Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 6 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Dedicated funding proponents ask area sportsmen for support
Published Thursday, March 27, 2008
Two of the big guns behind the Dedicated Funding Outdoors Amendment, Garry Leaf and Bob Lessard, were in Fergus Falls Wednesday night asking for grass roots support.
Dedicated funding will be on the ballot in November. If approved, it would dedicate funding for four separate components to the tune of $100 million. The four accounts would be Game and Fish, Clean Water, Parks and Arts. The money would be raised by increasing the Minnesota state sales tax 3/8 of one percent for a period of 25 years. Three-eighth of one percent would add about eight cents to a $20 purchase.
The thrust of Wednesday’s meeting was a call for supporters of the amendment to contact their House of Representatives legislators and urge them to adopt a decision already reached in the Minnesota Senate. The senate is in favor of appointing around 10 sportsmen to a council that would direct the spending of money intended for improvements in the outdoors — ranging across a wide spectrum of needs.
Famous outdoorsmen and conservationists like the late Aldo Leopold and former Minnesota Vikings head coach Bud Grant have pointed out the need for sportsmen to be directly involved in measures affecting the outdoors.
“Dedicated funding from the sportsmen's side is unquestionably the most important sportsmen’s issue in the history of the state, for hunting, angling and its future,” said Leaf.
Lessard, who originated the dedicated funding legislation while a member of the Minnesota State Senate, believes the amendment can only work properly if sportsmen are directly involved in determining how the money is spent.
“We want to know where the money is going to go,” said Lessard.
There are 1.6 million hunters and anglers in Minnesota and a huge portion of the state’s tax revenue base is generated by their purchases.
The presentations of Leaf and Lessard were followed by a question and answer session.
For more information on the amendment and means for contacting legislators, go to www.sportsmenforchange.org
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure, 3/8 of a percent increase for 25 years. That is not likely. What is likely is that the increase will remain after 25 years and future generations will be paying for eternity.
Does anybody remember when the sales tax went from 6% to 6.5%? At that time we were told that it was to be in effect for 10 years. Those 10 years have long since passed but we are still paying it.
We don't need this increase.
If they trully want to have dedicated money for these purposes, then take the sales tax that is generated from the sale of items that are used in these types of activities and dedicate that to these purposes.
Posted by fishman (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI - The amendment would raise a total of about $300 million a year, not $100 million. The game and fish portion alone would get about $100 million a year, as would clean water. Parks and trails and the arts would split the rest.
Posted by jbravo30 (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This amendment is about protecting water and natural resources for our kids. I for one am more than happy to pay just .04 on a ten dollar purchase (which is what 3/8 of one percent actually means in real dollars) in order to make sure that we are taking care of our state the way that we should.
We need to do a much better job taking care of our natural resources, and this amendment is a modest, responsible, level-headed way of dealing with the problem.
Posted by FergusFamily (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with jbravo30. Once our natural resources are gone (or destroyed) there's no turning back. It's time to think about the next generation. It's a small price to pay for our bad habits of over-consuming. We have taken too much for granted for decades. Time to pay the piper.
Posted by Hunterforlife (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a lifelong hunter there is no doubt that this amendment is needed. The places that I used to go to with my grandpa and dad are vanishing each year. These places hold special memories for me and it's sad that if things don't change that I won't be able to pass this on to my kids when I have them. 4 cents on a ten dollar purchase is a small price to pay to keep these traditions strong.
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on March 30, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those special places will continue to disappear. Retiring farmers can't afford the property taxes & make good money on selling the land to developers. Especially if it has a pond on it. That generates more money for the state & local government. And they are not going to stop that income. The state should be buying up as much of that as they can. The other problem is, this will be controlled thru politicians. The lottery. That was suppose to be for saving our great resources. Look at what that generates & where is it going?
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)