Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fish And Wildlife Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate language to require Fish and Wildlife to submit future walleye funding requests
Summary
A conference committee member proposed legislative intent language directing the Department of Fish and Wildlife to initiate future capital funding requests for walleye propagation; several senators debated whether the program’s funding should remain routed through a private association or be formalized within the state budget process.
A member of the conference committee reading proposed legislative intent language told colleagues on May 8 that 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.” The language was presented to change the process by which prior walleye program funding has appeared in the capital bill.
The proponent of the language said the change is intended to bring future requests into the department’s budget process because the program has evolved into what the sponsor described as a state‑sanctioned activity. “To me, it appears that this is a state sanctioned program, that it's running well,” the sponsor said, adding that the program had received about $572,000 to date and, when bond costs are factored, the total becomes approximately $841,000.
Other senators objected to removing the existing route. One senator said the program was originally started and strongly supported by Senator Mazza and warned that removing the current approach would undermine the program’s tradition and support. “They’ve been sought after throughout the whole country. In honor of senator Mazza, this language is gonna disappear. I'm just not gonna support this bill,” that senator said.
The sponsor replied the intent is not to kill or end the program but to clarify and regularize how the money is requested and reviewed: “It just to me feels like it has become a program that has evolved into a state program… I just really hope that we can get together and get an agreement as two committees of jurisdiction that we can start really critically looking at the process by which these monies are requested.”
Committee members asked for the draft language to be circulated before the committee proceeds further; the transcript shows no final vote or formal adoption of the legislative‑intent language during this session. Committee members also said they would wait to resume discussion when the text is provided.
The transcript contains historical figures and program descriptions offered by the sponsor: an initial funding in 2002–2003, $572,000 allocated to the program to date, and an illustrative 20‑year bond cost calculation that the sponsor said would yield roughly $841,000 in total. The sponsor also recounted that the program initially used ponds excavated by Building and General Services staff and that later investments in tanks now at Ed Weed improved outcomes. Commissioner Shortsleeve was cited as having answered “no” to a question earlier in the session about whether the department intended to fund the association’s derby through the capital bill, a point the sponsor said informed the proposed language.
No formal motions or legislative changes were recorded in the transcript; senators asked for the language and further technical detail to be returned to the committee before a decision.
