All Rights Reserved

I wish all I had to do in reporting outdoors information was to cover what’s going on with recreation.

Where are the fish biting? What will be included in the fall hunting regulations? Are there changes in the waterfowl harvest quota recommendations from the Citizens Waterfowl Advisory Council? How many ATV trails will we see connected in the next year?

To do so would mean I’m out fishing, hunting, riding and enjoying (or that should read - working) more than I am.

Unfortunately, we are in such an era of change, some good and a lot potentially bad, that the future to do any may be in jeopardy and more time is required monitoring the potential changes.

I don’t side with those that say the government is working to chase us out of the woods. In fact I marvel at those who’ll raise a flag or map in the air declaring proof of some great government conspiracy to de-populate places like the UP so no one can use the land for recreation or subsistence. I do however want to see some of the current rules relaxed to allow more activity. I also want to preserve what we have so these same activities aren’t inadvertently squeezed out.

The later is one big concern today.

I have been monitoring Senate Bill 0248 (SB0248) since it was first introduced in March of this year. Since then it has seen 7 amendments and is on its way to the House for review. If passed, it will put a cap on how much land the Michigan DNR can hold in ownership, easement or right-of-way.

It started as a concern for those areas of government in the cities, townships and counties surrounded by state land, who are struggling for revenue and are limited in creating a larger tax base, because the occupancy of state land within their borders. Some of those holdings became property of the state when the previous owners could not keep up with the taxes so it reverted back.

There is an obligation, by statute, that Michigan pay money in lieu of taxes to the local governments for these lands, but budget shortfalls are making payments iffy at best. So the concept of SB0248 would cause lands like these to be sold off, hopefully to private entities who will then pay taxes on them or perhaps develop them which will enhance the economic base of the locality.

The cap plus the liquidation of holdings spells trouble for the future and those who rely on public land for recreation, not because of restrictions, but more because it just won’t be there.

This also comes at a time when private land holding companies and timber producers are also liquidating lands that don’t necessarily fit within their core mission, which is to grow trees and cut them for sale at a profit.

With the parcelization of the private lands, many being taken out of the Commercial Forest Reserve Act by the new owners ending public access, and/or the development of these lands and those sold by the state, public recreation will be even more impinged.

I have gone to many credible conservation organizations and representatives to find not one of them favoring SB0248. The closest to even suggesting compromise is the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). They have come up with an idea to utilize revenue out of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) to offset the lack of funding from the State General Fund and MDNR Fish & Game Fund that currently hold the financial responsibility for payment.

Almost as many conservation groups oppose this as it is contrary to what the MNRTF was originally established for - to fund state and local units of government to acquire land for public recreation and for protection of land for its environmental importance and scenic beauty. The MNRTF participates with conservation organizations on projects to enhance the shooting sports and wildlife habitat as well.

So what is the fix?

The problem is two-fold: financing local units of government that are surrounded by state land equivalent to what they would receive if the land were privately owned, and, making sure that we not only keep whatever public access land we have, but to enhance it so we can enjoy it the way public land was intended to be used for consumption and recreation.

Sportsmen and women pay the lion’s share of natural resources management with the many and varied licenses they buy. The natural resources which include state land, is owned by all the residents of Michigan. The burden of payment should come from general taxes but there are some who argue that they don’t use it and should not have to pay for it. There could be a conservation card user permit which would assess all who use the great outdoors for recreation, committing those revenues back to local units of government in a proportionate mix.

It may be best for all to shelve SB0248 and start over. The current plan is simply the treatment of the symptom and not the disease.