Ah yes, count me as an arts guy too. I mean there's nothing like the classics, especially "Dogs playing poker" in the velvet nomenclature is a thing of beauty.

Oh cool. That was unexpected.

Kidd, you are killing me. Mars indeed.

Yep...just like the lottery money

Our politician always do what they say they are going to do

I'm still playing sviatoslov richter l.p.s on my record player.

Item 5 is probably most important of all. Your conclusion as I can figure it is: since the 6 items either have failed or are unrealistic, I will vote to give them more funding to do the same old things, with the same old organizational structures, and the same old sycophants among the agencies and NGOs. O.K., you've convinced me.

You know, $130mil just doesn't buy as much as it used to. How many FM users who will vote NO have Bob Bateman, Les Kouba, or other artist's pictures or paintings on the walls? I bet everyone does...and music? There is now such thing as too much music. Civilized culture has historically shown very strong artistic elements - from so very long ago we've lost their stories. The Great Pyramids, Mayan, Incan, Roman, Evelethian, to name a few...(ok, I made up the Evelethian, but there is a gigantic art piece in the form of a hockey stick in downtown Eveleth).

All kidding aside, money is getting tighter for all as well as the MNDNR, and I accept the fact that budgeting and fiscal responsibility are appropriate issues. However, I'd rather our DNR had too much money than too little. If a surplus develops, I can rest assured knowing some folks down the line(read future here), will see a bit of what I've seen in my time. What I've seen and am real thankful for...

To all of you in oposition to the amendment that responded in a meaningful fashion to my post on page 6 (L.O., sandman, upnorth, basslakejohn, if I forgot someone sorry) thanks. I understand that you don't want to pay more taxes and/or new taxes and I respect that.

I would have preferred the version of the bill that would have taken the money from the existing sales tax and not have increased it beyond the 6.5%. That didn't happen unfortunately. If this one gets shot down I would like to see our reps go back to the drawing board and try again to get the dedicated funding from the existing tax, this time leaving out the arts, etc. I would like to see the arts, etc. get its own bill for people to vote on. If that doesn't work I would be wiling to accept a seperate tax on sporting goods to pay for it. That would seem to me to be more of a user fee (I'll borrow that one from T-Paw). I know, I know, we already have those user fees we get tagged with yearly (liscenses, stamps) but I am willing to go a little further with it.

I suspect you guys will come at me with the, "You are more than welcome to donate to those causes." That is a fair point to bring up. I do and will continue to do so (DU is probably the big one I contribute to, wetland conservation benefits more than just ducks).

We will see how the vote goes this November. I am speculating(yes, I know, I have been a bear towards some that I have acused of this ), that with the current economic situation and the gas tax that was inacted earlier this year, the bill will get shot down.

I hear ya. The $20 in my pocket doesn't buy as much as it used to either and I'd like to keep as much of it as I can in there....especially in times like these.

I bet there are a lot of other people that feel the same way at the end of every month and they don't get the opportunity to use the outdoors or arts and cultural resources like we do. This is why I feel it's a selfish proposition and a tax on sporting goods would make more sense, and although I don't believe that is entirely right either, at least it's not targeting those who can't afford it.

Something of that nature would be a little more palatable(not a whole lot) than a plain old increase in taxes. Better to pay a usage fee than another tax. My biggest issue is that they can't seem budget/manage money very well. And it seems that is easier for them to just increase taxes than to sit down and prioritize and try to find less expensive ways to accomplish the tasks at hand.

casey I agree! But do we have the time to waity 10-12-15 more years to get this going again?

I don't like the fact that it is an amendment to our constitution. If we want to eliminate it, it has to go to a vote. I also don't like that this portion of the sales tax is dedicated. What if a greater need arises in another area at some point, but the hands are tied due to the dedication?

I would like to see our legislators actually do the job we elected them for, and not pass the buck (literally and figuratively) onto us.

Dont our legislators ROB monies from the DNR funds already for greater needs?
Lets give the outdoors some funding,some much needed funding! Funding that cant be placed in the general fund!At a whim to fund some pet project,Like in Molineaus (sp?) Lt.Gov. neighbor hoods new roads that were much better that other neighborhoods!

Don't you think that if there's a ton of money available for outdoor related items, (i.e. this bill), the legislature will look at budgets, such as the DNR's, and decide more of their money can be used to help poor families from Chicago "get on their feet" here in MN?

This bill is a bad idea.

chub thats exactly what I'm saying! They're already doing that!
Why not protect the outdoors monies?

But what I'm saying is, I can see them taking even more money away from them using the logic that all this other money is available... .

Maybe I'm wrong?

Guess I wouldn't put it past them though.