“I will take every dime…” NE LB1413

[perma]

‘I Will Take Every Dime’: Nebraska Legislature Considers Raiding Game Fund

Nebraska politicians are considering a bill that would give the state legislature the power to raid the State Game Fund and transfer $7 million into the General Fund this year alone. The bill has received significant pushback from hunters and anglers in Nebraska, but at least one state senator...

www.themeateater.com

 

[Gellar]

Let’s flood that MFer’s email.

 

[perma]

Let’s flood that MFer’s email.

Already did.

 

[Nick87]

That's nice, sounds about like when our lovely governor did the same to our state police funding.

 

[Big Fin]

Happened in MT in 2005. The crazies found out that you don’t eff with P-R and license dollars. I hope Nebraska hunters serve him his political teeth on a plate.

 

[Corn king 60]

They tried doing this in PA last year. 70 million dollars I believe it was.
One major problem it would in likely have cost PA to be disqualified from receiving pitman Robertson funds for any year money was transferred from the game commission to the general fund.pa game commission is flush with gas drilling money and the filthy,greedy politicians can’t wait to get their hands on it.

 

[Corn king 60]

Oh yeah forgot the end of the story. It was voted down.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Getting the word out to people i know who recreate in Nebraska. This is garbage.


P.s. heres a contact info link for the guy who wrote it (place for NR to comment) to save yourself time as you pass it on.

"Non-resident hunters and anglers can reach out to LB 1413’s sponsor, Nebraska Speaker of the Legislature John Arch"

Nebraska Legislature

Nebraska Legislature

nebraskalegislature.gov

 

[Wyhunter]

I own property and hunt in Nebraska. Ill definitely be reaching out.

 

[Oak]

Erdman sounds like a blowhard trying to get someone’s attention with a bill that he knows is going nowhere.

 

[seeth07]

Erdman sounds like a blowhard trying to get someone’s attention with a bill that he knows is going nowhere.

Isn't that every politician? Any good sensible human being knows too well to get into politics

 

[Bullshot]

Maybe instead of hoarding excessive piles of cash, these game agencies put it to proper good use in real time improving wilfife in the state. If they can’t do that, then stop charging so much to obtain money they clearly don’t need for any known or approved purpose. These rainy day funds are getting out of hand, and are waste and corruption just waiting to occur. Human nature is not not good when free money keeps stacking. No wonder other politicians and agencies are sniffing around.

 

[westbranch]

Maybe instead of hoarding excessive piles of cash, these game agencies put it to proper good use in real time improving wilfife in the state. If they can’t do that, then stop charging so much to obtain money they clearly don’t need for any known or approved purpose. These rainy day funds are getting out of hand, and are waste and corruption just waiting to occur. Human nature is not not good when free money keeps stacking. No wonder other politicians and agencies are sniffing around.

That is not how it works at all. In most states the fish and game budgets are self funded but the overall budgets still need to be approved by the legislature. So even though they have those "extra" funds they can't spend them unless the legislature oks it. But the average clown that is a state legislator thinks they should be able to tap into it for pet projects instead of allocating it to fish and game projects.

Pretty sure the Idaho legislature still has not allocated any of the increased license/tag funds to Idaho fish and game from the price increases a few years ago. They have been trying to divert $$ for years and will likely continue to make attempts.

 

[Bullshot]

I am sure I oversimplified it but then, what you are indicating is that their revenue plan is more aggressive than their approved budget, so I ask, why? I mean everyone likes more money, but as a government entity, how is it justifiable to raise so much more than you need over your forecast period, or, when that happens, to justify it retroactively, I guess, by identifying additional spending just to use it up lest a greedier agency or state senator take and spend it first. To me, I see this possible only when a surplus was wrung from the public, with no approved plan on why that was done, except… maybe… “we’ll figure that out later when we have the money.”

Agencies are not created and enabled to see which ones amass the biggest treasure chest, they are meant to administer legislatively approved plans.

Does DMV get to amass so much by raising drivers licence costs and registration fees?

Should police departments sit on excess millions in their accounts by writing more tickets, the fines for which they choose themselves?

Etc.

I know we have a stake in wanting great wildlife management and thus want these agencies funded fairly… but I also see pretty much nothing but complaints posted on how they are doing, so, maybe their revenue should not be viewed sacrosanct if the jobs not getting done and ppl feel fleeced.

 

[BuzzH]

I am sure I oversimplified it but then, what you are indicating is that their revenue plan is more aggressive than their approved budget, so I ask, why? I mean everyone likes more money, but as a government entity, how is it justifiable to raise so much more than you need over your forecast period, or, when that happens, to justify it retroactively, I guess, by identifying additional spending just to use it up lest a greedier agency or state senator take and spend it first. To me, I see this possible only when a surplus was wrung from the public, with no approved plan on why that was done, except… maybe… “we’ll figure that out later when we have the money.”

I call it thinking ahead. What happens when say, oh, I don't know, large portions of Wyoming have 70% winter kill on pronghorn or deer?

Pretty nice to have some cushion so you don't have to lay off your biologists or hold a bake sale to keep the lights on.

Also, many things in wildlife management move pretty fast and having some spare change to say, acquire a fishing accessory site, great access to a quality ranch through an access program, etc is a good place to be. Some things you get one crack at, it sucks when lack of funds causes opportunities to be lost.

I don't want my GF agency running on a shoestring budget.

 

[Bullshot]

I call it thinking ahead. What happens when say, oh, I don't know, large portions of Wyoming have 70% winter kill on pronghorn or deer?

Pretty nice to have some cushion so you don't have to lay off your biologists or hold a bake sale to keep the lights on.

Also, many things in wildlife management move pretty fast and having some spare change to say, acquire a fishing accessory site, great access to a quality ranch through an access program, etc is a good place to be. Some things you get one crack at, it sucks when lack of funds causes opportunities to be lost.

I don't want my GF agency running on a shoestring budget.

Agreed but have some things gotten a little rich in surpluses around the country? I’m not an expert on the where’s and how much so I am talking theory a bit, but would fall on the preferrnce of wanting my govt lean and mean (and efficient and productive). Not starved… but not over fed either .

 

[Ben Lamb]

I call it thinking ahead. What happens when say, oh, I don't know, large portions of Wyoming have 70% winter kill on pronghorn or deer?

Pretty nice to have some cushion so you don't have to lay off your biologists or hold a bake sale to keep the lights on.

Also, many things in wildlife management move pretty fast and having some spare change to say, acquire a fishing accessory site, great access to a quality ranch through an access program, etc is a good place to be. Some things you get one crack at, it sucks when lack of funds causes opportunities to be lost.

I don't want my GF agency running on a shoestring budget.

100% with Buzz.

Also, the way G&F funding has worked for decades is that the ending fund balance grows for a number of years when license revenue goes up so most agencies are operating under a 5-10 fiscal plan. Just because that.money sits there now does not mean it is idle or unneeded.

This is a very practical and fiscally conservative approach to govt budgeting. It has worked well for a long time & the vast majority of states budget this way.

 

[BuzzH]

Agreed but have some things gotten a little rich in surpluses around the country? I’m not an expert on the where’s and how much so I am talking theory a bit, but would fall on the preferrnce of wanting my govt lean and mean (and efficient and productive). Not starved… but not over fed either .

Wyoming has about 8 months of operating expenses in reserve. I don't find that excessive.

Do you run your personal budget lean and mean? Do you run things so tight you have to take out a loan to replace your furnace if it goes out?

I've been there, a long time ago and don't want to be again.

I don't want my GF running that close to the line. I'm also pretty satisfied reading the Wyoming completion reports that money isn't being squandered.

 

[Bullshot]

Ok my last post but I’d like to think we are not running any G&F into the poorhouse, I’m not advocating for that. And running on a multiple-year budget to smooth out year to year variance is wise and I hope occurs. But take CO for example. This is not a lightly funded operation.. 209 million in revenue. 191 million in spending. 18 million surplus. Do they need to deliver another 18 next year, and the year after… and forever? Why not 20? Why not 50? Do they have a not-to-exceed on their bank account after which money is returned to the public as a dividend check? Just asking some basic questions of what is the PLAN. The answer can’t or shouldn’t be, we don’t know and you don’t have the right to ask, cause…wildlife.

 

[BuzzH]

I can't answer about Colorado if they get general fund money or not, but I do apply for and purchase licenses there.

I don't want them, or any GF agency I support, sending me a dividend check.

I'd rather they have some extra and they can keep my money.