Vote Minnesota Lottery proceeds for the outdoors

Rodwork wrote:

One part of this bill I don’t understand is why does this bill have to form a new community that receive $25 million a year?

They need new sources of revenue to steal from the taxpayers?

Wow. Like a few others after reading thru this post I have no idea of what way to vote on this that will help as much money as possible go to the outdoors. I also don’t like that by not answering the question it will count as a no vote. I know that is the norm for this type of a question at elections but still feel like that is wrong. It just seems sneaky to me.

Simple answer.

Yes Vote – Money goes to the outdoors but there will be some pork barreling which happens on every bill ever.

No Vote – No money for the outdoors. Hope you get another bill with slightly more favorable (based on your opinion) pork barreling in the future but forfeit all those dollars every year it doesn’t happen.

I feel like this is just yet another item/position added to the “Vote for the lesser of 2 evils” list that is what most election seasons have become. It’s been far too long since coming across something or someone I was actually excited to vote for.

buckybadger wrote:

I feel like this is just yet another item/position added to the “Vote for the lesser of 2 evils” list that is what most election seasons have become. It’s been far too long since coming across something or someone I was actually excited to vote for.

100% agree. this countries political system has become a joke. A system created to work 200+ years ago simply doesn’t work well these days.

The real problem here is that these are being voted on as amendments. We elect representatives to make the hard decisions. If we don’t like what they do, then we find new representatives to do the job. Putting it on the ballot means (to me at least) that they are not doing their jobs.

The fact that they are throwing in all of these conditions this time makes it worse.

Why are members of Sovereign Nations, being placed onto State Citizens boards… by Law & making decisions about monies procured through the States Gambling & gaming, when their major source of income is from Tribal Casinos ? It just seems very odd to me… and this is for the next 25 years.

big_g wrote:

Why are members of Sovereign Nations, being placed onto State Citizens boards… by Law & making decisions about monies procured through the States Gambling & gaming, when their major source of income is from Tribal Casinos ? It just seems very odd to me… and this is for the next 25 years.

BINGO!!!!!!!

Yep Big G – the state has already allocated $$$$ several years ago to use to help buy up the land the “native americans” are set to gain up North.
THe “race weighted” board qualifications will enable that effort nicely.

In an earlier post I shared how the question is on the ballot that is provided through a sample ballot that can be found online.
Since I already voted (absentee ballot) I voted yes because of how the question is asked.
After finding out what is truly being proposed I wish I had voted no.
Why do we need a committee? Sounds like a way to through money away rather than using it for the outdoors.

If it was a simple renewal of what has been in place I’d vote yes, which I did the first time. For reasons already stated I’ll be voting no on it.

One way to look at this is that when it hits the general fund, they are going to create a committee for the use of funds anyways, probably going to have the same requirements to get on the committee, and no guarantee how much of the money will even go to the outdoors. It not like our legislature is a conservative outdoors oriented majority. A committee was not surprising at all, but the makeup is clearly biased.

Maybe my answer was too simple before because I can’t see how anyone here would still vote ‘No’. No means “NOTHING” from lottery proceeds go to the environmental fund that preserves habitat for out future. Instead it allows those in charge (probably dems which most here dont like) to then pass different laws and bills to appropriate that money for whatever they want. Think if 100% of it goes to some woke racial committee (your words not mine) next year because you voted no now? Think about what your risking because 1.5% goes to some committee you don’t like. That is a paltry allowance for another 25 years of funding for things this forum and it’s members care about.

Quit being idealistic and thinking your standing your ground because of a nothing burger. Live in the real world, accept that your going to have to give a little (and it’s pretty small in this case) to get something. That’s how negotiation works. Otherwise your probably going to loose it all.

End rant

Finiky….i will respectfully disagree………IF this gets rejected money still goes to the fund….it just needs to be renewed in 2025 as i read it and renewed by the legislature!!!

Who said “some woke racial committee (your words not mine)” ?

Glen where are you reading that? This is a constitional amendment which requires ratification by the people (voters) of the state. This cannot be unilaterally passed by the legislature. The money will end in 2025.

If I’m reading it right it’s meant to amend the constitution and I agree voters decide, but will not end the current funding.

I’m not sure how anyone can agree to allowing a committe of people that has little or no interest in outdoor activities make these decisions. Especially the tribes who already dictate things.

I’m like most of you, kind of torn on this one. It’s been a great funding source for a lot of things we all enjoy, and will continue to be. It will also funnel funds and have the purse strings held by bad actors or non-intended organizations as well. For example a friend of mine just got a grant from Lawns to Legumes (DNR sub-org) to kill off the grass in his boulevard and plant wildflowers. While that is something I am totally cool with, I also don’t think that is a legitimate use of gov’t funds or the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Here’s the list on the bill of organizations in support of it:
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Minnesota Counties
Audubon Society
Audubon of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri
COPAL
CURE
City of Fergus Falls
Clean Water Action
Climate Generation
Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa
Conservation Minnesota
Ducks Unlimited
Environmental Initiative
Freshwater
Friends of the Mississippi River
Great River Greening
Initiative Foundation
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
MN 350
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Conservation Federation
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
Minnesota Land Trust
Minnesota Raptor Center
Minnesota Valley Trust
National Loon Center
National Wildlife Federation
Northern Water Land Trust
Pheasants Forever
Public Policy Project
Rainbow Research
The Conservation Fund
The Nature Conservancy
The Raptor Center
The Trust for Public Land
University of St. Thomas
Vote Climate
Wild Rivers Conservancy
Wilderness Inquiry

glenn57 wrote:

If I’m reading it right it’s meant to amend the constitution and I agree voters decide, but will not end the current funding.

The previous constitutional amendment expires this year. If a new one doesn’t pass the ENTRF fund will still exist and can be used but 40% of lottery proceeds will no longer be dedicated to it so it will grow slower.

glenn57 wrote:

I’m not sure how anyone can agree to allowing a committe of people that has little or no interest in outdoor activities make these decisions. Especially the tribes who already dictate things.

What makes you think they will have no interest in outdoor activities? The new additional committee memberswill be appointed by the commissioner of natural resources.

When it specifys certain races are required to part of the committe and how many, how o you think that’s going to work. First off we have no say in tribal issues yet my tax money goes that way. BS. Yet now they have input in how state money gets spent. bS. Tax casinos and I’ll reconsider.

Maybe these new committe people need to have previously purchased some sort of hunting and fishing licenses

I don’t like the committee thing at all, but you gotta remember they only make decisions on that 1.5% grant, not the 40%. This is a small concession and the committee will still be majority MN state citizens vs the tribes (competing tribes at that). I think it’s simple risk management to pay the 1.5% to guarantee the 40% vs risk it all for a later vote. The 40% ends at 2025 and you need to yet the voters back to the polls to amend any constitional votes to restart that funding. It will be tougher in non-federal election years.

FinickyFish wrote:

Glen where are you reading that? This is a constitional amendment which requires ratification by the people (voters) of the state. This cannot be unilaterally passed by the legislature. The money will end in 2025.

That’s what I Am asking you ? You said it.. but who were you referencing that said that ?

Whats Mn-Fish’s stance on this?

Dutchboy sighting?

Dutchboy wrote:

Whats Mn-Fish’s stance on this?

They are Pro

Rest assured this state will never lack any funding for doing the things they want to do. If this vote does not go the way they desire they will tap another funding source and create this committee anyhow to accomplish whatever it is behind it. Or just create another tax or fee or permit purchase by and from the taxpayer to fund their desires. It’s how you get billions in surplus at the end.

I don’t buy lottery tickets anyhow to me it’s just a voluntary tax and as an independent business owner this state has bled me for plenty as it is.

Michael Best wrote:

In an earlier post I shared how the question is on the ballot that is provided through a sample ballot that can be found online.
Since I already voted (absentee ballot) I voted yes because of how the question is asked.
After finding out what is truly being proposed I wish I had voted no.
Why do we need a committee? Sounds like a way to through money away rather than using it for the outdoors.

…you are one of those people who only vote once per election?

Early and often is the way!

Here’s a nice map of all the projects funded by the ENTRF, and you can zoom in and see the ones in areas of your choosing. Kind of shocked and disappointed in the number of projects for the arts (the arts being included was a contentious add-on to the original amendment), however the ones I saw were all smaller projects $ wise, and the big $ projects were all conservation related. Thankfully.

http://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/iMaps/Legacy/