There is much in life that I just don't get By Greg Marr There is much, frankly, that I just don't get. I don't get reality shows on TV. I don't get the Jerry Springer Show. I don't get
why people don't use their turn signals. I don't get motorized boom boxes. NASCAR, Dr. Phil, Madonna? Don't get 'em.  For purposes of this magazine, I also don't get how people can sometimes be so maniacly opposed to some of what we do in our little world of the silent
sports, how we can be looked at with disdain for participating in a healthy activity, how we are marginalized or ignored by everything from the tourism industry to politicians to the mainstream press.
Here's one example. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an article about the long-range plans for the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests in Wisconsin. "Thousands of visitors from all over the state hikers, snowmobilers, hunters and ATV riders use the forest for recreational purposes," the article pointed out. Later, reference was made to loggers, backpackers and lake property owners. Conspicously not mentioned were cross country skiers and bicyclists. The largest ski race in North America, the
Birkie, is in the Chequamegon. The Chequamegon Fat Tire Festival, the nation's largest MTB race, is in the Chequamegon. And the Journal Sentinel couldn't make mention of how the forest plans would affect skiers and cyclists? Sorry I don't get that. Here's another example, as reported in Bicycle Retailer . In July, a U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill that will cut funding for transportation alternatives in favor of highway construction spending. What this means to us is the bill, if passed, will completely eliminate federal funding for transportation enhancement projects like bike paths and rail-to-trail conversions.
Transportation alternates received about $600 million this year but, according to Bicycle Retailer , "the subcommittee opined that such money would be better spent next year on highway construction and maintenance."
Now, $600 million is a lot of money and times are tight but consider this: If the bill is passed as per the subcommittee recomendations, total highway spending will be over $34 billion in 2004. That's $4.8 billion
more than the president asked for and $2.5 billion more than was spent in 2003. We're talking billions more here and they couldn't keep in $600 million for alternatives? I just don't get that.
Closer to home, we in Wisconsin were threatened with a severe cutback in funding for the Stewardship Fund, a program that allows for the protection of forests and waterways. The budget sent to Gov. Doyle would have cut the Stewardship Fund from $60 million a year to $15
million in the first year of the two-year budget and $10 million in the second year, according to www.wispolitics.com. The governor vetoed the cut and restored the funding to $60 million per year.
What's the significance of this for the silent sportsters? Since the Stewardship Fund was founded in 1989, approximately 20,000 acres of land have been protected (think saved from development) annually. The fund, for example, has been used on Ice Age Trail acquisitions,
purchasing the Willow Flowage, protecting the Lower Wisconsin River and the banks of the Kinnickinnic River. The Stewardship Fund also provides matching grants to local governments and nonprofits to acquire conservation land. By the way, the governor also vetoed the proposed $40 million sale of conservation land in the state each year. The money would have gone into the general fund.
Depending on whose figures you want to believe, tourism is one of
Wisconsin's largest industries, estimated at anywhere from $7 billion to $11 billion annually. Again, that's billion, not million. Last winter, the state, recognizing the importance of tourism, alllocated $1 million in emergency aid to help the ailing tourism industry in the northwoods, where a lack of snow caused great financial hardship. The Stewardship Fund greatly impacts the tourism industry by providing, among other
things, places where people can recreate and thus it provides aid to one of the state's major industries.
You might say that all this is well and good but can we afford $60 million annually? Look at it this way the Stewardship Fund is less than half of 1% of the state's overall annual budget. I'm going to say that again: less than half of 1% of the overall annual budget. We were going to chop a relatively miniscule $60 million program to a $10 million program in a
state that leans very heavily on outdoor recreation? I just don't get that.
Now, I know there can be many an argument made for cutting transportation enhancements and programs like the Stewardship Fund in these tight financial times. Wisconsin is one of the nation's tax hell holes and something has to give. On the other hand, quality of life issues are, in my opinion, as important as any other. Parkways, waterways and public
land are good for tourism and provide healthy recreational opportunities for residents and visitors and these lands will be protected for generations to come. When looked at in terms of the overall picture Stewardship and Transportation alternatives each at less than 1% of their overall budgets it doesn't seem too much to ask that these relatively small programs continue.
Love him or hate him and I didn't agree with all his budget vetos I'm glad Gov. Doyle restored the Stewardship Fund.
| 
