(I-Newswire) - Minnesota Anglers are sharing mixed feelings regarding the proposed Dedicated Funding Amendment due on the ballot on November 4. The bill calls for a constitutional amendment raising the sales tax 3/8th of 1 percent and dedicate the $276 million in annual revenue to wildlife habitat, clean water, parks and the arts.

After a long 10 year battle the bill has finally found the legs to make its way to the ballot. While initially excited, some outdoor enthusiasts are critical of the spending proposal. Many remember the legislation passed for the state lottery in 1990 to be the miracle fix for the environment. Profits generated by the lottery were to fund the Game and Fish Fund, Natural Resources Fund and the Environmental Fund. Much of the lottery profit has been directed away from its intended environmental funds and Minnesotans are leary that history may repeat itself with the Dedicated Funding Bill.

The fishing community has gathered to discuss the issue in recent posts on My Fishing Pals’ message forum, a local Minnesota website dedicated to the free exchange of ideas on fishing related topics. While most support the bill, all want governmental accountability. While Minnesotans strive to be good stewards of the land, they hope the government becomes good stewards of their tax dollars.

My Fishing Pals ( www.myfishingpals.com ) originated in 2003 as a hobby-fishing site that welcomes Minnesota fishermen to share fishing reports, information, and other items related to fishing. In 2005 a controversial forum was created on the site so that Minnesota fishermen could address fishing and hunting issues. These controversial forums have become an avenue for hunters and fishermen to voice their opinions and concerns and, at times, defend traditional Minnesota values.

Hi, I just looked at this and I think it is really interesting. Even though these two polls got different responses, I think the only one that you could count on as a fairly “accurate” prediction of future voting is the Senate poll - and that only because the wording is exactly as it would be on the ballot.

The rhetoric of these two questions is really interesting (and somewhat revealing), and personally I don’t think either even comes close to asking people if they are in favor of dedicated funding for the environment AND the arts. If you look at the House question, it almost seems dedicated to get negative responses by putting the idea of a tax (scary concept) as the first issue and then barely explaining what it would be used to fund. Many times whether people actually agree or not they probably responded no just because of the setup to the question. On the other hand, the Senate question (and it sounds like the eventual ballot wording) goes in the other direction by listing a huge string of almost universally accepted (at least by anyone with a heart) funding options (who wouldn’t want clean drinking water - the first in the list) and then buries the idea of a tax at the very end by the time people have stopped really reading or have already made up their mind based on the long list. It barely even mentions art, and then it says cultural heritage.

I just think it is pretty neat the way words, and the different use of words, can be so influential. And this looks like a pretty clear cut case.

I hope everything is good in Northfield!

The constitutional amendment is a bad idea. We elect legislators to make funding decisions. Embedding dedicated funding in the constitution — no matter what the initial reasons — invites more of the same. How about an amendment setting aside .065% for public safety? Cops and courts and jails and probation officers and public defenders are important, aren’t they? Or how about constitutionally dedicating funds to health care for all Minnesotans? It’s pretty hard to enjoy the outdoors or the arts when your sick or dying, right?

I say, leave the constitution alone. Our legislators should be capable of making these decisions and have to face the voters to justify those decisions, which feels like democracy to me, more democratic than making the constitution into a Christmas list.

Jim Haas

What makes anyone think that the people
who go to a state fair represent all of
the people?

I don’t wish to see the people
be forced to support art. Art will
survive if it is worthy of any support
without the government.

As for support of the environment,
the govt has traditionally supported
non profit groups that educated the
public about issues and that seems
to work well, along with a partnership
of the private sector.