About the $$$ from the recent amendment | Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 1 through 4 for About the $$$ from the recent amendment


New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
About the $$$ from the recent amendment - - - 4 messages. Showing 1 through 4.
Anglers for Habitat
New User
Joined 02/08/2009

Anglers for Habitat's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 1 Posted: 03:31 PM 02/27/09 (CST)
This past year, Minnesotans voted a sales tax increase for hunting, fishing, the arts and parks. A new council was put together and is called the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Council (LOHC). The following is a short report/commentary about how dollars aren’t going to fishing and to a large degree aquatic habitat. Please feel free to respond.
Fish out of Water
After a week of attending a series of collaborative Fish, Wildlife and Habitat proposal meetings, John Underhill and I might still be landlocked. Over thirty groups met and brought habitat restoration, acquisition and enhancement requests, totaling 94 million. And through a process of self sorting 19 of the requests were heard by the Lessard Council. These requests are about 41 million worth, but it is likely the LOHC may only be able to fund half that amount.

The rest of the money goes to forests, prairies and wetlands. It appears unlikely that aquatic habitat for lakes, rivers and streams will get their fair share. But much of the work we need to do, may also qualify to get Clean Water funding assistance.

So, why is it that John and I are on dry land? A couple of conversations about the LOHC dollars need to be started: Where are the dollars for lake shore restoration projects and dollars for access to lakes and streams? So far the guidance seems to be that restoration funds can only be used on fee-titled or permanent conservation easement protected shorelines and added to this is that LOHC dollars can only be used on habitat that allows both hunting “and” fishing. Not hunting or fishing! When asked about using dollars, one of the acid tests is if hunting can occur on it. A question about this hunting and fishing question came up and was asked in reverse, why is it that funds can be used for dry land? Sure you can hunt on it but what about fishing on it. And I heard the response was that you can fish anywhere you want in a forest, prairie or wetland if you’re a big enough idiot to try it. This type of jack pine mentality isn’t helpful. We need the LOHC to understand that our lake and stream habitat needs to be protected.

Access for trout and stream anglers isn’t much different then it is for hunters. We need to make sure that we do restoration on contiguous sections of streams and rivers, not just small pieces. And when we do, fisherpersons need access on it.

But when it comes to lakes and other shorelines, we need places to get our boats in and out of. This means providing access by building, fixing or expanding public boat ramps. If a large tract of public forest land couldn’t be accessed because private ownership wouldn’t allow access the public to cross, purchasing adjoining land, creating parking lots would likely quality for LOHC dollars. But to do so for access to lakes, it is not on the LOHC‘s radar. A case in point is on Lake Waconia there is a window of opportunity to purchase a piece of lakeshore to become part of a regional park and create a boat access w/parking. This is one of those buy in now or never opportunities, but likely will not fit into the LOHC guidelines.

WE need to keep asking the question: How will fish habitat be protected and enhanced?
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 2 Posted: 04:10 PM 02/27/09 (CST)
big surprise..
Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 3 Posted: 09:35 PM 02/27/09 (CST)
Huh? Fishing AND hunting? What's the deal with that? I thought we were all going to get a warm fuzzy feeling by having our legislator's dictate that what we voted for was for the good of the FISHING community! Just what I thought would happen. Get the money and change the rules. I have to tell you that I am not suprised either. Last I heard the first thing they were going to look at was building a park for dogs. Now don't get me wrong... I love dogs as much as the next person, but what the heck?!?!? They seem to need our 1.6 million voices and votes to push their legislation, but once the money is in their hands, it's a crap shoot on how it is going to be spent! I am getting really fed up with our elected officials. They screw up EVERYTHING!

Case in point... the lottery...


A great thread that really got me and others thinking about this whole fiasco...


New User
Joined 01/27/2009

fubar's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 4 Posted: 10:22 PM 02/27/09 (CST)
What’s done is done, now all we can do is keep an eye on how the money is being spent. Give it a few years and put it up for another vote to change the state constitution. blush smiley

About the $$$ from the recent amendment - - - 4 messages. Showing 1 through 4.
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
Users Online:0
Guests Online:47
Total Online: 47

Terms and Conditions