All Rights Reserved

In 2009 Governor Jennifer Granholm initiated a plan to “right-size” state government, reflecting the changed economic base of Michigan. She gave the charge of outlining reductions and merger of services to Lt. Governor John Cherry, the first of which came forward last October with the announcement of the merger of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality. A task force was also established to accomplish the transition, with a final recommendation returned to the Governor by December 23^rd.

A first glance, the concept is not too far removed from the past as both agencies were once already combined. The initial separation came at the hands of then Governor John Engler some thirteen years ago. The merger will essentially reduce the tiered upper management for both former agencies and perhaps return some decision autonomy to the local levels. The fiscal savings will certainly help to continue essential services, but one has to wonder how well when predictions of continued furlough days by state workers remains in the mix. It is also feared that combining and/or eliminating certain voluntary advisory boards and commissions will be cause for some turf battles over specific committed funds that remain constitutionally protected for use within the newly formed Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality (MDNRE).

I remain concerned about the future but commit to try and understand the goals in this transition and help it improve whenever possible.

In addition to the economic adjustment evolution, other natural resources management issues will also see some transition. Those of us who’s lives evolve around the outdoors recreational opportunities in Michigan are worried about our future as well.

The situation at hand is how multitudes of license buying sportsmen and women of the state are having to bow to non-paying influences who continue to press their agendas of a greener society and animal rights.

I see nothing wrong in being responsible and accountable for the use of our environment and natural resources. We all have an obligation to give back to nature, so that it can be enjoyed by future generations. That is the fundamental base we all share as conservationists, realistically outlined for us more than a century ago by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold and even John Audubon. Again, it is only the extremists who misconstrue reality that I take issue with.

The whitetailed deer is an example of wildlife that has proven to be one of the most adaptive species this world has ever seen. They have thrived in an ever changing environments of climate and terrain throughout the country with fringe populations in regions like that of the UP. The four elements of food, water, space and shelter necessary to naturally sustain deer populations are also evolving with significant changes in habitat due to new forestry practices and technology now adding bio-mass use to the formula.

Deer population dynamics have been monitored with ups and downs provided mostly by natural occurrences. However lack of attention to habitat by the private forest land owner and dependence on government to plan and do the work is compounding problems with deer survival. Couple with that the influence predation now shares with survivability of the whitetail deer and we have a potential recipe for disaster.

In order to provide a comprehensive plan of action, it will be necessary for natural resource managers to incorporate short and long term programs that will maintain a strong base level population of deer long enough to provide adjustments for natural sustainability decades from now.

Habitat partnerships with private forest land owners that rolled out last April should be intensified and match those philosophies used by government on public forest lands and those of industry on commercial forest lands. Upon reaching these goals, private land owners will see a return on investment providing both monetary needs and recreational aesthetics.

In the short term, adjunct programs (like that proposed by the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance, to regulate and then educate the public on if, how, where and when to emergency winter feed deer throughout the UP), should be implemented until private forest lands have caught up to today’s forest management standards.

Analysis and control jurisdiction of predators should be entrusted to the DNRE Commission based on science data currently in place, like that used to monitor game species, instead of emotional and most often propagandized positions like those of extremist entities. Moreover, the cost of court proceedings initiated by the likes of the Humane Society of the United States to stall predator management capabilities should not be born out of the fragile committed funds kept in state and federal fish and game accounts. Let them instead pay for it all directly out of the extraordinary and unaccountable tax free war chest of funds they now hold to push their animal rights agenda.

It is one thing to borrow time in order to get all legitimate players together on a realistic plan. It is another to provide a fair playing field and not cripple the economic capability to implement and manage the plan. I would hope that 2010 will see these considerations incorporated to all the other adjustments.