Why Missouri conservation is superior
I hear mention all the time about Missouri’s dedicated sales tax funding for conservation.
There’s a perception out there that all we need in Illinois to solve the problems of our DNR is more money through a similar dedicated fund.
And there’s no doubt a dedicated source of money would help. But there’s more to it than that. There’s a connection to the outdoors in Missouri that seems stronger than here in Illinois. As yet another example, I cite the following story off today’s wire.
Mo. House OKs making wildlife changes harder
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri House members have given first-round approval to a proposed constitutional amendment designed to make it harder for citizen efforts to change state wildlife and forestry policies.
Lawmakers voted 131-27 on Tuesday to approve a measure that would require a four-sevenths majority to approve initiatives dealing with hunting, fishing or forestry. Currently, it only takes a simple majority.
Sponsoring House member Mike Dethrow, a Republican from Alton, says conservation is particularly important and should be shielded from easy change. He expressed fears of national groups seeking to curtail hunting and fishing rights by passing ballot measures.
A critic says lawmakers risked setting a precedent in which a majority is no longer sufficient to govern.
Comments :: 
Atom
RSS 2.0
Good points made here Jeff, I personaly support the dedicated sales tax to help keep them from raking the sportsmen over the coals as they always do it spreads the cost out to everyone that makes a purchase in the state instead of just us, but your right funding only fixes part of the problem. Now if only we had more lawmakers like they do maybe things could start happening.
..
I doubt we ever will since it seems most Illinois politicians would rather stay in Chicago or Springfield. So of course conservation is not high on the list.
59 Senators can’t get anything done because they don’t have 59 votes! 3 out of 5 to get something passed that 3 out of 5 citizens do not want. That only makes sense to a liberal or progressive or whatever they call themselves today.
Murdy: Calm down, the 60 vote is only required in the Senate when voting on a bill that has no support from across the aisle. If certain Senators would let the bills be debated instead of trying to ram them down the throats of the minority Senators, then maybe something could be done. Debating 1200 page bills at midnight and passing them at 1:00 A.M., doesn’t sound much like “non-partisanship” to me, especially when Dick Durbin, Illinois distinguished senior Senator, says that even he never had a chance to read the bill. Isn’t he one of the ringleaders of the Washington circus?
Now to get back on the topic….I find it very interesting that Missouri, a State about the same size as Illinois, kills about 300,000 deer a year, when Illinois, known as the deer State, only manages about 200,000 a year on an exceptional year. Could it be the management aspect showing again? Jeff hit the nail on the head with his article. Missourians are a lot more conservation oriented than people who live in Illinois. So are people who live in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Minnesota just passed a Constitutional Amendment called Minnesota First,similar to the Missouri bill that funds their Conservation Department as well as a lot of other conservation measures, including a State-run Clean Water Act, and other measures. It seems that those States have their priorities pretty well straightened out. If ever Illinois could cut the waste, fraud, and scandal out of their dirty politics in this State, then maybe there would be proper funds to manage their natural resources properly. I for one am not holding my breath.
Next entry: Winter’s grip loosens
Previous entry: Goodbye to the Interstate Center