Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tom7227

Dedicated funding - yes or no?

42 posts in this topic

Now that dedicated funding is moving forward the question next is whether you'll vote for it or against it.

News organizations have suggested that hunt and fish types will not back it because of the money going to the arts. Others have said that the increase in the sales tax is too much or unfair.

So - are you going to vote yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES! I agree the arts should fend for themselves, but this bill would not have gotten this far without it being part of it. The percentage that the arts get would be small compared to what our Natural Resources would recieve.

This would amount to almost 300 million per year for land aquisition and reclamation. Water clean up, better and more launch ramps, etc.

IMO This is the most important bill we have ever seen for the future of Minnesotas natural resources. I urge all of you to vote yes, and tell everyone you know how important this is for our future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too hate the fact that the arts is tagged onto this. After all it was all the hard work of outdoorsmen/women that pushed to get this brought up in the first place and the arts just decides to jump on the bandwagon. With that said, if it takes having the arts on board compared to getting nothing, I'll take leaving the arts on.

YES, YES, YES!!

Maybe we could get a little poll/voting thing at the top for people to vote on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will vote yes, but with a couple quesions.

Who decides how the money is spent? IS it just given to the DNR to use, does the legislature dictate how and where it is used (not good)? And is this in addition to funding natural resources already gets or is this now their sole source of funding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. We fought to get it this far.

The winds are changing though. Hackbarth?-Republican who was co-sponsor, now say's he can never, has never, and will never vote for this. Actually had him on the radio still identified as a supporter from last year. He stopped the intro and said "Actually I have never..." also beat on the Republican drum about this one "piggyback, new taxes, piggyback, new taxes, never, never, never".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MnPurple

Who decides how it is going to be spent has yet to be decided. Many are pushing for a citizens based committee.

It is my understanding that it is all going to be "new money". I suppose the whole thing could be derailed if/when the politicians cut existing budgets by the amount of the dedicated funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO WAY. Just another way to collect funds that will never see what they are dedicated for. Lets look at the lottery funds and other programs that are robbed evry year.

This is a way for the politicians to get this past and then they decide where to spend the money.

Time and time again they play this game. I really do not believe that it will pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: harvey lee
NO WAY. Just another way to collect funds that will never see what they are dedicated for. Lets look at the lottery funds and other programs that are robbed evry year.

This is a way for the politicians to get this past and then they decide where to spend the money.

Time and time again they play this game. I really do not believe that it will pass.

Respectfully, Harvey, I disagree. This is not a goofy lottery or other such item, it is specificially for the purposes intended, and that is why it is a big deal, and was worked on so hard. Yeah, the arts are in it, but that is where it stops. Look to what Missouri has done, great things, and we need some great things to be done in MN. No more status quo, or IMHO we will never get out of the hole years of neglect and bad policy have done. Pay $ now or $$$$$$ later.

Mark me a big YES. And in disclosure I was at the duck rallies, but not an organizer. Just a supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this will be in addition to funding already in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say no. They can do the job we have hired them to do and manage the funding they already get from us.

After reading through the discussion threads I have come to the conclusion that our state congress wants to increase refenue without being named the culprit so they pass it on to us. I think we give the state plenty to work with. Most of it is based on percentages and so the better job they do, the more they'll have to work with. I'm not in favor of upping the percentage again.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will just be another way to hire your sisters brothers cousins aunts borther in law to an attractive job that will go nowhere.

Even voting for it with arts added sucks

Paying for the upper class to have more art shows,places and events funded for there lifestyle is robbing the poor working class

Who is the one person that added [ARTS] into bill .I want to pick their brain.

I will not vote for any bill with any attachment like that and in our house we can cast 3 votes and all are against arts bill.

Someone said that 22& was going to arts,time to do a little grafitti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: BobT
They can do the job we have hired them to do and manage the funding they already get from us.

I can't argue that....but:

1) In reality how long will this take?

2) Can the current outdoors/water resources wait for #1 to be completed?

3) What is the lesser evil in all of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am torn on this one, The goverment has, time and time a gain, stolen from dedicated funds to help the general fund. There is no reason to think they won't do it again. Many times it is justifiable and I forsee times in the future when a crisis will necessitate robbing these funds again.

What we need is a contitutional amendment forcing them to pay back with interest these stolen dedicated funds. We also need a watchdog to make sure the moneys are spent on the intended purchase.

Here is where I am torn-We need more money for habitat, another source would help. Even if it is gutted for special interest the cost is spread evenly. Right know sportsman are paying an unfair share for something that bennifits everybody.

I will vote for this bill, but rest assured everytime I corner a politician I will demand accountability. I will vote for this bill becuase it will be one more source to point to and ask where did this money go and what was it used for. You know as well as I, they will just have to raise taxes somewhere else, and at least this way not only sportsman will be standing on capitol steps, but hopefully so to will be the rest of us.

I don't think the bill is specific enough on where the money will be used. I would like to see each special interest stand on its own merit-but government has always relied or riders and favors no reason to think it will change now.

What I would realy like to see is a bill that would tax individuals, groups, and companies that lease land for hunting or charge an access fee to pay a tax that would de dedicated to buying mantaining and buying new WMA and nothing else. Potlatch, for years and years, was given a tax break to leave their acreage open to public hunting. Now they see that they can make more money leasing the property than the tax break is worth. We now have nothing to show for the tax dollars wasted. In the model I propose the lease option won't look so attractive or at least in the end we will have permanent set aside for everyone.

There is a strong belief on the hill that the government doesn't want to be managing 1/6of the state land. The loopholes that have allowed pay hunting are proof to me that they would like hunting to be privately mangaged. (I also think this is a push within education as well with "no child left behind" and the explosion of private pay schools like sylvan-completely another topic but similar dynamics) We need to stand up and fight the privatization of our resources and by voting for this dedicated amendment we will tie peoples pocket books to there beliefs.

If we don't, watch public hunting end in our lifetime and get ready to pay expedentialy more for canned hunts than the little percentage this amendment is asking for. Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: hanso612
I don't think the bill is specific enough on where the money will be used.

Approx. 54.5 million for the arts.

91.1 million for the outdoors. Mostly habitat

improvement and land aquisition.

91.1 million for a clean water fund, including 4.5

million for drinking water programs.

39.9 million for parks and trails.

Yes, there will be some questions on exactly where and how these funds will be spent, but they WILL be spent to improve the wild things we all enjoy.

EVERYONE PLEASE VOTE YES!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lccmr.leg.mn/abstracts/03abs.htm#05c

Interesting link, tells you where they spent the lottery money each year, this one is for 2003. Also has final reports for projects outlining what we got for the money.

In most cases the lottery dollars were matched by one or two other sources. So for every dollar we put in three dollars got spent on our resources. Example WRP/RIM we have a deal where the Feds pay for about 2/3 and we pay about 1/3 and wetlands are restored, planted to prairie, and permanently protected. Last year we had to forfeit $13 million in Federal money because we had no matching dollars.

One recently added requirement to LCCMR is a report that demonstrates that these funds do not displace any traditional Natural Resources funding but are in addition.

In 2003 the lottery contributed over $30 million to mainly habitat($12mil.), water, trails and parks, environmental ed, etc.

It is best to know where it is ACTUALLY going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donbro and kobear, thanks for the information and links. Without real numbers we are just left to speculate or give grose generalizations(of which I am often guilty) There is no more helpful posts than kinds like these. Thanks, Hans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Originally Posted By: primetime49
Paying for the upper class to have more art shows,places and events funded for there lifestyle is robbing the poor working class

Doh!!! Not sure how the upper class came into this discussion. \:\) But it is telling on how people group things together. Keep me marked a YES \:\) I will gladly give an addition 4 cents for every 10 bottles of Diet Coke I buy at a Kwikie-Mart ;\) if it means my lakes will be cleaner, my prairies will be grassier, my woods will be woodier, and my arts...well, ok I have no art... but somebodies will be artier....

Pay now or pay later at many times the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey Lee, how could a 'sportsman' not want more money for the wetlands, waters, trails, etc?? Even if we have to drag the artsy fartsy types with us to get it...

I say yes, and if you've been following the drama for the last nine years and understand politics and its dirty tricks and extortion, you'd realize its the best deal MN is going to get in the reasonable future.

I think we should be convincing all our friends and family to get out and vote yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes.......

If people think the current staff needs to do a better job with the current money, I don't disagree, but limiting the total available is dumb.

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



  • Posts

    • eyechoholic
      Yep kind of a catch 22 the cold is blowing in!
    • mwal
      They guy that taught me to diver hunt had all wood decoys. They ride totally different than the plastic decoy. In low light hard to tell from real birds. That was in 1976. I think he put out about 50 bills and goldeneye dekes
    • Neighbor_guy
      I think it might be time for calling season. I've got the itch. Been working the hand calls the last few days. The neighborhood dogs and cats fall for em almost every time. New batteries in the foxpro and the critter just in case. Got plenty of #3 buckshot for the 20ga and the rifle is ready to bark(as soon as muzzle deer is closed).   please stop and share your seasons ups and downs here. Otherwise I will try not to bore you all too bad with my pour calling and shooting.    Good of luck and happy calling.   
    • timjones
      Yep, glad they took the snow out of the forecast for next week except for some flurries on Sunday but that shouldn't hurt anything. They lowered the temps a little more also. If the forecast holds and the wind stays down I think the lake could lock up by the 9th or 10th. Walked down to the shore this morning expecting to see some ice along the shore but nope. Looked like there was a little skim out in the bulrushes but that was it.
    • eyeguy 54
      Why so many batteries???  lol   I use with weed wacker and leaf blower.  pine needle blower mainly  soooo much nicer than sweeping;