Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Not a bad idea Minnesota! |
| Message Subject: Not a bad idea Minnesota! | |||
MuskyTime |
| ||
Posts: 331 Location: Stevens Point, Wisconsin | I’m never a big fan of new taxes but in the case of funding state fish and wildlife programs as well as clean water, parks, trails and education I’m all for it. Especially if it means that the Governor cannot steal license revenues to fund non-natural resource programs. Looks like the state of Minnesota is close to creating a sales tax that would fund such programs and the funds could only be used for what they are intended for! It always seems that the Wisconsin DNR operates on limited funding and this might be a solution for solving that problem. At least this way sportsmen and sportswoman will not have to suffer the majority of the cost through license fees that keep going up! I am including an article that was recently in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It will bring you up to speed on what Minnesota is proposing. Ed Minnesota tax may be way of future Posted: Feb. 27, 2008 A roar emanated from across the St. Croix River a couple weeks ago. If you didn't know better, you might have thought the Minnesota Vikings had found a way to clone Adrian Peterson. As much as we love our football, the event of note may have greater implications for future generations than any Super Bowl victory. On Feb. 14 the Minnesota legislature passed a bill to amend the state's constitution and create a dedicated funding source for conservation, parks and arts programs. Conservationists especially cheered the development. The amendment would add a three-eighths of one percent sales tax statewide and generate an estimated $276 million a year. One-third would go to fish and wildlife programs; one-third to clean water and the remainder would be split between parks, trails and education. The proposed amendment will be placed on the November ballot in Minnesota; if approved, it will take effect in 2009. The Valentine's Day vote was the culmination of a decade-long effort. A strong grass-roots movement, including a group called Sportsmen for Change, emerged in Minnesota to push the bill. They also had an experienced politician and outdoorsman, retired state senator Bob Lessard of International Falls, help move the agenda forward. "This is a good day, one we've been waiting for," Lessard said. "Now we've got to get our constituencies to support it at the ballot box. We've got to make the case that this amendment is critical to leave a legacy for future generations." Support for the bill was strong among Minnesota's elected officials - it passed, 85-46, in the house and, 46-17, in the senate. Conservation programs have traditionally been funded largely by fishers and hunters through license fees and excise taxes. But since programs that benefit fish and wildlife are good for everyone in the state, and because the number of sportsmen is not keeping pace with general increases in population, many in the conservation community have sought funding from a broader base. The events next door will be watched closely here in Wisconsin. They may even spark renewed efforts to secure new funding sources for conservation programs in our state. Over the last decade the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, the citizen's group that advises the DNR, studied existing means of funding conservation around the country as well as new ideas. "After looking at all the options, we concluded that a sales tax was best," said Ed Harvey of Waldo, chairman of the congress. "We need to get something else in place, we just can't keep going the way we have." Former state senator Jim Baumgart of Sheboygan introduced a bill in the 1990's that sought to initiate a one-eighth of one percent sales tax to fund conservation and tourism. The bill didn't make it out of committee. The Wisconsin public had at least one opportunity to weigh in on using general tax revenue for fish and wildlife expenditures. At the1999 spring hearings the concept was supported by a 3,123 to 358 margin. The Minnesota proposal follows the path blazed by Missouri. Now referred to as the "gold standard" of conservation funding, Missouri enacted a one-eighth of one percent statewide sales tax in 1976 that gave rise to world-class wildlife, fisheries and forestry programs. The movement was called "The Design for Conservation" and it didn't happen overnight. "We really needed to explain to people what the money would be used for," said Joel Vance, an outdoors writer and former employee of the Missouri Department of Conservation. "Once they learned the specifics, they approved it." In 2007 the Missouri tax raised $103 million; another $31 million came from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. The money can only be used for conservation purposes. One of the keys of such dedicated funding is the enhanced ability to plan long-term. "We have a comfort level and we know we can pursue bigger projects," said Dan Zekor, a native of Kenosha and graduate of UW-Stevens Point who is now federal aid coordinator for the Missouri Department of Conservation. "In Wisconsin, you are locked into a short budget cycle and that can impact longer-range projects." Missouri is not the only state to fund conservation with a sales tax. Arkansas and Virginia also have such mechanisms. Supporters of the amendment in Minnesota expect to wage a public relations campaign throughout the year to garner as many votes as possible. Zekor has made three trips to Minnesota in recent years to help that state move forward on its plan. The climate may not be right for a new tax - is it ever? - but at least the Minnesota movement will generate discussion of the concept in Wisconsin. "It's about doing the right thing for future generations; preserving opportunity and choice," Zekor said. For many of us, the debate next door will be more interesting to watch than anything in the Metrodome. It's time to get serious about dedicated conservation funding in Wisconsin. You could say the conversation has started. Now let's see where it leads. And who leads it. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | This is something that we have been pushing for quite some time. It's good to see that we finally got a bill through that wasn't full of pork. We're still going to need to keep an eye on the money so it doesn't get used on welfare or lightrail. Giving politicians your money is always a gamble... | ||
| Pal |
| ||
Posts: 666 Location: Twin Cities, MN | Actually, it would have been better if the socialists running the show in St Paul would not have added the "arts" onto the amendment, as I think that will take votes away. Also, our great legislatures just rammed a giant gas/transporation tax increase down our throats, and while I support funding our natural resources, I think it will be a hard sell as other than our so called elected officials, common folk like me actually think raising taxes during a recession is not a very good idea. Pal | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | We are in a recession? | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3147 | This is over on MH forum too so 'Arts' is included??? thats what was proposed in the first version,,that means most of the money is gonna get gobbled up by arts and all their projects and renovations they come up with every year and they NEVER are satisfied they have alot more clout too. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The new version gives MUCH less to the arts then the first few proposals. Unfortunately we had to include them to get the votes necessary to get it through. The original proposal was something like 60% for the arts. The new one is less then 25% if I remember correctly. As far as another tax, I'm with you with an asterisk. If we don't do this now while there's still a large % of Minnesotans that enjoy the out doors we could be in a real pickle. Less and less is coming from the general fund towards the outdoors and it's going to become almost nonexistent as our population increases. We have so many services now and at the current rate of health care increases and the soon to be decreasing tax income from the babyboomers. These people are also going to be holding their hands out for free rides in one shape or another and we're not going to be able to afford it all. With a smaller % of people getting into fishing and hunting you can guess who's going to get the short end of the stick. If you enjoy what we have and want to see it maintained through the years this step had to happen. | ||
| Parker |
| ||
| Let's be honest, this does not have a very good chance of passing. Once the legislature overrode the governors veto of the recent tax increase the odds of this passing dropped significantly. The tax increase coupled with an almost billion dollar budget deficit make 2008 a horrible year to try to get this passed. Recent polls have suggested that 60+% of the MN population oppose it. People in the northern part of the state support it more than those in the southern part. most of the population is in the southern half of the state. I think this will get hammered in the metro area. I will vote in favor of it, but if I were a betting man I would put my money on this failing. Again, I want this to pass and will vote for it. We need to make sure others know the importance of this ammendment. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |