Jump to content

Would be MN Hunters/Anglers....


Recommended Posts

WI Brookie Guy

Caleb,

The Vikings? They can go pack sand for all I care. I wasn't too thrilled about the Twins stadium deal either, but 80 home games makes it somewhat palatable...compared to the Vikings, what 18, home games?

Actually, 2 preseason and 8 regular season home games...most of them on Sunday versus the Twinkies weeknight & Saturday games when more businesses can capitalize on the fan traffic.  The Twins have a much greater impact on the local economy than the Queens do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • WindyHills

    13

  • caleb

    12

  • Dan Voss

    9

  • Chris Raymond

    8

Actually, 2 preseason and 8 regular season home games...most of them on Sunday versus the Twinkies weeknight & Saturday games when more businesses can capitalize on the fan traffic.  The Twins have a much greater impact on the local economy than the Queens do.

See how much I care about the Vikings.... :<img src=:'>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note on the state parks situation:

Over the weekend I read through the DNR's FAQ section about the shutdown and was surprised at the ambiguous language about access, namely that they didn't unequivocally say that the parks were off limits.  

5. Will day-use be permitted at state parks during a shutdown?

During shutdown, all facilities are locked, roads and campgrounds are closed and gated where possible. Water is shut off, and no services are available. We strongly advise the public not to enter the grounds of any state park during the shutdown. We are concerned about serious health, safety and security issues if visitors enter parks when there are no restroom facilities, water, and staff available. For example, 911 calls might not be possible due to lack of cell phone coverage.

So, needing to investigate for myself, I went to Fort Snelling State Park yesterday.  For those not familiar, the park has three entrances - one road on the west end and two bike/walking paths on the northeast end.  The paths are heavily used access points since this is an urban park.

I didn't check out the main park road (I assumed it was gated), but neither of the two bike paths gave any indication that there was a shutdown - no gates, no signs, nothing.  Everything looked normal.  In the hour and a half I was there I saw several dozen people on bikes or hiking.  Other than the lack of cars (which was really peaceful), there was nothing abnormal about the park.

So, in this case "closed" might be closer to "unstaffed" than "Do Not Enter".  If you've ever wanted to do a backpacking trip around the wilderness drive at Itasca this might be your chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

Just a few hundred CO's covering almost all DNR facilities across the state, Caleb--in addition to their regular duties of course.    State parks, state forests, WMA's, office building security...pretty big job.  

My guess is they aren't too focused on kicking every visitor off of state lands that are closed at the moment.

I think most of the parks up here have all accesses marked, though.  I wonder if Snelling wasn't treated differently due to it's combined federal/state adminstration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's not clear to me is whether COs have the authority to force people to leave the parks during the shutdown, or whether the limit of their authority is to make a "strong recommendation" that they leave.  Do you know?

Part of the reason I'm curious is that usually when the state wants to keep people out they talk about issuing trespassing tickets.  There's none of that in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WI Brookie Guy
From what I've read, the state parks aren't closed per se to the public -- just buildings and services.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, 911 calls might not be possible due to lack of cell phone coverage.

Imagine that, life is dangerous...who'd a thought?

I think the Feds should rope off the BWCA...might be some areas without cell phone service. Maybe require people to pack a sat phone....wait, what did I just do, offer a another nanny state "rule"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

Well I think that the CO's might just take a harder line at keeping people completely out of parks after all.

Word today--thousands of dollars of damage and burglary at

multiple state parks--no doubt attracted by reports of no one minding the store.  Twelve people arrested in one of the incidents.

02park07061.jpg

Heard that a woman fell of a cliff at Gooseberry, another person fell into the river and was swept out into the big lake....    :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
MN Tonester
what probably torqued me the most was that the legislature was willing to keep the funding going for the road construction projects but the guv apparently needed to make his 'all or nothing' statement.  apparently Mondale and RINO former governor Arne Carlson are riding in to save the day.  oh well, at least they also got former senator Dave Durnburger to join in their coffee clatch, so there might actually be some reasoning coming out of their little group of posturers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the old guys will bring back some old school reasoning that acknowledges a total victory is impossible for either side.  Everybody wants to believe that there can be a win-win outcome, but of course there can't when people are talking big ideological language.  And, because both parties effectively have veto power, it's unlikely that we'll see one side win and the other lose.  

So, here's my proposal: they both lose.  Dayton lets the Republicans have a 34m budget.  In turn, the Republicans let Dayton tax the top 2%.  Even though they both lose, both get to claim a limited victory.  The Republicans limit the size of government.  Dayton gets to make the tax structure more progressive and use the extra revenues to cut taxes on lower income earners.  The Republicans can claim the system is tax neutral, so they didn't raise taxes.  Dayton gets to point out how targeted tax cuts help lower income people.  Maybe by losing they could both claim a victory.

It'll never happen, though.  If it were about solving the problem it might.  But what's going on now is a political version of total war and scorched earth - in short, it's crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the old guys will bring back some old school reasoning that acknowledges a total victory is impossible for either side.  Everybody wants to believe that there can be a win-win outcome, but of course there can't when people are talking big ideological language.  And, because both parties effectively have veto power, it's unlikely that we'll see one side win and the other lose.  

So, here's my proposal: they both lose.  Dayton lets the Republicans have a 34m budget.  In turn, the Republicans let Dayton tax the top 2%.  Even though they both lose, both get to claim a limited victory.  The Republicans limit the size of government.  Dayton gets to make the tax structure more progressive and use the extra revenues to cut taxes on lower income earners.  The Republicans can claim the system is tax neutral, so they didn't raise taxes.  Dayton gets to point out how targeted tax cuts help lower income people.  Maybe by losing they could both claim a victory.

It'll never happen, though.  If it were about solving the problem it might.  But what's going on now is a political version of total war and scorched earth - in short, it's crazy.

It's because of the "old guys" we're in this mess. We need to cut spending and make government smaller. If not, we'll end up like Greece. We also need people on both side with the guts to do it. One more thing, low income people don't pay income tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the old guys will bring back some old school reasoning that acknowledges a total victory is impossible for either side.  Everybody wants to believe that there can be a win-win outcome, but of course there can't when people are talking big ideological language.  And, because both parties effectively have veto power, it's unlikely that we'll see one side win and the other lose.  

So, here's my proposal: they both lose.  Dayton lets the Republicans have a 34m budget.  In turn, the Republicans let Dayton tax the top 2%.  Even though they both lose, both get to claim a limited victory.  The Republicans limit the size of government.  Dayton gets to make the tax structure more progressive and use the extra revenues to cut taxes on lower income earners.  The Republicans can claim the system is tax neutral, so they didn't raise taxes.  Dayton gets to point out how targeted tax cuts help lower income people.  Maybe by losing they could both claim a victory.

It'll never happen, though.  If it were about solving the problem it might.  But what's going on now is a political version of total war and scorched earth - in short, it's crazy.

It's because of the "old guys" we're in this mess. We need to cut spending and make government smaller. If not, we'll end up like Greece. We also need people on both side with the guts to do it. One more thing, low income people don't pay income tax.

The basic logistical issue is that a significant number of Minnesotans disagree with you, foremost among them the Governor.  This won't be solved only through cuts because the Governor won't sign that budget.  The sooner each side gives the other side a little of what it wants the sooner the state will be running again.  The hardline approach ain't gonna work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Raymond
The hardline approach ain't gonna work.

Caleb--Have patience...I bet it will at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

The truth is--I know, I know, the truth doesn't really matter when political spin carries the day--is that BOTH sides are proposing a budget that will cut state jobs and cut state programs from their current levels.  

As it should be, since the neutral take on it has long held that due to the magnitude of the deficit, the problem can't be solved with cuts alone--nor with tax increases alone.

Unless of course you want one segment of the population to bear the majority of the brunt of the solution.  

There's pain to be had in the fix, no way around that.

Caleb, one source told me that something like you described was brought up...not by those involved in the decision but by others.  Problem was it was brought up as a good way to highlight one parties intractibility--they were thinking they still wouldn't go for it, and it would really expose who they are fighting for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caleb, one source told me that something like you described was brought up...not by those involved in the decision but by others.  Problem was it was brought up as a good way to highlight one parties intractibility--they were thinking they still wouldn't go for it, and it would really expose who they are fighting for.

Yeah... I was trying not to go there.

I actually think it has legs, though.  And here's why... There are two different questions at work in the budget negotiations:

1) How big should government be?

2) Who should pay for it?

The Republicans have a unified answer on #1 (as small as possible), but aren't so unified or even clear on #2.  The question of "who should pay" is actually really uncomfortable for them because it reveals the rift between very well healed business interests and far less well to do Tea Party members.  By collapsing the distinction between these two questions and the constituencies concerned with each one Republicans have kept a unified front.  Yet, by insisting that these are actually different issues, Democrats could reveal internal party rifts and create infighting in the Republican caucus.

As other posters have indicated above, the Republicans generally take the Democrats for limp-wristed weaklings who will capitulate under enough pressure.  There is plenty of precedent for this view.  Partly, though, I think the Democrats have a tendency to lose because they have really poor tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...