The Outspoken Sportsman

Daily Press Editorials:

**********

^{2007 Antlerless deer quotas, Forum thread:   http://www.theoutspokensportsman.net/bureaucraticbsforum.htmforumID=1948414&page=1&topicID=1229556}

After reading the article on the freedom of information request and the following editorial there seems to be a lack of understanding about the Delta Conservation District. The Delta Conservation District is a unique local unit of government and was formed in 1951. The District is run by a 5-member board of local directors that are elected by county residents to 4-year terms. The mission of the Delta Conservation District is to assist all county residents with information, education, and technical services in all aspects of natural resource and/or environmental issues to the best of our ability.

The papers editorial cautions on the use of taxpayer dollars to search for waste in government. I can assure you that no tax dollars will be used for this purpose, by either hard cash or time spent by employees doing research. The board of directors voted many years ago to give up their meeting expenses, and now function as a volunteer board to help county residents with natural resource issues. My personal salary and expenses are in NO way tied to any tax dollars. My operating budget is earned by myself through contract services, fees, and/or contributions from those we help. In this way I am not tied to any state or federal dollars that might have restrictions and could therefore effect the way we carry out our mission.

The editorial also raises the question, why is the District doing this. As stated above, our mission is to assist Delta County residents with all aspects of natural resource and/or environmental issues, specializing in local assistance to non-industrial private landowners. Each year more and more landowners contact the District for assistance with no where else to turn. Each year our state agencies cut more of the assistance service to the public, with the excuse of not enough money. Our state agencies are given allocations of state money and the ability to accept other revenue to provide a service to the citizens of this great state. The state budgets of our natural resource agencies are: DNR - $288 million; DEQ - $371 million; MDA – 106 million. Now factor in additional federal money, license and service fees, foundation and private contributions, etc., and there is a large amount of money being spent on Michigan’s natural resources.

Your local Conservation District is concerned with the present trend of these agencies requesting more money through larger allocations and/or fees and providing fewer services to the public. Each time an allocation, new and/or increased fee is requested, the public seems to be threatened with approval of the request or the agency will be forced to cut services; provide less wildlife management; less timber being available to the forest products industry; no more fish stocking; reduced park services; etc. Never once have we heard any indication of cutting expenses by reducing top administrative over-head or bureaucrat administrative processes. These have increased, while on the ground services have been cut.

There also seems to be a definite trend from common sense local management, to power based Lansing management from individuals with their own hidden agendas. We have observed over the last twenty years hundreds of local examples in Delta County alone. To list just a few of the more recent publicized examples: Home Depot/Menards; Roland Equip; Vanenkevort Shipbuilding; Terrace Bay Motor Inn; Nahma Twp; Jordon development; Debacker timber harvesting; local wildlife group participation; state-wide conservation summit, and the hundreds of local individuals who have been left behind bewildered and shocked.

The Delta Conservation District wants to know who, what, when, where, why, and how. We feel that the current system is broke and will only get worse in time. We believe that the current direction of more money to solve our natural resource problems is not correct. All of the states natural resource and environmental issues must be looked at first and then a price tag can be established. We believe in a more efficient and cost effective way of managing the state’s natural resource base and providing a better service to its citizens. This is why we have requested freedom of information act material form the DNR, DEQ, and MDA. The only ironic part is that this information is not free.

If any individual, group, and/or organization would like to help us provide information to our Governor’s office and legislative branches for their consideration, please send your donations to the: Delta Conservation District, FOIA Request, 2003 Mnpls. Ave., Gladstone, MI. 49837

Thank you, Rory Mattson, Executive Director, Delta Conservation District

Letter to the Editor,

This letter is in response to the outdoors page article by Tim Kobasic, and letter to the editor by Dr. Bissett & Manier. As the good doctors point out there are two distinct areas within our local Health Dept. Public health and environmental health. I would not even dare to comment on the public health side of the coin, because they are the experts. But I will comment on the environmental side, because neither of the parties listed above have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about.

I will use Tim Kobasic’s article to state my point. Mr. Kobasic starts out his article by quoting our Representative as stating that the local Health Dept. and DEQ are close to communism by the way they administer their services. He states this to mean that, "a theory advocating elimination of private property". I am not sure what our Representative meant by that statement, but in my opinion he is right on. Communism to me means - out right lies; the hiding of certain factual information from the applicant that may help that applicant (to serve a personal agenda by the public agency); and scare tactics so applicants are afraid to complain or voice their concerns because of present or future actions against them.

Mr. Kobasic further states, that our Representative has a major misunderstanding about how the system works. He states, "the DEQ and our local Health Dept. are government agencies charged to work on behalf of the public". He goes on with about a quarter page on the law. Then he states, " would Mr. Casperson expect the personnel of either dept. to break away from regulations and violate the law". Since I was personally involved with a number of these issues in the last year, (and have never seen or heard of Mr. Kobasic at any meeting or on-site at the properties in question), I would say that it is Mr. Kobasic that has a major misunderstanding of how the system should work. Also when Mr. Kobasic quotes the law, he should stick to laws that he can understand and leave the interpretation of the environmental laws to those that have education in those areas.

I will use just two of the more recent local issues has examples of misrepresentation of environmental good and out-right manipulation by Mr. Kobasic’s local agency charged to uphold "the law and work on behalf of the public". 1) Our local Health Dept. at one of the many meetings on Mr. Jordon’s project, misused and manipulated information given them by the Delta Conservation District, local engineer and contractor; soils information and present site conditions; wetland vegetation that is not present on site; treatment systems in other areas that would not be comparable to the project site in question; and number of existing alternative systems being used in the U.P. 2) Nahma Township has had a failing system for a couple of years and has asked repeatedly for assistance from our local Health Dept. Last fall they asked the Delta Conservation District for any assistance that might help. The local Health Dept. was asked twice for on-site determinations to find a suitable site. They did respond with denials each time. During each on-site visit they were asked if they knew of any site that would or could possibly be approved. Each time the answer was NO. It was discovered after the fact, with help from local citizens and an engineer that they knew of a site and had tentatively approved this site before. Upon further investigation from their office files, it was discovered that this information was in fact, true. When asked why they didn’t tell the township about this site, there was NO reply, just a blank stare and shoulder movement. If this is Mr. Kobasic’s system of government help and groundwater protection, then thank God Mr. Kobasic is not a County Commissioner or Legislative official.

Another section of Mr. Kobasic’s article is the long agency tradition to dodge the budget for bad public service and quote their own figures, did you get that, (quote their own figures). He claims using both department figures that these agencies have a 97% success rate and only a 3% denial rate. I find it amazing that a grown educated man can not add 2 plus 2 and get 4. Of course Mr. Kobasic has been using and broadcasting DNR figures for years as accurate. To demonstrate his logic on his belief of these agency figures, he states, "applications withdrawn are added to the success category". So if Mr. Jordon and Nahma Township would have withdrawn their respective applications out of frustration, these two would be success stories for the agencies. I can’t help wonder if the applicants feel the same. I believe Mr. Jordon has a sign on his property that reads, $60,000.00 to flush a toilet.

In closing one more thought needs to be mentioned. If there is or would be a true environmental problem and/or hazard by approving Mr. Jordons site as an example, then why would either agency tell Mr. Jordon that he would be approved by filing for a part 22 permit. This permit system takes longer and costs the applicant a yearly lifetime fee. Did the pollution hazard disappear just because of a different paper trail permit system, or can it be the money. Food for thought; some other local examples – Home Depot/Menards; Roland Equipment; Vanenkevort Shipbuilding; Terrace Bay Motor Inn; Debacker Property; Dagenais Properties; Pouliot Properties; Mackinaw Trails Winery; City of Escanaba Properities; Delta County Properties Airport/Parks.

Thank You, Rory Mattson, Escanaba MI.

**********

Letter to Editor

After reading Tim Kobasic’s article in the Daily Press titled, "DNR playing fair with funds", I wonder if he even believes the stuff he writes. The whole article reminds me of a child that is caught doing something wrong and tries to spin and conger up all sorts of tales to cover his/her tracks.

The most amusing statement is that the DNR’s wolf establishment program was to make the wolf a game animal, therefore justifying the use of hunters dollars for the program. The whole article reeks of Lansing DNR propaganda.

Since most people who read or listen to the news know that the DNR finally admitted to having a surplus of funds (10 million dollars). I will use this one example to prove the lies and manipulation that this agency used in trying to secure money at any cost.

Many years ago in a land far, far away (Lansing), Trolls in the Steven T. Mason building decided that they needed more money to further their own agenda. They knew that this would not be an easy thing to accomplish with the state being in a financial crisis. They decided to form a committee that would consist of Michigan sportsmen so the appearance of a license increase would be generated from the sportsmen themselves. Two representatives where chosen from the U.P. to sit on this important committee. It didn’t take long for the Yooper representatives to realize that the committee was a setup and that the only thing they could do was recommend a large license increase to the hunting community.

This was relayed back across the bridge to the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance who decided on a strategy in support of a 25% increase to help the DNR with their stated short-term financial crisis. To receive support the DNR would have to sit down with U.P.S.A. and other downstate groups and show future need and open their books so-to-speak. This offer was presented to the DNR Director and U.P. Field Deputy in Feb. 2007. The offer was rejected on the grounds that 25% was not enough; they needed the 100% to survive.

On March 5, 2007 the Delta Conservation District FOIA (freedom of information act) request was sent out to the DNR and DEQ. In April the DNR granted two types of FOIA requests and the District sent checks for the full amount of one ($100.00), and half the cost of the other ($2255.00).

Also in April the Conservation Summit meeting was held in Lansing to address Michigan’s natural resource goals and objectives. The DNR’s answer was an increase to themselves of $110 million, and the DEQ’s was $171 million. No where during the meeting did either agency address the resource.

In June the District received the $100.00 request and was told the large request would be put together and made available by July. July, August, September, and October (repeated requests) went buy with no FOIA information being produced. At the same time the DNR was threatening state-wide shutdowns in programs, campground closures, local service lay-offs, etc.

By summers end the DNR knew that the financial picture was brighter than estimated for the fiscal-year, but no response. In October they knew that the projected deficit for fiscal-year 07 was positive not negative, but still no response.

On December 4^{th MUCC along with approx. 50 other sportsmen’s groups went to the Governor and asked for a temporary increase to the DNR of $2.5 million to avert a major shutdown within the DNR due to a funding crisis. The DNR Director was also suppose to accompany us to the Governors office, but was a no-show. Still no mention of the increased fund balance.}

After this effort seemed to stall in mid December, a downstate Representative (Sheltron) met with the Governor and reach a tentative agreement to allocate 4 million dollars to the game-and-fish fund, and 1 million for conservation officers. My question here was, why would the DNR let the new allocation go into the G-n-F fund when they knew that fund had a surplus, and at the same time were calling for closures from other fund balances like, cross-country ski trails and other shut-downs. Lay-offs of DNR foresters who brought revenue into the department of $29 million (explain that one to me). Still no mention of the fund balance.

At the same time the Conservation District had to retain a lawyer at the expense of $1200.00 to pursue the remaining FOIA request (DNR has stated that they will provide the total request by Feb. 29, 2008 – one year later; but if that same request was sent today it would be denied). Then low and behold the DNR announces that there is a fund-balance of $10 million in the G-n-F fund for fiscal-year 07 and has been since 2002. No sooner did the announcement come out, that they also stated in fiscal-year 08 and beyond there will be a deficit so they need additional funding.

There is your time-line and the truth. It doesn’t take Lt. Columbo to see that a financial hoax was played on the residents of this state, especially the hunting population that has given the DNR more than any other user group over decades. To bad the DNR never has heard the saying, "and the truth will set you free".

Together we can make a difference.

Rory Mattson

Ford River

**********

Mesic Wolf Peyton

This is in response to Tim Kobasic’s last two outdoor articles (mesic conifers and wolf bills) and letter to the editor from R. Ben Peyton, MSU professor.

First lets look at Peyton’s letter. He claims that Dale McNamee was not on the wolf roundtable. Well Dale has a plaque awarded to him from the MDNR for his representation on that committee. So if Mr. Peyton is correct, then one can assume that the DNR presented this award to Dale for no reason (considering the existing department, this could be true). Next Mr. Peyton suggests that the wolf roundtable discussed the issue seriously about the wolf becoming a game animal. Seriously is the key word. At the rally in Marquette the true story was told by the Michigan Trappers Assoc. representative who outlined the process from start to finish and the misrepresentation of the facts as Mr. Peyton would suggest. I realize that letters to the editor do come from outside the area, but usually they are from people who have lived here, get the paper, or are interested in the U.P./Escanaba area. I believe Mr. Peyton is none of the above. But Mr. Peyton’s MSU dept. is the recipient of dollars from the DNR for research, studies, and the infamous MNFI (lots of $$$). Might it be that Mr. Kobasic has tried to dazzle us Yoopers by contacting a MSU professor to backup his DNR viewpoint? So I say, now who has totally misconstrued the facts (if there were any to start with)? So Mr. Peyton the Yoopers may not be as slow as you thought.

In addressing the wolf bill article, one only has to be able to read to realize the article say’s nothing. Mr. Kobasic keeps trying to convince us that any day now the wolf will be a game animal. In his own article he states that, "there has not yet been any proposal introduced to make this conversion". The only killing of wolves in the future will be by lethal control due to livestock and/or pet attacks (and humans if it ever happens). So why all the talk about the wolf being a game animal. To divert our attention away from the real issue. The DNR spending restricted game management funds on this species. Should be a NO-NO, and their fingers got caught in the cookie jar this year.

Next Mr. Kobasic’s explanation of the DNR’s hidden agenda on pre-settlement vegetation (mesic conifers) is really a misunderstanding of management techniques and is a diversity issue for better wildlife habitat. Talk is cheap, follow the actions. The Witch-Lake Moraine Management Unit is located in the U.P. (Dickinson, Marquette, Iron, Baraga). This DNR management area is 47,000 acres which consists of 22% state land forested cover type and the remaining 78% is private land forested cover type. Direct quote from the management plan, "almost half of the manufacturing jobs in the U.P. are associated with the forest products industry. Three of the U.P.’s largest fiber mills are located in the vicinity of this management unit, resulting in a significant demand for early successional aspen. Hunting is also a significant factor in the local economy. The large acreage of aspen in the management area provides recreational hunting opportunities, with some of Michigan’s best grouse hunting and critical habitat for woodcock populations. Deer numbers in this moderate snowfall area are relatively high and benefit from the improved summer range of young, early-successional forest and utilize local winter cuttings". The aspen (pople) component in this area is 48%. After reading the above statement one can see how important this species is for the economic and recreational opportunities that we need in the U.P. Now that being said, the DNR’s planned directive to the field staff is to reduce the aspen component by 8% and replace with mesic conifers. To bad for your forest products industry and I guess you hunters and trappers can pay more for a license and have less game. Let the facts show the truth.

In closing I have finally figured out Mr. Kobasic’s problem in seeing what is right before his eyes. In his own words out of his article he states that, some people are less than credible. Now I see why he listens to the DNR/DEQ without any thought about what they are telling him. His background if I am not mistaken is furniture, appliance repair, EMT, and radio talk show host. Even if the above is not totally correct, he sure doesn’t have any education in natural resource management except for the information and spin the DNR feeds him. Mr. Kobasic the above example isn’t the only item that the DNR or DEQ has spun on you. I realize that you want to present the positive side of every issue, the only problem is that sometimes what the DNR and DEQ are proposing for the U.P. is not positive at all. If anyone is interested in about 2 hours of nothing but the truth here in the U.P., please contact the Delta Conservation District and get a tape of the Marquette rally for your viewing pleasure.

Rory Mattson

Natural Resources Professional

Ford River

**********

Dear editor:

Does the Upper Peninsula stand alone, or do we help those below the bridge? There is a wave of land use regulations coming our way. You probably haven’t felt them too much, but in Lower Michigan they have been getting bigger every year.

Now in the Pigeon River State Forest at least for the equestrian users (horse riders) there is a tidal wave. I personally don’t own or ride horses per say. I have ridden horses in the past on scouting trips and the like, and in the State of Wyoming. Horse ridding to me is the quiet, peaceful outdoor activity where one probably gets as close to nature as possible without traveling under ones own power. Would you ever think that the government would some day outlaw the use of horses in our state forests? Better think twice.

The Pigeon River Sate Forest is 95,000 acres in size. This is where we as Yoopers should now stand with our Lower Peninsula outdoor recreational friends and tell the DNR - NO, if not, we will stand alone when the regulations get here.

As most people know the down state recreational users have been being restricted more and more each year by the DNR (ORV’s, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, boaters, etc.). But horses, is that going over board. What about people, think impossible, read on. The DNR has labeled this area the "big wild", guess what area is next – maybe the so-called wilderness in the U.P., you betcha. The hidden agenda of those in charge is pre-settlement (no humans).

Here are some of the land use orders of the director of the DNR to be approved in April, if not stopped. Quotes – (1) "a person shall not operate a motorized vehicle of any type upon state-owned land"; (2) "a person shall not operate a wheeled motorized vehicle"; (3) "a person shall not operate a snowmobile"; (4) "Only non-motorized watercraft will be allowed". I am sure these types of restrictions you have heard of, just more areas being restricted. Now how about these quotes – (1) "a person shall not camp within ¼ mile of a water body"; (2) a person shall not camp with horses or other riding or pack animals; (3) " a person shall not ride or lead a horse, other riding animal, or pack animal; (4) "a person shall not camp"; here are my three favorites – (5) "no motorized or non-motorized watercraft may be launched onto any lake"; (6) "a person shall not posses a dog or allow a dog to enter the land or water area of a state-owned shoreline"; (7) "a person who does not have authorization from the department shall not enter upon state lands".

If the above regulations don’t bother you, how about water monitoring being proposed by the DEQ on your private wells. Yes, that would include your house. It must stop here. Call your Senator, Representative, NRC Commissioner, and the Governors office and tell them the DNR and DEQ are over-stepping their boundaries. Only large numbers of complaints can stop this type of unnecessary restrictions. It only takes a little time, the calls are free using (800) numbers. Tell them to leave the horse riders alone, they are not hurting a thing. Lastly tell them the Pigeon River State Forest is not the "big wild", but land owned by the citizens of Michigan, not DNR land, and we want it managed for multiple-use which include, but are not limited too, wildlife, forestry, aesthetics, and recreation.

Now is the time for all Michigan multi-user groups to unite and say – "No More". We can either stand together this year, or we stand-alone later and say good-bye.

Rory Mattson

Ford River

**********

Please click here to comment on Sue Hurley's letter to the editor.

**********

Letter to the Editor (not published by the paper)

by Rory Mattson

Dear Editor;

No sooner has the dust settled from the apparent attempt by the DNR to hoodwink the hunting community into a license fee increase, then here comes another.

Director Humphries approved the issuance of private land antlerless licenses through an application and lottery system for northern Lower Michigan counties and the Upper Peninsula. The reason for the application system (an additional $4 for each application) according to the DNR is because previously, private land antlerless licenses were sold over the counter, but many counties in northern Lower Michigan and a few in the U.P. sold out on the first day of availability.

Upon hearing the news, UPSA president Dale McNamee contacted acting DNR chief Douglas Reeves expressing frustration and asking for an explanation. Here is the e-mail that Dale received – "Over the last few years we have received many complaints from members of the public who desire the opportunity to obtain an antlerless deer hunting license for private land but who are unable to get off work or have the opportunity to attempt to buy one under the first-come, first-served policy. Some of those people have even taken time off work to stand in line, only to have the licenses sold-out before they get their turn. Most of those complaints have come from people who hunt in the northern lower peninsula but 3 DMUs in the U.P. also sold out on the first day of license sales last year. I can assure you that the complaints are numerous and real. These folks want a fair chance to obtain an antlerless deer license, often for their own property, and it seems reasonable that they should have that opportunity". Signed Douglas Reeves, Acting Chief.

Upon hearing of his reply, I contacted the records department of the wildlife division and requested the "Michigan deer harvest survey report for the 2007 season". On pages 35, 36, and 37 are the antlerless deer hunting quotas, number of antlerless licenses sold, and number of hunters purchasing an antlerless license in Michigan during 2007, summarized by deer management unit (DMU) and license type (public and private lands). Also on page 10 is a Michigan map with all DMU’s listed and there locations.

After reviewing the data supplied by the DNR, I have come to a quick conclusion. The hunters are being lied to again by the DNR to generate more money. Not only were there no DMU’s in the U.P. that sold-out, but also no private land antlerless permits sold-out in any DMU in the entire state. Also on page 7, Douglas Reeves is listed in the acknowledgements as reviewing this document and certifying its accuracy.

After the last attempt to extort money from the hunting community, both the Director and the NRC promised to be up-front and honest about issues and policy. The Director sent out letters throughout the U.P., and I quote – "we would like to more fully involve citizens like you in providing input into the DNR’s decision-making processes. To foster open dialogue, I would like to expand our current opportunities for communication with our UP constituents and interested citizens by forming two advisory groups in the UP". In a more recent letter to those who attended the above two advisory meetings, UP field deputy, Tom Courchaine, wrote, "that the primary role of the citizen advisory council is to participate in honest, open, and respectful dialogue". Where is the honestly, and is it respectful to lie to the citizens of the U.P. I guess smoke-and-mirrors is the trend. The trust was broken and now the lies continue. The next NRC meeting is in the U.P. in Munsing on Thursday July 10^{th.  The public comment portion begins at 4:30 p.m.  Every Yooper needs to show up and speak your 3 minutes.  I plant to use my time toask why they feel the need to lie.  We must demand transparnecy from this agency.  Remember we the people, by the people.  But the people must show up and demand change.} 

^{Rory Mattson}

^Yooper

^{Ford River}

^{For more information on this subject click here.}

http://www.deltacd.org/Letters.aspx?ID=293

For more Editorials click here. 

**********

^{Natural Resource Users Meeting Video - Marquette, MI (Feb. 17, 2008)}

Natural Resource Users Meeting Video - Antrim, MI (April 5, 2008)

More video

Delta Conservation District