# Minnesota Resources Bill Failed



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I'm surprised nobody has spoken about this Star Tribune article a few days ago. Very disturbing for our neighbors.



> Dennis Anderson: Failed resources bill flawed from the start
> Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
> May 21, 2004ANDY21
> 
> ...


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

The author of the bill pulled it when Tom Neuville(Northfield) 
attached a gay marriage amendment. I asked several senators
"what does gay marriage and habitat restoration have to do with
one another". NEVER GOT A RESPONSE!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

$80 million a year could have done A LOT for habitat in MN, it's really too bad this bill didn't pass. I don't see anything changing until MN sportsman get organized. There's more than enough people who do actually care about improving the state's resources to get a bill like this passed...if you can somehow get them all on the same page.

You also have to wonder how many of those same people had their attention drawn elsewhere with other issues some legislators put on the front burner....such as lawsuits with other states over access to their resources that haven't been as diminished as the ones at home.

But hey, at least the dove bill passed. :roll:


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

A little bit more information on the bill. The atv'rs were against
the bill since none of the funding were getting thrown in
their direction. They are only concerned about rippin' up every
wetland available. Makes me sick!


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Unbelievable that some bureacrat put this gay marriage thing in to ruin it. If the eventual structure was bad, at least the funding would have been there. The structure could have been fixed later.

I agree that some distraction probably hurt the process. It did get ample PR but there were two balls in the air at once.

This is a double whammy in that 1) MN didn't get the funding and the habitat continues to suffer and 2) now it may be harder to get on land since I'm viewed as one of those greedy Sotas. Which I am not - this lawsuit was total BS. Real hunters understand the reasons for limitations on the resource.

If I could get wife to move to ND.............my son is already packed.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Minnesotas true colors shine again!!

For those of you who want to move here, do so and you will be welcomed.

As for the rest of you who just want to come here and bust the hell out of our resource, stay friggin home and coddle your beloved gay coalition!! uke:

This is totally assanine!!! :eyeroll:

Time to pull off your diapers and act like men Mn's, get rid of these ding dongs!! :roll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Man that is really to bad first the 4 wheelers get to trash the wetlands then the the state says no to the environment! this doesn't just hurt the MN sports people it hurts us all.  

I don't understand why MN sportsmen don't speak up? I read the Star Trib every morning, it is rare to see anyone write a letter about outdoor issues.

Anderson has it right it was a non session, I hope all MN sportsmen speak up and make sure your voice is heard next election!!! GET INVOLVED!!!

Have a good one!


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

We DID speak up. The ATV problem is NOT what it seems. It's just been highlighted through an abundance of lies from radical groups as MRR (Minnesotans For Responsible Recreation, check their website and you'll understand) the wetlands law you are referring to did NOT allow a landowner, on HIS own land cross a wet area to retrieve a calf, etc. The majority of ATVers here are not interested in ripping everything up as implied by some. The biggest push came from private landowners who were being told that they couldn't use their ATV for everyday farming practices, etc. The above mentioned group is after an ALL OUT ban, of ANY motorized recreation which includes using your ATV to haul a deer out of the woods etc. They now are after boat motors, wanting at least one quiet lake in each county of Minnesota. Your state is probably under attack by the same group as is Wisconsin. So, before anyone blames the ATV crowd for anything, do your homework and find out what exactly was at stake. ME? I don't own an ATV but after doing a bit of research etc., it;s as plain as the nose on your face what the enviro groups and their pet lawyers and newspaper reporters are up to...... THAT made ME sick!! It's NOT about ripping up wetlands. It's about crossing wet land tha was an issue......Thank goodness our legislators could see the difference between wetlands and wet-land!!!!!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Bubba,

You are wrong, the majority of serious riders are out there
rippin' up every road, ditch, marsh and trail. Got picture
after picture of the damage. They also love to tresspass,
break new trails, you name it! The new law/reg is too
vague when it comes to wetland damage, no guidelines
for COs. Already had several conversation with COs 
and they are NOT happy about the law! Impossible for
them to enforce!


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

PSDC - Thank's for the behind the scenes scoop on the bill. Just wondering how you picked up that information about the gay marriage amendment being attached to the bill and causing its failure. Dennis Anderson didn't report on this aspect of the politics behind the bill's demise.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Perry - I've seen it on TV and I also think it was in Outdoor News. Here's some info from the Pioneer Press.

Posted on Wed, May. 19, 2004

Political gamesmanship dooms conservation measures

Some of the most significant conservation proposals in decades went down the tubes when the Minnesota legislative session came to its acrimonious ending Sunday.

It's possible that Gov. Tim Pawlenty will call lawmakers back for a special session after a cooling-off period, but there's no guarantee the conservation programs, which would have benefited tens of thousands of acres, will be on the agenda.

The biggest losses were in the bill dedicating money for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which would have paid farmers to retire 120,000 acres of marginal land. The program, which would be in line for millions in matching grants from the federal government, was in the same bonding bill with a proposal to fund thousands of acres of new Wildlife Management Areas.

Pawlenty originally asked for $12 million for WMAs, which provide critical hunting areas for small game, but the proposal had been trimmed in the Legislature.

The bill asking voters to dedicate a portion of the sales tax to natural resources also died in the waning hours of the legislative session. The proposed constitutional amendment had become a popular poster child for other causes, with lawmakers adding funding for the arts and museums. *At one point, a lawmaker wanted to add an amendment banning gay marriage, but the natural resources bill sponsor, Dallas Sams, DFL-Staples, pulled his proposal. The delay cost the proposal precious days of debate.*
*There was plenty of finger pointing on the so-called "3/16ths of 1 percent bill" that had ballooned to 5/16ths of 1 percent. Democrats blamed Republicans for attempting to tack the gay marriage amendment, while Republicans blamed Democrats for weighing it down with arts and culture funding. In the waning days of the session, Republicans were attempting to trim the bill down to its original one-eighth of 1 percent of the sales tax that focused solely on natural resources.*
"When all is said and done, I think both parties were responsible for the situation we're in,'' said Mark LaBarbera, president of the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance.

Last summer, lawmakers lined up at the MOHA outdoors summit, agreeing that dedicated funding for natural resources was important. "It was the No. 1 issue on the agenda,'' LaBarbera said.

And despite a big news conference early the session, in which big-name Republicans and Democrats stood up and praised the idea, the initiative fell because of bitter partisan politics.

*Perhaps the biggest irony is that Republicans who supported dedicated funding for natural resources were the same lawmakers who used the bill as a means of trying to force Democrats to vote on the gay marriage proposal.*
The bill to create a mourning dove season, which likely will be signed by Pawlenty soon, is at best a symbolic victory for hunters. Although mourning dove hunting will attract 30,000 to 50,000 hunters, the real victory would have been money for habitat.

The mourning dove proposal was part of a game and fish bill that has other changes for hunters. Once the governor signs the bill, they'll become law. Here's a summary:

The duck season will open at 9 a.m. next year, rather than the traditional noon opener. The Department of Natural Resources already was planning to move the opening shooting hours, so this only formalized the change.

Turkey hunters now can have another person assist in calling but not shooting. The proposal states that an adult can help another adult turkey hunters, but not for a fee (which eliminate guiding), and the helping person cannot possess a gun.

The DNR is authorized to create a quality deer management zone in northwestern Minnesota and a youth deer hunt in the same region. The quality-deer hunt, which would implement antler restrictions, is only a proposal, and the DNR is expected to hold public hearings on the issue later this year.

Nonresidents now can trap in Minnesota, but only on land they own.

Deer hunters will be allowed to party hunt with an all-season deer tag.

Youth deer hunters 16 and 17 years old are eligible for discounted youth deer licenses and for taking antlerless deer without a permit.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey guy's you see how the republicans are sticking up for the sportsmen of MN, also please note that the republican's are the one's with their heads on straight on the issue of same sex marriage. IF God wanted us to be homosexuals he would have made us that way there is a reason that it takes a male and female of every species to procreate offspring!!! In MN there thousands of beeding heart liberals that make getting anything done that might involve some common sence they are blind sided by their cause, so much so that they can't even see the possible repercussions to someone else or something else. If you folks think that ND is tough on it's citizens live here a while and see what MN is like, in the politcal areana anyway we have so many laws most of them completly senseless. In regards to the 4x4 laws please note that currently in the state of MN it is against the law to operate an RV in the ditchs or road right of way from April 1st to September 1st after that they can then ride in the "ditch". I have had many problems with 4x4 destroying my property or doing damage to my land here in MN the local sherriff knows me by first name basis, he has given several citations to riders as a result of what they have been doing to my land and surrounding land this spring alone!! Yes I do own a 4x4 however, I use it to check my property, maintain my driveway, hunting, & ice fishing, but I do not operate it in a manner in which I would do damage to my property or any one elses. By the way all of the owners of 4x4's have to do is load the machine up on a trailer or their truck, make sure it is currently lisc. and go to a designated trail and they could ride for days and never get in trouble. Farmers can register their 4x4's for occupational use they have no restrictions on them as long as they are using the machine in a manner related to farming practices. NO self respecting sportsmen in this state or any other would operate a machine through wetlands and destroy precious habitat regardless of the laws that may or may not be in place.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

PSDC said:


> Bubba,
> 
> You are wrong, the majority of serious riders are out there
> rippin' up every road, ditch, marsh and trail. Got picture
> ...


YOU, are full of it!!!! :idiot: The new leg. allows riding ON, not IN, as in frozen surface like snowmobiles do etc., I too have spoken with several CO's and they seem to believe it'll be easy to enforce the laws. It's pretty obvious if someone is ripping it up or merely passing through. Where is the information about the "majority" of riders rippin up every road, ditch, etc. Was there a study that I missed or are you imagining things and stretchin the truth a bit for your sympathetic audience???? :roll:


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Bubba,

I am not going to argue with you on this subject. 
I thought the new reg allows atvs to ride in wetlands
anytime of the year, just not winter! Please explain
why the atv association was against the 4/16 bill?


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

jd - Are you for real?

It looks like both parties are to be blamed for sabotaging the Minnesota referendum on outdoor spending. That is really too bad.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

PSDC said:


> Bubba,
> 
> I am not going to argue with you on this subject.
> I thought the new reg allows atvs to ride in wetlands
> ...


From what I've been able to gather the bill was pulled by the author because other Senators attempted to attach bills for funding that had nothing to do with the outdoors i.e. Gay marriage amendment, Arts funding, etc. He said he refused to allow an outdoor bill to be a vehicle for special interest legislation that was not considered elsewhere. I think (not sure) but the Arts funding etc., would have been funded by the 4/16's money....
Also, If I understand it correctly the ATV's in wetlands thing is that they can be used in wetlands on private property for bonafide work purposes like retrieving livestock, getting to other parts of their land seperated by a wetland, etc. Willy nilly tearing it up for recreational purposes is still illegal.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Perry you need to understand that the republicans were trying to pass this bill with out any outside contamination of other bills being attached to it. The reason that so many people are upset or don't care about these types of bills is that when the state of MN allowed the lottery in, they were to dedicate a percentage of the money to wildlife management, when it came out in the wash it was so small that it did not even register in the pie graph since the inception of the lottery in MN about fifteen years ago the lottery has only given about 30 mill to wildlife conservation. That comes out to about 2 mill a year and out of those moneies about 85% of it goes to administration. What's left over to do anything with? You have to look at what the history book says and make your judgements from that I know that you are from east ND however since these matters do not directly effect you, you probably only pay attention to the big headlines and bias opions of the author of the artical, we all know that reporters have a flair for only telling part of the stroy ( or truth as the case maybe ) everything has to be put into context and worked with from there. This bill will come up again or at least another version next year and some one will try to polute that one as well, point being that eventually it will get passed and the upper managments will all get raises and the wildlife will suffer once again!! Perry I know that I have read many of your posts in various areas of this web site you are an intellegent individual and that you are very polictical, especially when it comes to outdoor conservation issues, however you are too smart to be buffaloed into believing that what was being presented was really what the face value stated. I appreciate your concern about the bill however it was not really going to amount to much it really needs to be tuned up alot before it will pass through either house.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks, JD.

Just a point or two.

I am not from east Dakota. I am from what I call East Dakota. That's another way of saying that I am really from the state east of North Dakota. That, of course, is Minnesota, but I have a strong affinity and love for North Dakota.

You say that "republicans were trying to pass this bill with out any outside contamination of other bills being attached to it." I'm confused. Isn't Tom Neuville a republican? Isn't he the one who tried to attach the gay marriage ban bill to the outdoor bill? Can't the other republicans keep Mr. Neuville from messing around with the bill if what you say is true?


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Yes Perry, You were correct it was a republican that tried to attach an additional bill. No other party member from either side can stop any one from trying to attach one bill to another it is done I believe by a supporting voters determines weather or not it is attached if you get enough votes from either party it goes on. If not the bill must stand alone. The Author of any bill has the right to pull it from the floor at any time in that they are not in agreement with how it is going to be passed. I am sure you will agree politics is a rotten game it comes down to have to chose the lesser of two evils and going with the one that will hurt you the least. Since you live in MN you should know how two faced most of our politicians really are, and the games that they play, it is on the news almost every night.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

there was a letter to the editor in the StarTrib yesterday detailing the complication and the shortfalls of the MN legislature and the legislative system. It was interesting. I have to admit I do not know that much about MN legislative process.


----------

