|
|
| Taken from an interview with DNR Deputy Commissioner Steven Morse.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was directed to by the Minnesota Department of Finance to explore budget options for the next two fiscal years. The reductions drafted by the DNR reflect overall cuts of about 10 percent of its budget. When combined with the loss of base funding and inflationary factors, the end result is a 20 percent reduction in the DNR's budget.
Here is part of a plan recently developed by the DNR to address revenue shortfalls during the next two years.
This plan could have significant impacts to northern Minnesota in the areas of fisheries, forestry, parks and recreation and enforcement reducing services such as the number of fish stocked, the amount of timber offered for sale, camping facilities and conservation officers.
The Division of Fisheries could see up to 83 positions affected by this draft plan. The total reduction in dollars to the division is $6,829,200. Reductions would include 65 less creel survey and habitat development projects each year and 180 less surveys and assessments for individual lakes.
Stocking would also take significant hits. A total of 18,000 fewer pounds of trout, 4,000 fewer muskie fingerlings and 20,000 fewer catfish yearlings would be stocked as a result of the proposed cuts.
There is a perception by many in the general public that government spending is padded and full of fat, DNR Regional Director John Guenther stated, however, that this scenario and recent reductions go far beyond trimming unnecessary costs. "We're not cutting fat, we're cutting meat," he said.
Guenther and others in the DNR want to make sure the public knows exactly what further deep cuts could mean to services.
Portions reprinted with permission from the Herald-Review
Source: Beth Billy
Grand Rapids Herald Review | |
| | |
| OUCH! 4000 less baby muskies. Ohio and a number of states are in the same pickle: politicians at the state level don't want to raise taxes, and already gave away huge tax rebates to the upper crust. Bush could have taken our federal surplus and divied it up between the states, instead it was squandered on huge tax cuts for that same upper crust. Funny thing, most users of state parks and natural areas are not the jet set crowd, they are just working stiffs like us. I feel the saft from both directions, and until the exonomy picks back up, no end is in sight. Sorry for Minnesota, m[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Mikie, our state gave tax relief back to the people in the form of their property taxs. Unfortunatly as soon as they did, the greedy local governments threw up referendems (sp)before we even had the chance to enjoy it. I do take some offence with the "tax cut for the rich" comment as it is the Democratic party line that has little basis when you think about it. Speaking from a guy that sees close to 1/2 his commision check get taken in taxes which makes it VERY difficult to break free of the governments grip. Afterall, how much in tax do the "poor" pay and if they don't pay much in, how can they get alot back? And according to the Democrates, I am the rich (and you've seen my boat so you know it isn't true).
ANYWAY!!!!!!!
Here's what we need to do instead of piss and moan.
1. If you don't belong to MI get your butt in there. MI funds the stocking either in full or part for many lakes.
2. Bring this up in your MI meetings and put together a fundraiser, raffle, bake sale, or turn the nerdy kid upside down and collect his milk money. Work with the DNR and see about supplementing lakes in your area.
I'm not sure what the total MN MI membership is, but if everyone can come up with $20 in any form, it should more then cover the proposed cutback. By doing this it will cost EVERYONE (muskie anglers and non alike) less since it's been proven our state government can't do anything cost competitively (see our transpertation issues).
Sorry for venting, but the button was pushed [:knockout:] | |
| |
|
MN DNR facing cutbacks...