The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Columns

Related Photos

  • John Cross

    John Cross

January 24, 2010

Politics taking away from spirit of wildlife amendment

By John Cross Free Press Staff Writer

MANKATO — I’m willing to bet that like me, you knew exactly what you were voting for when you cast your ballots in favor of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment back in November, 2008.

To the hunters and fishermen who carried the water for dedicated funding for natural resources over the last decade, the amendment language was crystal clear: Thirty-three percent of the receipts shall be deposited in the outdoor heritage fund and may be spent only to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and the habitats of fish, game and wildlife.

The game and fish portion of the money would be directed to on-the-ground projects that aided the habitat of fish, game and wildlife.

To ensure this, conservation and sports groups insisted that a provision of the amendment be the formation of a panel of citizens and lawmakers that would review funding requests applying sound biology and conservation — not politics — as the measure of worthiness.

In keeping with the spirit and of the amendment language, that panel — the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Council — adopted a narrowly defined interpretation of what “restore, protect and enhance” meant: on-the-ground projects that related directly to fish and wildlife habitat issues.

The Senate has concurred with the LOHC’s definition.

However, some members of the House of Representatives have been playing word games with the amendment and its intent.

In the last days of the 2009 session, the House approved a Legislative Guide for Legacy Funds that broadly re-defined the amendment’s language.

Under their new definition, “prevention” becomes an integral part of “protection,” opening up an avenue for which LOHC funds could/should be spent on education and studies — hardly the kinds of on-the-ground projects originally intended.

The new house guidelines also state that “funding for habitat should include the metropolitan and other urban habitat projects and habitat protection for non-hunting purposes.”

There are other troubling aspects of the House’s guide, as well. The bottom line is that the guide is a blatant attempt to circumvent the amendment’s (and voters’) intent and ultimately, hijack the funds for purposes we as voters never intended.

Some House members have said the guidelines ought to be revisited during the upcoming Legislative session.

Let’s hope so.

In the meantime, our legislators should know that we’ll be watching to see if they’ll cave in to the power brokers within the House and allow this hijacking to go on.

Or if they’ll have the backbone to defend Minnesota voters’ desire to “restore, protect, and enhance” as stated clearly in the amendment.



John Cross is a Free Press staff writer. Contact him at 344-6376 or by e-mail at jcross@mankatofreepress.com.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Columns