Previously I did send an email out to all on that bill in opposition to it. I hope this doesn’t pass!
May 8, 2019 at 3:10 pm
#1855480
Its dead
-
May 9, 2019 at 11:30 pm #1855982
I received an email back from Nathan Nelson.
Unfortunately he didn’t state his opinion on the issue, but he thanked me for my thoughtful note about how it affects me and the actual facts I gave him.
May 10, 2019 at 7:29 am #1856004Reading through the thread and confused. Where is wright counties initiative currently sitting?
May 10, 2019 at 8:11 am #1856016Right now, in limbo. It’s currently dead, and they’re trying to get it reinstated by circumventing the DNR with our politicians
May 10, 2019 at 8:41 am #1856021Thanks.
Not something to take lightly. I’ve already heard of rumblings of other lake associations and coalitions wanting to implement similar things.
May 10, 2019 at 10:13 am #1856036Right now, in limbo. It’s currently dead, and they’re trying to get it reinstated by circumventing the DNR with our politicians
Circumventing the experts to put the verdict in the hands of politicians.
May 10, 2019 at 10:45 am #1856043<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gordon Hanson wrote:</div>
Right now, in limbo. It’s currently dead, and they’re trying to get it reinstated by circumventing the DNR with our politiciansCircumventing the experts to put the verdict in the hands of politicians.
That’s what I hate the most about this amendment, and expressed my opinion to my senator and house rep, as well as the author of the amendment, Senator Bruce Anderson.
May 10, 2019 at 12:43 pm #1856064I can go both ways with the legislature getting involved Blank. Although in this case it seems that “the people” and the DNR are against it so I’m not sure why any politician would get involved with this hot potato.
May 10, 2019 at 1:14 pm #1856066There are some folks who seize on any opportunity to trash the DNR, whether it’s about Mille Lacs or AIS or whatever. Then a situation like this comes along and some of them will be yelling at the politicians to trust the experts (DNR)
I can go both ways with the legislature getting involved Blank. Although in this case it seems that “the people” and the DNR are against it so I’m not sure why any politician would get involved with this hot potato.
“The people?” — most Minnesotans probably don’t give two poops about this issue. Then you have a group of wealthy folks who live on lakes and are organized enough to lobby their reps for the changes they want. On the other hand, you have the least organized, least unified group of citizens in the history of the world, anglers. I’m not surprised at all that politicians would jump in here.
May 10, 2019 at 1:32 pm #1856071There are some folks who seize on any opportunity to trash the DNR, whether it’s about Mille Lacs or AIS or whatever. Then a situation like this comes along and some of them will be yelling at the politicians to trust the experts (DNR)
Sure, the DNR takes some heat for questionable decision-making at times, but who else has the ability, means, and interest to conduct any sort of comprehensive, evidence-based research on the matter? That’s what earns them expertise.
May 10, 2019 at 1:40 pm #1856072I agree with you tangler. It really isn’t surprising that a lake association can get a legislator’s attention. In this specific case the WRIP already has the funding through a grant ($600k I think!) so to the legislators it seems like a no brainer because it’s not asking them for money and so they really didn’t have to divulge all of the details surrounding the extremely flawed plan. All they had to do was say, “Hey, we got the funding and we’re fighting the dreaded AIS. Please approve of our plan (by requiring the DNR to approve it).”
Anglers really are very unorganized. Heck, look at the thread about MN-Fish, a group that is attempting to organize us anglers, and we have varying opinions regarding the organization. But the problem with fishing as a whole is the fact that there are so many different variables and aspects of the sport that it’s more challenging to develop a unified voice. That’s why there are such groups as the Muskie Alliance, Trout Unlimited, etc.
Finally, I’ll go on the record and say that I support the DNR 90% of the time and have far greater trust in their decisions than our collective group of legislators regarding outdoor issues.
May 10, 2019 at 3:25 pm #1856080Sure, the DNR takes some heat for questionable decision-making at times, but who else has the ability, means, and interest to conduct any sort of comprehensive, evidence-based research on the matter? That’s what earns them expertise.
For the record, I wasn’t criticizing the DNR, just pointing out the contradiction when folks bash them 99% of the time and then get ticked when politicians bypass them on an issue like this one.
Like blank, I’m a fairly strong supporter of the vast majority of ther work the Minnesota DNR does.
May 10, 2019 at 4:23 pm #1856098For the record, I wasn’t criticizing the DNR, just pointing out the contradiction when folks bash them 99% of the time and then get ticked when politicians bypass them on an issue like this one.
You need to figure out what division of the dnr people are blasting so often. There are a whole lot of divisions that fall under the collective umbrella of the dnr. The department of fisheries I think the world of most of the time. I have zero issues with the department of enforcement. The department of big game….well now I think they’re headed up by jack-asses so yes I may dunn them occasionally. However you reference the dnr under the whole of the umbrella that all of the departments and divisions fall under and I have a hard time believing that 99% of the time the beef falls on the collective dnr.
June 19, 2019 at 4:41 pm #1863016Did this ever go anywhere?
June 19, 2019 at 6:59 pm #1863034it is dead for now. My guess is the lake assoc. is planning their next move.
June 25, 2019 at 2:12 am #1864044June 25, 2019 at 5:01 am #1864046New player
Oh boy. That guy has a face I would like to slap.
June 25, 2019 at 5:28 am #1864047He is the top dog for Phillips bottling a maker of liquor here in Minnesota.
June 25, 2019 at 6:08 am #1864050He is the top dog for Phillips bottling a maker of liquor here in Minnesota.
Makes sense. Philip’s is some pretty terrible stuff
June 25, 2019 at 8:15 am #1864067This statement is concerning.
“Mandatory inspections, education, more teeth in fines, I think we should be looking at all of those things, and maybe more. I am just starting my education, but I do want to be a stronger advocate on this issue.”
June 25, 2019 at 11:18 am #1864116And it begins
June 25, 2019 at 11:24 am #1864118So many holes in the theory. Could only see this working in an area with few lakes and many sites. Remember when gas cans weren’t a pain in the arse
June 25, 2019 at 4:50 pm #1864230Anyone that lives in this area, maybe drop him a line and see what his thoughts are, and why he hasn’t contacted a larger portion of his constituents on such a polarizing issue.
Attachments:
Screenshot_20190625-164708_Samsung-Internet.jpg
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.