Not sure how to quote but the notion of just move to escape taxes maybe why where in the situation were in. The DNR has announced that less people are fishing, therefore there is a reduction in license fees, that in turn means less $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Remember the government budget will never go down, therefore if you lose 10% of your (hypothetical) population you will rely on the other 80% to make up that difference.

Chasineyes, that is a very good point indeed. Thank you for sharing - we're down hunting license, pheasant, waterfowl, and park stamp sales as well.

Time for the rest of us to step up to the plate.

I'm voting yes.

I'm still leaning towards yes, but I'm not a huge fan of the commercials aired on TV. They talk about voting yes, and why we need it for our water quality. They do not disclose that this ammendment will increase sales tax by 3/8% statewide.

If you're going to promote it, you might as well put the facts on the table. Afterall this will be with us for a long time if it passes. They could go on to mention what the annual impact is to an individual and/or family, which isn't huge. At least direct people to a website with the details.

I think I'll start watching more TV in a few weeks after the election is over. Political ads are getting to be unbearable.

I wonder why there aren't any ads to promote voting NO.

Bob

That's what makes a DVR a wonderful thing!!!!

They figure they don't need to spend the money because I'm guessing this thing will be resoundly beaten down???????

I really like the touching image of the child drinking from the fountain, which as you all know within a few short years will be totally unfit for human consumption......LOL

They figure they don't need to spend the money because I'm guessing this thing will be resoundly beaten down???????


Chub,
I sure hope you are right!

Not that I'm correct on this or not but I thought that the only way the Dem's allowed this through was to also tack on that some of the $$ from this vote also goes towards some Arts thing too, it all doesn't go towards what it's supposed to.

Also please remember when you Vote soon that a ton of the new Legislators which from the last Vote period are or were Newly elected Democrat's and what was the MOST IMPORTANT THING THEY DID WHEN THE MN HOUSE AND SENATE OPENED UP ?????????

THEY ARGUED A DAILY PER DIEM PAY INCREASE FOR THEMSELVES AND ALSO RAISED OUR TAXES QUITE A BIT?????

From what I've read there's much more money for commericals Pro than con.The outdoors groups have been stachin bucks just for TV time.The antis havent.

I may be wrong about this but personal experience has not proven that to be the case....yet.

I sometimes think that the main reason we humans have such a potential for illness by drinking surface water is because we don't. Every other creature that walks this earth is able to and in fact must drink surface water regularly and are not affected. It isn't that their systems are getting tougher but that ours have grown weak over the generations.

I went on a camping trip once with a group of people. We were staying near a river in northern MN. When my water supply ran out, I walked down to the river, waded out, and filled my canteen. Nobody realized the difference as they used the water. I wouldn't do that today without telling them but what's done is done.

I remember one time while I was working in the logging business. It was a hot day in the upper 80s and I had neglected to bring enough water to work from home and as the day went on, I got very thirsty. Eventually to quench my thirst I drank water from a skidder tire track in the mud. The water was not muddy but did have insects living in it. No ill effects.

There have been times when I have taken water from small streams caused by snow melting while deer hunting with no ill effects.

And how many of us have swallowed water while swimming? I may be playing Russian Roulette but it sure seems we make a much bigger fuss about water quality than reality would support.

Bob

I don't think anyone can argue that our lakes and rivers are changing, and with a few exceptions, for the worse, but I would agree, that the clean drinking water argument is a stretch concerning this bill.

And if you've ever drank the water or ate the ice in some not too well off foreign countries, you would prove the fact that our systems change and adjust to our surroundings.

While I respect that position, I would not say our waters are free from problems. Interesting to note how some waters are fine for our system and some are not. I spent 6 days in the BWCA in scouts when I was an early teenager. We always took our water 30-50 feet from shore, and did not do any treatment. No one got sick at all. I went on a 3 day backpack trip on the Superior hiking trail with my wife, before kids. We had a virus/bacteria water filter that was supposed to clean the water we took from the creeks. We both got ill at about the same time; not an experience I ever want to relive!

As far as MN water quality goes, do some searching on impaired waters in MN. The MPCA has a list of 2575 impaired waters. Most of them seem to be for Mercury, I'm assuming from power plants. I do see a fair amount of lakes/rivers with fecal coliform (yuck!), PCB's, Eutrophication (runoff), and Dissolved Oxygen. St Louis River has Dioxin, DDT, and Toxaphene (these are nasty). The list would likely be longer if all lakes would be sampled.

Actually, according to the latest water quality report, our water quality is improving. We have made great strides in the last 40 years since our first water quality law was put on the books in 1967. We have put lands in CRP, added buffer strips, improved waste water treatment facilities, improved laws regarding waste disposal, encouraged recycling, banned mercury, and the list goes on. We are going in the correct direction without this amendment. We have both state and federal laws already on the books to help with water quality improvement.

I really don't think our way of life will suffer at all if this amendment is not passed, as the commercials will lead you to believe.

Which waters are improving? If we are talking about Lake Superior, Lake Eerie, Mississippi River, etc then yes I believe we are better off now than then. People and industries used to flat out abuse these waters and dump anything they wanted into them.

I don't buy for a second that 90% of the lakes in MN today are better off today than they were in 1968. At the same time, I'm not going to listen to some TV commercial and believe we are in extreme peril either. They go way too far with their scare tactics.

Funding is part of the solution for cleanup of our waters, but enforcement of exisitng laws/ordinances and education about ecology seems just as important. I would guess for every lake owner who installs a buffer strip on existing lakeshore, there are likely 3 more who develop new lakeshore, fertilize, and mow right down to the water's edge.