# $350k for phragmites?



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Nope! Instead of using Natural Resources Appropriation funds for good things (like saving our wetlands along the GSL) that actually help our natural resources, our Utah Legislature TAKES MONEY OUT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDS-- Well, our esteemed Utah legislators just passed a bill (HB-207) that takes $350,000.00 out of the Natural Resources Appropriation funds and spends it on a refresher course on federalism for our legislators. Sheesh, you would think that our marshes, wetlands, trails, etc could have used that money, but instead they want to teach themselves how to oppose the federal govt. They could GOOGLE "federalism" and learn about it for FREE! Anyway, this crappy bill heads to the state Senate for a vote. I'm not sure what it will take to get our elected officials to care about our public-land marshes. For starters, I sent an email to my Senator (Ann Millner): 
Good morning Senator Millner,
I just learned that HB207 passed the house and is heading your way to the Senate. I think it is a terrible waste of precious funds to pay $350,000.00 for a federalism refresher course for our legislators. Please tell them to Google "Federalism" and learn about it for free. Could our student education programs possibly use that $350.000.00 instead?
Thank you,
R. Jefre Hicks


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This is intentional. Taking those funds from where they took them is a clearly intended message. It is really simple, the legislature, the guv, and our congressional delegation(even the one that likes to play dress up in camo) are anti hunting, anti fishing, anti public lands, and anti anything else outdoors related. 

On a brighter note, all this water will do more for the marshes than all the other crap that typically gets done in the name of being good for the marshes.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

So, let's see, what was the vote on that? Ah, here it is:

http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/svotes.jsp?sessionid=2017GS&voteid=357&house=H

44 "Yea" votes, all Republicans. All 13 Democrats voted "Nay", joined by 12 Republicans. Also, 6 Republicans abstained. I guess Ivory's BS is a bridge too far for some of them. Too bad so many march in lockstep, as this crap should never see the light of day.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I really hate to see it come from Natural Resources funds. Sheesh, I'm quite sure some of us waterfowlers could find a good use for a third of a million dollars! These guys have no accountability and we put them there. Add that up with the 5 million (from the Natural Resources funds) they gave to that Big Game lobbyist (with no record of where the money is being spent), and it starts adding up to some big dollars that could be spent on our ailing wetlands. Duck hunters need to speak up.
R
P.S. My representative Kelly Miles voted for this. I think I may need to offer him a refresher course on wise spending of public funds...and the refresher would be at no charge!


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

Becky Edwards voted NO! I will have to write her and thank her for doing the right thing. Thanks for the updates R.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

izzydog said:


> Becky Edwards voted NO! I will have to write her and thank her for doing the right thing. Thanks for the updates R.


Cool. Maybe you could talk to her about the Bears Ears resolution, also.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

I think everyone of them that voted for it needs to be sent a letter asking why they voted for it? I want to know their reasons as to why they took from something that is so valuable to the state (in our eyes).


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0207.html

R- Not doubting you, but I'm missing where this is saying it is being taken from the Natural Resources Appropriation funds or from phrag. The only thing I can see is that it is a one time general fund appropriation.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

When they first introduced the bill, they claimed they found the money in the Natural Resources appropriations funds. Then they said it was OK because they didn't have to take any money from other funds, and the funds were unspent. These guys are so splippery that they may well have transferred the $$ into the general fund...who knows anymore. They didn't take money specifically away from Phragmites or wetlands, or uplands or deer or elk, they just took the money from that area. I suggested that it would be better spent on wetlands, or phrag, or really anything natural resource related...instead of paying for a refresher course for our legislators to learn about federalism and how to keep the federal govt out of the state. Heck, if it is being used for educational purposes, why not spend it on real students? Anyway, I just hate to see them waste our money on goofy stuff when our wetlands are in such a sad state of affairs.
R


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

rjefre said:


> When they first introduced the bill, they claimed they found the money in the Natural Resources appropriations funds. Then they said it was OK because they didn't have to take any money from other funds, and the funds were unspent.


Who is "they," if I can ask? Just trying to get to the bottom of this is all.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Rep Ken Ivory is behind it for the most part. He is chairman of a Natural Resources subcommittee. and he miraculously found the unspent funds in that appropriations committee. I can't remember where I first read about it, but I just googled it and here is a good article that explains it:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/4955605-155/house-votes-to-spend-350k-on

As I said, and will say again...1/3 of a million dollars could go a long way toward REAL natural resources...like our state-owned GSL wetlands for example.
R


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks for the article. My questions should not be taken as support for the crazy spending on this curriculum. I think you know me better than that. Just trying to get all the facts and get to the bottom of it all. This information is helpful.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Thanks for the article. My questions should not be taken as support for the crazy spending on this curriculum. I think you know me better than that. Just trying to get all the facts and get to the bottom of it all. This information is helpful.


Always nice to confirm the facts in order to give credit where due. Not surprising Ivory is involved, given how the money is to be spent. Wasn't Noel the primary impetus behind the BGF donation of our tax dollars?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

As of today, there is still $350,000.00 for phragmites control on state lands in the DNR budget. Unfortunately they still have $2 million secret dollars for BGF in the Natural Resources budget, and $350,000.00 to teach legislators what federalism is. If only we could have some of that dinero for our marshes, I bet we could make some headway against phragmites! A guy can wish...
R


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Well this bill was funded today. It puts $350,000 that could have benefitted the GSL and phragmite control towards Ken Ivorys interests to teach his views whether it has ever been agreed with or not. In my opinion this is a gross misuse of tax dollars and theft from where this money could do some real on the ground good.


----------

