Truth in lottery advertising questioned

[JohnWester]

Advertising for the Minnesota State Lottery incorrectly implies that the biggest benefactor is the state's natural resources, a citizens group charged last week.

The 10-member Game and Fish Fund Budgetary Oversight Committee, which reviews spending of money from hunting and fishing license fees, said the lottery advertisements are deceptive.

"The Minnesota public is wrongly led to believe that the DNR [Department of Natural Resources], or the environment, is getting more than 50 percent of the net proceeds from the lottery, when in fact the General Fund gets the majority of the net proceeds," Brad Cobb, chairman of the group, wrote in the committee's annual report released last week.

Because of that false impression, "we strongly believe the DNR is being hindered in its ability to raise funds for conservation efforts that are needed today," he wrote.

Lottery director Clint Harris disagreed. "I strongly believe our ads are truthful and accurate," he said. The ads, he said, point out that nearly $50 million of lottery procedes went to the environment last year.

But Cobb said in an interview that the oversight committee believes the state should be more forthright in explaining to the public where lottery dollars go, and that the state's general fund gets more than half the proceeds. About 12 cents of every dollar spent on lottery tickets goes to the environment, 15 cents goes to the general fund and 73 cents goes for prizes and other costs, according to the lottery website. That means about 44 percent of the net proceeds goes to the environment, 56 percent goes to the general fund.

"The environment is not the big winner from the lottery proceeds," said Terry Johnson, an oversight committe member.

The volunteer committee, which is unpaid, also said:

? Fishing license fee increases are needed to help deal with the imbalance in spending between the fisheries and wildlife divisions. Currently, fisheries spends millions of dollars generated by hunting license fees. "It's not an expenditure problem, it's a revenue problem," Cobb said. "We don't want to see programs or personnel cut."

? Given the huge economic impact of fishing, the DNR should seek more funds from the state's general fund.

? General taxpayers also should be asked to help pay the costs the DNR incurs in dealing with chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis in the wild deer herd.