# MN HUNTERS HELP - Dedicated Funding



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dedicated funding is hitting another snag in the capital.

I urge all MN hunters on this site to send a letter to there Reps. Dedicated funding needs help and hunters voices need to be heard.

Here is a letter I wrote. Feel free to use it. Paste and copy it and then email it to your rep. It can't be anymore easier. Please help or you will see habitat in MN go the way of the dodo bird. Change the letter to fit your needs.

PS: Thanks again Bob Kellam for helping me draft this letter.

Sample Letter:

Dear Senator/ Rep........ , 
1. Here is an article I read in the Bismark Tribune: 
______________________________________________________________________ 
Nonresident waterfowl hunters look to North Dakota 
By RICHARD HINTON/Bismarck Tribune 
Minnesotans made up almost half of all out-of-state duck and goose hunters who bought licenses to hunt in North Dakota last fall.

Its 10,000 lakes notwithstanding, 10,184 Minnesotans ponied up the $100 for the license and certificates necessary to legally hunt waterfowl in North Dakota for 14 days. And some, no doubt, paid an additional $40 for the privilege to hunt statewide.

Why so many Minnesotans, besides proximity?

"They can't find a place to hunt there. It's too crowded, and there are not enough places to hunt. They are looking for a quality experience, and looking for a place to find that," said Randy Kreil, chief of the wildlife division for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

"The challenge is maintaining that quality experience for residents and nonresidents over a period of time," he added.

That only 116 South Dakotans and fewer Montanans, 86, bought waterfowl licenses to hunt North Dakota only reinforces notions about the Minnesota waterfowl hunting experience.

Wisconsin sent the second most waterfowl hunters to North Dakota, 4,944.

Those two states comprised more than 65 percent of the 23,121 nonresidents who bought waterfowl licenses to hunt in North Dakota.

"I'm not surprised by that," Kreil said. "In our waterfowl workshops, we estimated that 75 percent (of nonresident waterfowl hunters) were from Minnesota and Wisconsin."

Waterfowl hunters from all 50 states, as well as five Canadian provinces, bought licenses to hunt in North Dakota.

Thirty-one hunters put down a North Dakota address but bought nonresident licenses "for some reason," said Paul Schadewald, NDGFD chief of administrative services.

New residents who don't meet the six-month residency requirement can apply for a waiver if they plan to stay in North Dakota long term, he added.

"They can buy resident licenses with special approval," he explained.

One hunter from Quebec and one hunter from Saskatchewan bought licenses Two in the Yukon bought licenses.

And two Hawaiians bought licenses.

Schadewald guesses that a small percentage of nonresident waterfowl license buyers did not make the trip to North Dakota.

"We do some refunds if there's a medical emergency or if someone dies," he added. 
Fewer out-of-state hunters came to North Dakota this year than last year when almost 26,000 nonresidents came to hunt ducks or geese.

One of the reasons is the ongoing drought.

"Certain parts of the state have been very dry for at least three years," Schadewald said. "It concentrated birds in smaller areas. The wetlands that remains had quite a few birds on them. It was a matter of having access to them."

The drought could get even worse next year.

"Unless we get significant snow and rain this spring, it will be tough on waterfowl and waterfowl hunting," Kreil said.

Avid waterfowl hunters could go to wetter areas next season, Kreil predicted.

"They won't come here to hunt if there are no birds. Waterfowl hunters are highly mobile," he explained.

Most residents or nonresidents hunting waterfowl in North Dakota today have forgotten what waterfowl hunting was like during the last sustained drought, 1987-92, Kreil said.

"We had three-bird bag limits, shorter seasons and a lot less people participating, in the neighborhood of 5,000 nonresident waterfowl hunters. Resident waterfowl hunter numbers dropped off as well," explained Kreil.

With waterfowl breeding grounds locked in drought, waterfowl populations plummeted, Kreil said.

"Since '93 we had an unprecedented wet cycle. We kept reminding people that will change. We might be starting to see the beginnings of that, with the dry conditions we had last year," Kreil added.

"Based on wetland conditions we had this fall, we will need a lot of snow and a lot of rain to change that trend."

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 701-250-8256 or 
[email protected].) 
______________________________________________________________________ 
After reading the article from The Bismarck ND Tribune and looking at some factual information that MN residents are 1/2 of the non-resident waterfowl license purchases in the state of North Dakota. I ask, does this not show that something is wrong in Minnesota's outdoors? This should be even more incentive to mandate dedicated funding for our state wildlife. If you do not already know I challenge you to study and determine just how dire the waterfowl hunting is in MN. People are spending money in other states. Over 10,000 hunters left the state and spent $100 dollars in just the licenses not to mention gas, hotel accommodations, food, etc. All that money could have stayed in state. I implore you, lets get the ball rolling and get dedicated funding pushed through this year.

Sincerely, 
Chuck Smith


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BUMP


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BUMP


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

MN hunters get on your Reps....

Today a bill is going in front of the gov. to legalize the use of medical marijuana. YES they are not concentrating on issues such as global warming, dedicated funding, education, cost of medical care, repeat sex offenders, etc.....but they feel the need to waste time and money on this bill.

I again urge MN hunters to voice their opinions.

Chuck


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Pawlenty endorses report on changing management of natural resources*
Last update: May 08, 2007 - 9:21 PM

Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Tuesday enthusiastically endorsed a commission report calling for overhauling the way the state's natural resources are managed and the way that management is funded.
The 57-page study by the Governor's Conservation Legacy Council, formed by Pawlenty last fall, calls for a three-pronged revamping: passage by the Legislature this session of sales-tax-based dedicated funding for conservation; establishment of a citizen Conservation Commission, whose duties would in part include oversight of the Department of Natural Resources; and development of a Conservation Compact, or statewide natural resources management plan.

The report acknowledges the state has not done as good a job of managing its natural resources as it could have, Pawlenty said. "More of the same is not going to work," he added, saying Minnesota has a conservation history akin to "a hodge-podge of things" with no "strategic goals or measurable benchmarks."

University of Minnesota professor Mike Kilgore, chairman of the legacy council, called the recommendations bold but achievable. But some activists have said the report is just "words on paper" if the Legislature doesn't pass dedicated funding and implement the council's other suggestions.

Dedicated funding bills are being considered for the ninth year this legislative session. Supporters are optimistic, but passage is uncertain.

Pawlenty reiterated he supports dedicated funding this session and hopes the Legislature implements the council's remaining recommendations next year.

The full report can be found at www.governor.state.mn.us.

DENNIS ANDERSON


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Outdoors bill advances to Senate floor*
It would let voters decide whether to use a portion of the state sales tax for the outdoors and support of the arts.

By Mark Brunswick, Star Tribune

Last update: May 09, 2007 - 9:48 PM

A bill that would ask voters to dedicate funding to the outdoors, clean water and the arts was resurrected Wednesday through some wily legislative maneuvers and is headed to a vote on the Senate floor.
The bill, sought for years by outdoors groups, would use funding defined by the state Constitution if voters approve. It would raise the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent to strengthen programs to restore wildlife and fish habitat, clean the state's waters and provide funding to the state's arts community.

Advocates for outdoor groups expressed cautious optimism that their elusive prey might be in their sights this year.

"We have adopted the Ronald Reagan philosophy," said Garry Leaf, a spokesman for Sportsmen For Change. "We trust but verify."

Dedicating the funding through the Constitution would require voters to approve it in a referendum, probably on the 2008 ballot. A leading advocate said that's what is needed to ensure money for programs that are often underfunded.

"For whatever reason, it's been difficult for Legislature after Legislature to make the kind of financial commitment to our cultural and natural resource heritage that is necessary to protect it for future generations," said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis.

But an opponent said the Constitution is the wrong way to make funding decisions.

"There are a lot of us who think it is not good public policy to put dedications into the Constitution," said Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, chairman of the Taxes Committee.

A tangled path

The bill failed several weeks ago in the Taxes Committee in the face of resistance from several legislators who objected to the idea of dedicating the funding through the Constitution rather than through legislative action. The outdoors bill was given new life on Wednesday when it was briefly amended to allocate the funding not through the Constitution but merely through law. The bill then traveled to the Rules Committee, led by Pogemiller. On a voice vote, it promptly changed the bill back to use constitutional dedications.

Pogemiller acknowledged that the floor vote on the bill is likely to be close, given the feelings about constitutional dedication. Even if only temporary, the initial vote against the measure was a personal and political blow to Pogemiller.

"I wasn't road kill, I was only winged," he joked.

A House version has taken a different route and is making its way through committees, with a week and a half left to go in the legislative session.

Balancing interests

Through its many incarnations, the outdoors bill has been a delicate balancing act, embracing constituencies that have battled each other at times. Environmental and outdoor sporting groups have sometimes objected to the inclusion of the arts in the bill because they believe it takes resources away from what they see as a crisis affecting the state's natural resources.

Adding three-eighths of 1 percent to the existing 6.5 percent statewide sales tax is expected to generate $291 million a year. Under the Senate proposal, 33 percent of the money would go toward preservation, enhancement and protection of fish, wildlife, habitat and land resources. The bulk of the funding, 43 percent or about $125.4 million a year, would go toward restoration of lakes, rivers and streams. In addition, about 24 percent would go to a newly created Cultural Legacy Fund to be spent on arts, arts education and access to the arts. The funding would last 25 years.

The bill has generated reservations from a number of legislators, including Bakk, who said he would vote against it. But Pogemiller said he is optimistic about passage.

"Thirty-four votes is all we need," he said.

Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636 • [email protected]


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Conservation bill stalls in House Taxes Committee
Frustrated House Majority Leader Tony Sertich has not been able to drum up enough support to ask for a vote on dedicated funding.

By Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune

Last update: May 15, 2007 - 8:57 PM

Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, walked out of his second House Taxes Committee hearing in as many days Tuesday afternoon, having failed again to ask for a vote on his dedicated conservation funding bill.
"I'm pretty frustrated," he said later. "We've been passing the bill through all the House committees in a bipartisan way, and right now we're one or two votes short on the Taxes Committee. And I can't get one Republican to support it."

Sertich also is having trouble with his party. Seventeen of the 26 members of Taxes are DFLers, and Sertich doesn't yet have enough of them on board to gain a majority vote.

He plans to wait until he has sufficient votes before asking for a show of hands.

"I don't want to lose momentum," he said. "We have a week left in the session. There are a lot of great [environmental and conservation] groups working on this. I know they're talking to legislators who are on the fence."

After Taxes, Sertich's bill would go to the Ways and Means Committee, and the Rules Committee. It's expected a surplus of votes can be found on the House floor to pass it.

Opponents of the measure say they don't believe dedicating funds through the constitution is good public policy.

"I had that opinion once, but I've become a convert to the idea," Sertich said.

If approved by the Legislature, a proposal to amend the constitution by increasing the sales tax 3/8 of 1 percent and dedicating the approximately $300 million raised annually to fish and wildlife habitat, clean water and the arts would go before voters in 2008.

The bill is needed, proponents say, because the state has failed to properly fund conservation for generations. Lost and degraded wetlands, polluted waters and fragmented forests have been the result.

The Senate passed a similar dedicated funding bill last week. If the House approves its measure, a conference committee would have to resolve differences.

For a list of House Taxes Committee members, go online at www.startribune.com/a2782.

Dennis Anderson • [email protected]


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dennis Anderson: House vote creates capitol drama
Disparate groups and legislators cut a deal on dividing almost $300 million annually to benefit the environment, parks and the arts, but lawmakers didn't get to the bill.

By Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune

Last update: May 24, 2007 - 8:59 PM

By 8:30 Saturday night, John Schroers didn't think the House would vote on the dedicated-funding bill. "They're going to do it to us again," he said. "Last year it was the House Republicans. This year, the DFL."
Schroers, of Shakopee, had long been a supporter at the Capitol of a proposed constitutional amendment to benefit fish and wildlife habitat. His preference was for 1/8 of 1 percent for fish and wildlife habitat only; nothing for parks, water or the arts. But the bill the Senate passed earlier in the session would raise about $300 million annually, with parks, clean water and the arts benefiting, as well as fish and wildlife. A realist, Schroers knew if dedicated funding was to pass this year, it would favor all the parties.

Outside the House chamber, Schroers watched as Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, returned after a recess. This was about 9:30 Saturday night, and Dill, along with Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, milled about for a few minutes. Both said dedicated funding was a tough vote for them, but both said they would support it.

"My constituents are split," said Cornish, a retired Department of Natural Resources conservation officer. "But if this is going to be an outdoors legacy, and my grandkids ask me years from now whether I supported it, I want to say I did."

The House was gaveled to order. To Schroers' relief, House File 2285 -- the dedicated-funding blil -- soon was called up. By now, retired state Sen. Bob Lessard of International Falls, an originator of the dedicated-funding idea in the Legislature, Ryan Heiniger, the Minnesota Ducks Unlimited conservation program director, and others representing fish and wildlife joined Schroers in the House gallery. John Curry of the Campaign for Conservation, an umbrella group, and representatives of various environmental organizations also were on hand, as was Larry Redmond, lobbyist for Minnesota Citizens for the Arts.

Together but apart, these factions were made one by circumstance. The alliance between the hook-and-bullet crowd and the "greens," as environmentalists sometimes are called, at times was uneasy, and not just because they tended to view the world differently. They also often looked and acted differently, and served different constituencies. Ditto for the relationship between these groups and Redmond and the arts crowd. But no one -- not Schroers, not anyone -- doubted the political power of arts supporters. Loopy as tying arts with outdoors might be, it wasn't going to be undone. And now this handful of disparate factions inched forward on their gallery seats, wondering how quickly their dedicated-funding bill would get a vote -- or if it would get a vote. Only then could a compromise be forged with the Senate bill.

"The rumor is the Republicans are going to offer 50 amendments, maybe more, to drag it out," Garry Leaf said. Leaf is a founder and "volunteer insurgent" for Sportsmenforchange.org.

Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, carried the House dedicated funding bill, and began its discussion by offering a minor amendment, which was approved. Then Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, opened a Republican amendment floodgate that included not just his proposal (defeated 85-47), but one by Rep. Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, and Rep. Brad Finstad, R-Comfrey, among others.

A high-ranking Republican earlier had said House Republicans planned in effect to filibuster the dedicated-funding bill -- with hopes of at least of delaying its passage. That tip now seemed prophetic, as midnight came and went, then 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. Finally, just before 2:30, the last amendment was offered. And defeated.

Then Sertich's bill, which would place a constitutional amendment proposal on the 2008 statewide ballot asking for an increase of 3/8 of 1 percent of the sales tax to benefit fish and wildlife habitat, parks and trails, clean water and the arts, was put to a vote.

Split this year 85-49 in favor of the DFL, the House passed Sertich's bill 86-46. Thirty-one Republicans voted against it, and 15 DFLers.

Soon, lights in the House chamber dimmed. Next would come a House-Senate conference committee. But it would be about 9:30 p.m. Monday before it reached an agreement. Even then, John Schroers wasn't convinced dedicated funding would be approved. This session. Or ever.

Coming Sunday: Did Republican stonewalling doom the conference committee report to a "no vote" in the House? Or did the DFL mismanage its time in the session's final hours?


----------

