Comments for Michigan Distilled http://MichiganDistilled.org Boiling it down -- Analysis, insight & vagaries from Michigan Environmental Council staff Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:21:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Brad Garmon http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-942 Brad Garmon Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:21:47 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-942 Indeed, good point Eric. A troubling change over the last several decades has been the almost complete elimination by the legislature in "general fund" support for the DNR -- it's down to about 6% of their total budget now -- meaning the "people of Michigan" who own the land, as you rightly point out, are also very marginalized in priority-setting for that land. They aren't perceived (by politicians at all levels) as carrying their fair share of the cost of management anymore, because today the DNR budget is almost entirely built on a "pay to play" system of individual and specialized user and license fees, trail permits, timber harvest revenue, state parks passports sales, etc. rather than on a broad base of funding. This becomes very clear in the understandably revenue-driven metrics of the proposed "land plan" (increase hunting and fishing licenses, more camp nights, more gas leases, more parks passports, etc.) and other recent strategies such as the Michigan Snowmobiles and Trails Advisory Council plan (even the name of the council speaks volumes.) We need to reinforce your message somehow that "we as residents own this land and we all have a stake in its management," but we "general recreation and nature appreciators" are almost completely cut off from the funding equation. Indeed, good point Eric. A troubling change over the last several decades has been the almost complete elimination by the legislature in “general fund” support for the DNR — it’s down to about 6% of their total budget now — meaning the “people of Michigan” who own the land, as you rightly point out, are also very marginalized in priority-setting for that land. They aren’t perceived (by politicians at all levels) as carrying their fair share of the cost of management anymore, because today the DNR budget is almost entirely built on a “pay to play” system of individual and specialized user and license fees, trail permits, timber harvest revenue, state parks passports sales, etc. rather than on a broad base of funding. This becomes very clear in the understandably revenue-driven metrics of the proposed “land plan” (increase hunting and fishing licenses, more camp nights, more gas leases, more parks passports, etc.) and other recent strategies such as the Michigan Snowmobiles and Trails Advisory Council plan (even the name of the council speaks volumes.) We need to reinforce your message somehow that “we as residents own this land and we all have a stake in its management,” but we “general recreation and nature appreciators” are almost completely cut off from the funding equation.

]]> Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Eric Thompson http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-941 Eric Thompson Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:16:25 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-941 I would just like point out the fact that the DNR is the state agency that manages state owned land. The people of Michigan own the land. I would just like point out the fact that the DNR is the state agency that manages state owned land. The people of Michigan own the land.

]]> Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Brad Garmon http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-934 Brad Garmon Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:42:37 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-934 Thanks for the comment Gabriel. I'm glad you found the article helpful! We just published another report on Michigan forestry issues you might also enjoy. You can find it (along with another, older report specifically talking about forest ownership issues in the UP) on the research report page of our website: http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/newsroom/researchReports.php. Thanks for reading. Thanks for the comment Gabriel. I’m glad you found the article helpful! We just published another report on Michigan forestry issues you might also enjoy. You can find it (along with another, older report specifically talking about forest ownership issues in the UP) on the research report page of our website: http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/newsroom/researchReports.php. Thanks for reading.

]]> Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Brad Garmon http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Brad Garmon Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:38:32 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-933 Thanks for attending the meeting Catherine, and for your comments. We've had several conversations with DNR staff on this topic because they feel they need to come up with "measurable metrics" to help them (and Michigan residents) understand, value and defend public land ownership. It's a challenge for them and for us, since it's so much easier to attach a dollar value to the minerals extracted, or set targets for the number of hunting licenses or ORV permits sold. If you've got any ideas for measuring and tracking intrinsic values -- ecological integrity, quality of life, natural heritage, etc. -- please do share, and we'll keep working on it, too. Thanks for being engaged on this critical issue! Thanks for attending the meeting Catherine, and for your comments. We’ve had several conversations with DNR staff on this topic because they feel they need to come up with “measurable metrics” to help them (and Michigan residents) understand, value and defend public land ownership. It’s a challenge for them and for us, since it’s so much easier to attach a dollar value to the minerals extracted, or set targets for the number of hunting licenses or ORV permits sold. If you’ve got any ideas for measuring and tracking intrinsic values — ecological integrity, quality of life, natural heritage, etc. — please do share, and we’ll keep working on it, too. Thanks for being engaged on this critical issue!

]]> Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Catherine Parker http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-912 Catherine Parker Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:46:42 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-912 Much of the conversation at the Marquette DNR public meeting was about the intrinsic value of public land, something for which they have very little data, but they know is a reality. It's referenced in the Draft Plan in terms of locating public lands in close proximity to a "knowledge-based workforce," which sounds a bit elitist, but yes, we understand, since our community is currently recruiting physicians. Several audience members said they'd driven 2-3 hours to get to this meeting because our public lands provide them with their livelihoods. Others said they were willing to accept higher living costs and lower wages because of the richness of their environment. Much of the conversation at the Marquette DNR public meeting was about the intrinsic value of public land, something for which they have very little data, but they know is a reality. It’s referenced in the Draft Plan in terms of locating public lands in close proximity to a “knowledge-based workforce,” which sounds a bit elitist, but yes, we understand, since our community is currently recruiting physicians.

Several audience members said they’d driven 2-3 hours to get to this meeting because our public lands provide them with their livelihoods. Others said they were willing to accept higher living costs and lower wages because of the richness of their environment.

]]> Comment on Does the state own too much land? No, and here’s why: A primer on Michigan’s land strategy and how to be heard by Gabriel Caplett http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/16/does-the-state-own-too-much-land-no-heres-why-a-primer-on-michigans-land-strategy-and-how-to-be-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-897 Gabriel Caplett Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:38:58 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=739#comment-897 Thanks, this is a very helpful article and I appreciate how you point out how most of the land the DNR manages is for timber purposes, which provide jobs and taxes the the areas surrounding it. Thanks, this is a very helpful article and I appreciate how you point out how most of the land the DNR manages is for timber purposes, which provide jobs and taxes the the areas surrounding it.

]]> Comment on Consequences of assault on Michigan dune laws comes clear: Developer plans to ram road through township dunes sanctuary by Ben Tollenaar http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/04/10/consequences-of-assault-on-michigan-dune-laws-comes-clear-developer-plans-to-ram-road-through-township-dunes-sanctuary-over-local-objections/comment-page-1/#comment-882 Ben Tollenaar Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:53:07 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=725#comment-882 Protect our dunes!! Protect our dunes!!

]]> Comment on Lead Education Day at the State Capitol was personal for one mother and daughter by Barb Patten RN http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/03/11/lead-education-day-at-the-state-capitol-was-personal-for-one-mother-and-daughter/comment-page-1/#comment-773 Barb Patten RN Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:39:41 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=703#comment-773 Thank you for this timely article! I am the Kent County public health nurse who had the task of delivering the unsettling news to Maria: her daughter’s blood lead level was dangerously high. What followed were my home visits to assess Brisa’s health status, help her parents identify the lead hazards in their home, and explain how to bring that level down. My co-worker performed a Lead Risk Assessment on their house. Like all parents, they were very concerned about the possible effects on Brisa’s development. They immediately made the changes necessary for her temporary protection. Likewise they followed up on our team’s recommendation to apply for available funds to make more permanent repairs in their house. To our relief, with the changes made by the parents and by the lead repair program, Brisa’s lead level dropped rapidly. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Maria and her family better. She is using that experience to relate well to our clients since joining our Lead Prevention Team. And I have seen Brisa develop into a delightful young lady. I am thankful we had resources at the time to help her family make repairs they would not have been able to afford on their own. Thank you for highlighting the happy ending of Maria and Brisa’s story. Thank you for this timely article!
I am the Kent County public health nurse who had the task of delivering the unsettling news to Maria: her daughter’s blood lead level was dangerously high. What followed were my home visits to assess Brisa’s health status, help her parents identify the lead hazards in their home, and explain how to bring that level down. My co-worker performed a Lead Risk Assessment on their house.
Like all parents, they were very concerned about the possible effects on Brisa’s development. They immediately made the changes necessary for her temporary protection. Likewise they followed up on our team’s recommendation to apply for available funds to make more permanent repairs in their house. To our relief, with the changes made by the parents and by the lead repair program, Brisa’s lead level dropped rapidly.
Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Maria and her family better. She is using that experience to relate well to our clients since joining our Lead Prevention Team. And I have seen Brisa develop into a delightful young lady. I am thankful we had resources at the time to help her family make repairs they would not have been able to afford on their own.
Thank you for highlighting the happy ending of Maria and Brisa’s story.

]]> Comment on Biodiversity: Key to healthy forests, yet target of terrible proposed law by Cliff http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/02/07/biodiversity-key-to-health-forests-yet-target-of-terrible-proposed-law/comment-page-1/#comment-745 Cliff Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:30:48 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=664#comment-745 Please note that SB 78 was sent to the House under bill HJ 21. The House has referred this bill to The Natural Resources Committee on 3/5/2013. You'll have to watch for dates that the NR Committee will be holding their meeting. Please note that SB 78 was sent to the House under bill HJ 21. The House has referred this bill to The Natural Resources Committee on 3/5/2013. You’ll have to watch for dates that the NR Committee will be holding their meeting.

]]> Comment on Biodiversity: Key to healthy forests, yet target of terrible proposed law by Richard http://MichiganDistilled.org/2013/02/07/biodiversity-key-to-health-forests-yet-target-of-terrible-proposed-law/comment-page-1/#comment-705 Richard Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:50:02 +0000 http://MichiganDistilled.org/?p=664#comment-705 Why are Sen. Casperson and others pushing this bill? What does this gain and what are their motives? Also what is the next step in regards to the bill seeing that the committee was not paying attention (except Sen. Hood) during the second Committee hearing? Why are Sen. Casperson and others pushing this bill? What does this gain and what are their motives? Also what is the next step in regards to the bill seeing that the committee was not paying attention (except Sen. Hood) during the second Committee hearing?

]]>