Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates inserting walleye program funding into Fish and Wildlife budget
Summary
Committee members debated legislative intent language to have the Department of Fish and Wildlife request future capital funding for walleye propagation; supporters said the program has become effectively a state program, opponents objected to changing longstanding arrangements and asked to see exact language before proceeding.
A conference committee on May 8 debated proposed legislative intent language that would direct the Department of Fish and Wildlife to include future capital requests for wildlife propagation, including funding for a walleye program, in its annual capital budget submissions.
Speaker 5, a committee member who read the proposed language, told colleagues, "It is the intent of the general assembly that the Department of Fish and Wildlife initiate and submit any future requests for capital funding to support the purpose of wildlife propagation and any associated infrastructure needs within the annual capital budget request." He said he had asked the department in February whether it intended to fund a fishing-derby program and that the department had answered no at that time.
Speaker 5 described the program's history and financials: "We have...allocated $572,000 to that program" since it began in 2002, and, using a 20-year bond at 4 percent, that would equate to a total of about $841,000. He said initial work for the program had been done through Buildings and General Services and that the program appears to have evolved into a state-sanctioned activity that the department supports. "It just to me feels like it has become a program that has evolved into a state program," he said.
Another committee member, Speaker 4, objected to changing how the program is funded and invoked the program's origins and longstanding champions. Speaker 4 said the program was started by "Senator Mazza" and warned she would not support language that changed the current practice: "In honor of senator Mazza, this language is gonna disappear. I'm just not gonna support the bill." She also said she supports the program and does not want to kill it.
Several members said they wanted to see the precise language before agreeing to its inclusion; Speaker 1 urged that the committee should "enter until we have the language." No motion was made and no formal vote was recorded; the committee deferred further action until the exact drafting is circulated.
The discussion juxtaposed two points: supporters argued state oversight and agency involvement would streamline requests and clarify accountability, while opponents said the proposal altered a program history and risked losing support if the change removed established arrangements. Committee members repeatedly requested the exact legislative text before proceeding.
