Like most people, I don’t like to pay any more taxes than are necessary.

So I suppose I should be grateful for a governor who six years ago promised us no new state taxes in exchange for our votes.

He pretty much kept his promise, though some of us have been left to scratch our heads at the multitude of state, county and local fees that have escalated in the wake of that pledge.

After all, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck ...

But all of that aside, the results of a poll conducted last month by Minnesota Public Radio and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs regarding the Great Outdoors and Heritage Amendment came as a disappointing surprise.

Of the 763 likely voters polled, 72 percent disapproved of the proposed constitutional amendment while only 22 percent said they supported it.

If approved by voters this fall, the amendment would raise the sales tax by three-eights of 1 percent, bringing in about $270 million for the next 25 years.

Two-thirds of the money would be split evenly for fish and wildlife concerns and to clean up Minnesota’s rivers and streams. About one-sixth would go to parks and trails and one-fifth to arts and culture.

Critics of the poll say the results were skewed by the manner in which the question was posed, that the numbers of other polls have been much closer, usually with a majority favoring the amendment.

Nevertheless, assuming I am preaching to the choir of folks who hold Minnesota’s outdoor heritage of natural resources as near and dear as I do, such lop-sided numbers don’t bode well for our side.

Conservationists and outdoor enthusiasts have worked for more than a decade to cajole legislators finally to put the measure before the people.

What’s more, they have listened to our demands that a citizen’s advisory committee be a key part component, one that would play a large role in just how the funds are spent. All of this has been no easy task.

In a perfect world, dedicated funding achieved through a constitutional amendment is not the preferred way to fund a cause.

(In a perfect world, funding for the arts would not have been included. But opposing the amendment because of the relatively small slice the arts will receive would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.)

And a fair point can be made that if it is done for one cause, then why not for the next special interest group as well?