Fish and Football: Whadyathink?

by Scott Hall

In my little world I have yet to hear from anyone who is passionately opposed to raising the cost of fishing and hunting licenses.  I've heard the usual grumblings about the DNR's black helicopters and from the ideologues who want our government to do less of everything and any new revenues means the DNR and other agencies might be enabled to do more.  These licenses are in effect user fees.  The money from licenses are spent on maintaining and restoring wildlife populations and their habitat.  People who hunt and fish come in all political stripes and they overwhelmingly support the fee increases.  They and the organizations they support have established open lines of communications with DNR staff, and have come to see the DNR as a necessary partner in keeping our wild world healthy. Senator Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, is taking heat for holding up the fee increases by insisting the cheaper "conservation licenses' not be eliminated.  But Bakk's insistence on the cheaper license satisfies one valid complaint that higher license costs will make fishing and hunting less affordable for some people. 

This week the discussion of public funding for a new stadium for the Vikings returned to the old threat that the Vikings will follow the Minneapolis Lakers and pack up and leave for Los Angeles if they don't get what they want.  A few years ago, I wanted the Twins to get a new stadium in the worst way.  To paraphrase LBJ, the Pohlad's may be billionaires, but they are our billionaires.  Same for Glen Taylor and the Timberwolves and Lynx. Would it be OK with me if we told the Vikings good luck and let them go?  Yes.  How about you?