much of the work we need to do, may also qualify to get Clean Water funding assistance.

So, why is it that we are on dry land? A couple of conversations about the LOHC dollars need to be started: Where are the dollars for lake shore restoration projects and dollars for access to lakes and streams? So far the guidance seems to be that restoration funds can only be used on fee-titled or permanent conservation easement protected shorelines and added to this is that LOHC dollars can only be used on habitat that allows both hunting “and” fishing. Not hunting or fishing! When asked about using dollars, one of the acid tests is if hunting can occur on it. A question about this hunting and fishing question came up and was asked in reverse, why is it that funds can be used for dry land? Sure you can hunt on it but what about fishing on it. And I heard the response was that you can fish anywhere you want in a forest, prairie or wetland if you’re a big enough one-who-thinks-I-am-silly to try it. This type of jack pine mentality isn’t helpful. We need the LOHC to understand that our lake and stream habitat needs to be protected.

Access for trout and stream anglers isn’t much different then it is for hunters. We need to make sure that we do restoration on contiguous sections of streams and rivers, not just small pieces. And when we do, fisherpersons need access on it.

But when it comes to lakes and other shorelines, we need places to get our boats in and out of. This means providing access by building, fixing or expanding public boat ramps. If a large tract of public forest land couldn’t be accessed because private ownership wouldn’t allow access for the public to cross, purchasing adjoining land, creating parking lots would likely qualify for LOHC dollars. But to do so for access to lakes, it is not on the LOHC‘s radar. A case in point is on Lake Waconia there is a window of opportunity to purchase a piece of lakeshore to become part of a regional park and create a boat access w/parking. This is one of those buy in now or never opportunities, but likely will not fit into the LOHC guidelines.

WE need to keep asking the question: How will fish habitat be protected and enhanced?

[Brian H]

At this point it's not public knowledge what the proposed projects are. People and groups need to submit plans detailing what the project money will be used for and the benefit of the project.

My understanding is many groups were either better organized or they tossed proposals together and summited them. Fishing groups as always seem to be lagging behind.

The fear is that the DNR or State will get their hands on this money.

The Lessard council needs to set up a web site listing all proposed projects broken down into water, fisheries, forestry, ect. Then a forum for discussion and opinions should be allowed. Finally ALL Lessard meetings need to be announced and the public invited to sit in and observe the proceedings. Otherwise the backroom deals and trade-offs will be business as usual.

I fear this effort will turn out real simular to the Lottery deal.

These are just my opinions.

[Charley]

I get Outdoor News and there has been info on proposes and meeting times. Go to the web adderss below for more info.

www.sportsmenforchange.org

[sparkyaber]

Brian, you are absolutly correct. Someone needs to keep an eye on these guys.

Charley, thanks for the link.

[bd477]

Quote:

And I heard the response was that you can fish anywhere you want in a forest, prairie or wetland if you’re a big enough one-who-thinks-I-am-silly to try it. This type of jack pine mentality isn’t helpful. We need the LOHC to understand that our lake and stream habitat needs to be protected.

It looks like to me that we are having the same ole same ole red tape, smoke and mirrors political bull as always. Who ever lines the pocket the deepest gets moved to the top of the list. We might need to think about getting those people replaced already if this is the way that they are going to act.

Contact your local representative and senator to get thier view on the situation, and keep on them until the issue is resolved.

[walleyeslayr]

These clowns couldn't get the job done while in the state congress. Now you SUCKERS that want to pay higher taxes think they are going to spend this money wisely. They recently wanted to get reimbursed over $150,000 for their gas and personal expenses from the election in November until January 1, 2009. SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing has changed, except our taxes are higher. These yahoos asking for 150 grand every 2 months is friggin' absurd.

[ripstick]

The general is just that. General. What ever. DNR might have an idea for what its worth for thase of us who fisfh eyes. That it a stamp. It seems that I can waste money on fishing junk so what $2 or $5 big deal maybe it will go where they say. For sure something has to give. Only time will tell. To walleyslayer. We will be telling our grand childern about the days we paid these taxes. Not the price they will have to pay.

[walleyeslayr]

Keep dreaming ripstick. Our kids' kids will be paying for this [PoorWordUsage].

[Charley]

Most of the people on the committee don't come from a fishing back ground.

The $150,000. is for start-up expences a one time thing.

[LMITOUT]

The $150,00 they're looking for is a "loan" from the general fund until the tax dollars start rolling into the amendment fund. At that time they get 1% of the amendment dollars for admin expenses which is A LOT more than that paltry $150,000 they're asking for.