# Judges ruling closing shooting range



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I never knew of any of the various functions of the ERSC that were private, members only, not even the board meetings. Everything, the range, their dinners, their events, their community fundraisers and shoots, were open to the public. Always. Even their newsletter can be viewed free of charge on their website.

The only thing that made them a club was the fact that they collected dues to be MUCC affiliates.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bucknduck -

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here but;

I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that _"The fact that the club never paid rent is irrelevant. The land was never intended to be used as a shooting range in the first place. "_
Clearly a portion of the original property was intended to be used as a shooting range. It was being used as a shooting range at the time of the bequest in 1948 and a specific provision in the bequest was made for it's continued use as a shooting range. So there is no question that the original donor was aware of and supported it's use as a shooting range. If the township had taken the property and subsequently turned it into a shooting range and if there had been no provision in the bequest for renting it as a shooting range, I would agree with you.

In my opinion the fact that the club did not pay rent is central to the case since the failure of the township to collect rent is the major basis for the heirs contesting it. I'm sure the arguement was made that the club paid "in kind" rent by opening up the range to the public during various times of the year, allowing non-profit groups and the DNR to use the facility and by making leasehold improvements to the property that increased it's value for the township but obviously the judge did not buy these arguements. That is why I feel a reasonable resolution would have been to make a settlement for back rent owed and to collect rent in the future.

I agree it is primarily a property rights issue but it also becomes an issue for sportsmen if a judge with a pro-environmentalist bias uses the bench to shut down one of the few shooting ranges available to sportsmen in this area. Judges become political animals and there has been a fair amount of vocal opposition to this range by people who have built houses nearby.

One final note, I am not a member of or in any way affiliated with the Elk Rapids Sportsmen's club although I have used the range there a few times as the guest of a member. It's just a shame that this could not have been resolved in some way that would have preserved the opportunity to use the range.

____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training
_ 



_


----------



## bucknduck (Nov 7, 2003)

Its clear that we have different views on this issue and this is one horse that has been beat to death over and over. None of us want to see sportmen and women take another hit below the belt, but the judge made his decision so now its time to move forward. There may have been other variables that played a role in this case, but all we know about issue are the facts that were presented to us in the original post. The orginal post said that it was a private, members-only club, and Linda pointed out that it was open to the public. 

Maybe we can talk them into installing duck ponds, turkey feeders, and food plots in the park.


----------



## A-plus (Mar 30, 2003)

What if the township were to recognize the ERSC as a 'park', with the existing board left in place to administer it. I do not have any insight into the original bequeath in the will, but doubt that there are definitive requirements for what constitutes said 'park'. A shooting range definitely meets the legal requirements of a 'park' in that it provides public recreation. The membership and range use fees could provide for the maintenance and improvements of the 'park' so that the township would not be burdened with an additional financial strain. This could all be done with some simple paperwork and very little would actually have to change on the ground at the 'park'. In this way, a valuable piece of public recreation land and wildlife habitat would be protected as the donor had intended, which would probably not happen if the heirs reclaim it and turn it into a new housing development.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

This is exactly the approach the township should take. Put that proposal to the judge and see whether he finds it acceptable. If he decides that a shooting range does not constitute a "park" it could indicate a bias against Sportsmen and then maybe the NRA or the MUCC and other hunting orginizations might take another look at the case and offer additional support. Linda G, you know the people involved, maybe you could suggest that they look at taking this approach.

___________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

just talked to Brian Kroll, the club's chairman. The board of directors decided to appeal the ruling last night in unanimous vote, and is soliciting funds for assistance with their legal defense now. 

Word has the township also plans to appeal the ruling, although I don't have that verified for public consumption as yet. 

I'm working on this now, will let you know more when I can. 

Linda


----------



## Big Nic (Apr 23, 2004)

just talked to Brian Kroll, the club's chairman. The board of directors decided to appeal the ruling last night in unanimous vote, and is soliciting funds for assistance with their legal defense now.

Linda , 
Please let us know where we can send a donation to help ERSC . I don't want to 
get into the debate about , heirs vs. gun club , I just want to help to see that we do not have another gun club closed for any reason . Gun clubs/shooting ranges are few and farther between all the time and we simply cannot afford to lose any more of these facilities. I only want to help them stay open!!!


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I'm sure the club will be deeply appreciative of any support we can offer them:

The ruling by the court can be read in its entirety
> by linking to the
> ERSC site: http://www.ersc.org/
> 
> Donations to the legal defense fund can be sent to
> the Club at:
> 
> Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club,
> P.O. Box 536
> Elk Rapids, MI 49629-0536
> 
> Further information will be available through this
> list, and through the Club's newsletter.
> 
> ForThe Board of Directors.
> Brian S Kroll
> Chairman,


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Paypal?????


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

No matter what reason for the suit being filed it is clear that the terms of this very generous womans will have not been carried out. 

And you have the audacity to ask for donations so that her wishes can be further trampled on?

I am truly disappointed! I, for one, believe in respect, honesty, and personal responsibility. Some of the greedy here are displaying none of those things. They want theirs, forget the ol lady.

If I sound a little P***ed off you are not understanding me correctly. I'm really P***ED off! 

Show this woman the respect she deserves! Give her the park!


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

GDLUCK said:


> No matter what reason for the suit being filed it is clear that the terms of this very generous womans will have not been carried out.
> 
> And you have the audacity to ask for donations so that her wishes can be further trampled on?
> 
> ...


    I agree!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Considering the fact that she owned the land when the range was there, and the range was there at the time she gave the land to the county, I doubt very much she had any issue with the range. Greedy? You mean like grandchildren who 57 years later decide they need a parcel of land to sell off.........ah never mind.


----------



## part timer (Sep 30, 2003)

Before we beat up the judge or the plaintiffs (heirs) you might want to actually read the ruling. The concluding remarks were very enlightening. The judge ruled that according to existing case law the title to the land could have reverted to the heirs immediately. 

_However, Plaintiffs have indicated an overriding interested (SIC) in the creation of the park._

As a result the judge allowed the township 180 days to come forward with a reasonable plan to create a "public recreational park".

I don't know any of the people involved but it seems to me if the heirs were just after some money they would have taken title, kicked out the gun club and sold or developed the land. Their agreement to a 180 day grace period seems out of line with some of your perceptions that they are a greedy, self-serving bunch. Seems to me they want Mrs. Wilcox's original intent honored.

Best of luck to the ERGC. They may want to think about a fund drive to acquire a new piece of property instead of an appeal.


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

Esox, I agree Mrs Wilcox had no problems with the *3 acres* the range was using. But you may want to re-read this part.



> Her 1948 will stated the township was not to relinquish ownership of the parcel, but it allowed the Sportsmans Clubon a 3 acre portion that was being used as a shooting range at the time. The club was to give the township "appropriate rental sums" to be put in a park improvement fund. "The township accepted the dedication, but subsequently abandoned it by essentially giving the land to the private, members-only Sportsmans Club.No rent was collected and no park improvement was created," Rodgers said in his ruling.


Part Timer,


> They may want to think about a fund drive to acquire a new piece of property instead of an appeal.


 Amen to that!

I also applaud her family for spending the time and energy to make things right. 50 years, 100 years, no difference to me, the sportsmans club should be thankfull for the time they had on land that wasn't thiers. They should have been taking the monies they were charging and saved it to buy property they could call thier own.

And for those that disagree- If you find what happened acceptable then I ask you to imagine the day that one of YOUR family members passes. Then when the grieving has passed and memories bring smiles you build the strength to organize all thier possesions. Then the trucks start showing up with all the distant relatives you haven't spoken to in years. They come with thier hands out. 

Respect those that have passed as if they were still alive.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I don't want to really get too involved, and give away too many details here, but I'll just give you a few facts that I've been told by a number of old timers who knew Mina Wilcox and her three children. 

Mina considered a park to be the remaining land that the club didn't use. She wasn't talking about an amusement park or even anything with a parking lot or rest rooms. Remember this was back in 1948, when expectations were a lot less than they are today about descriptions of land use. She just wanted the land to remain as it was-there are several other parcels of land in Antrim County also labeled "parks" that have nothing in the way of amenities...no mowed lawns with geese all over them, swingsets, sandboxes, asphalt parking lots, or barbecue pits.

Mohrmann Park and Murphy Park (both much larger parcels than the ER site) are two I can think of off-hand, both are county owned. Hunting is allowed on both parcels, as are a number of other recreational past times, ie., cross country skiing, snowshoeing, trapping, mountain biking, hiking, bird watching, etc.,

That land near the club, as she and her three children wanted, has NEVER been developed, except when the state moved in to grab part of it for US 31, a move no one had anything to say about. And all of the recreational pastimes I mentioned above are being enjoyed by the public on that land-so it certainly fits the description of "park".

You also have to remember that, back in 1948, a good portion of Antrim County was still leveled timberlands...barren. Perhaps what Mina intended for the park improvement fund was habitat improvement in the form of tree planting and erosion control, anew movement just underway after the CCC days of the 30's...but from what the folks who knew her and her children have told me and others, she was not talking about roller coasters and picnic tables.

Mina signed that codicil, and it was carried out by her three children, more than 50 years ago...since then, there has not been any question about this AT ALL until two years ago when the grandchildren, who never knew their grandmother, got involved at the urging of nearby residents well-known in the area for their distaste of everything involving guns and hunting...and started bringing up every issue they could think of, including noise, lead levels, safety, etc. 

It was shades of the fight to retain the Island Lake range, and hundreds of other ranges previously never contested in this state...all the way.

The club passed all of the trials presented to them with flying colors except the test about the old, barely decipherable lease agreement. At that point, the residents contacted the Wilcox-Gates family, I'm told, and encouraged them to file suit...with what reward, who knows, but since the grandchildren have been involved in other developments in the area, that's a reasonable assumption here. 

In 1948, this land was NOT considered prime, as it is now, it was considered unusable swampland...

So when folks say this isn't about firearms rights, sorry, you have blinders on...it certainly is. It's also about the right to have your descendants, who never even knew you, change your final wishes. It's also about the increasingly shady methods that people will use to acquire prime development property.

As for me asking for donations-ah, read my last post again. I simply responded with the last half of an email sent to me by the chairman of the club when someone asked if they could help. I am not soliciting anything, although I am certainly about to begin doing so by writing as many articles about this as I can get published. 

No, Esox, no mention of paypal, unfortunately. I'll advise them to set up an account, tho, as I'm sure you won't be the only person to ask that. 

oh, one more thing that the judge was apparently mis-informed on..."appropriate rental fees"...presumably, whatever the township decided. Well, they decided that an "appropriate" fee was $1 when the club renewed their lease for 50 years in 1986...and btw, both the rental fee and the lease were uncontested...all of that changed when these folks down the road moved in, apparently. And I guess the judge didn't see $1 as being appropriate, despite the fact that the club is non-profit. 

Now, you want to say things about the club being greedy...well, you'd better look into how much money they've donated over the years to every conservation and firearms rights fight we've ever had. Not to mention the millions of dollars they've paid over the years to MUCC, which defends all Michigan sportsmen. Then we should look into all the benefits of the club over the years, and the thousands of hunters they've trained, before we call one of our own "greedy"...that's sad, just sad, that anyone would think that of one of the biggest and best conservation clubs in the state.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Thanks Linda for the additional background information, it helps clarify the situation.

I would add that this judge has in the past made several controversial rulings siding with environmentalist & anti-development groups and has also been highly critical in several rulings of township governments. So I guess this creates the suspicion for some people that there may be some bias involved against Sportsmen. To be fair, however, his controversial rulings have not been overturned at the appelate level.

I must say that after reading the transcript I'm not seeing the grounds for appeal based on a procedural defect. You can't just appeal a decision because you don't like the result, there has to be some procedural reason or a misinterpretation of the law by the judge. I hope the townships attorneys know what they are doing. At this point I almost think that the township and the Sportsman's Club should employ the tactic advocated by A Plus in an earlier post. Turn the existing facility into a public sportsman park adminstered by the Sportsman's Club and take this plan to the judge for his approval. If he fails to approve it, then you have grounds to contest his decision based on bias.

As far as the idea of the club just pulling up stakes and relocating to another piece of property, let's get real guys! I know of at least two other groups in this area that played with the idea of building trap ranges and there was such a hue & cry by both neighbors and zoning officials that the projects never even got off the ground. This area of Northern Michigan is filled with tons of anti-hunting and anti-gun zealots who have moved here in the last 20 years and these people have very deep pockets. I mean Michael Moore lives, what, 30 miles north of this range and I'm sure he would love to jump on the bandwagon and oppose a new range going in this area. I'd be curious to know how recently in Michigan a new shooting range has been created?

______________________________

Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## A-plus (Mar 30, 2003)

I do know the property involved here, have shot there and know several members. I have also read the judges ruling since my previous post. First, regarding honoring the wishes of Mrs. Wilcox, I agree that her wishes should indeed be honored. It escapes me why anyone would think that the shooting range is contrary to her wishes. She only stated that the property should be utilized to create a park for public recreation, there was no further description beyond that, what constituted said park was left up to the twp. There is no reason why a shooting range would not be considered to be a park, there are several governemtal agencies and other groups around the state and country who operate ranges as such right now. Further, the ERSC is a membership based, non-profit entity, with its membership open to the public and non-members of the public welcome to utilize the facility at almost all events held there. Let this be very clear, ERSC is not a 'private' corporation utilizing this property for profit in any way. By allowing ERSC to operate there, the property is well maintained and available for public recreation at no cost to the twp, which has very little money to be spending on additional projects. The only things which probably should have been done, is that all or part of the property should be called the "Mina G. Wilcox Memorial Park" and a plan for how the property is to be managed should be formally adopted by the twp. Whether or not the grandchildren wish to develop the property, it is much better to honor her wishes by allowing this valuable asset to the community to continue operation, possibly with some minor adjustments to bring it better into line with her wishes, than to see it become either a drain on the taxpayer's money or the next new housing development in town.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Sportsman's club promises appeal of ruling

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jan/21elk.htm

ELK RAPIDS - Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club members vowed to appeal an Antrim County judge's ruling that would force the club to move from its decades-long home in Elk Rapids Township.
"The loss of the club would be a devastating blow to not just every recreational shooter, hunter and sportsperson who uses the club now, but to the entire community," said club chairman Brian Kroll in a statement to club members.
Antrim Circuit Judge Philip Rodgers Jr. last week ruled township officials did not keep a promise to build a park on the property on which the sportsman's club has sat for decades. The property was willed to the township by Mina Wilcox in 1948.
The judge said the township had six months to come up with a plan for developing a park, which must then be completed within two years. If township officials choose not to build a park, the property will revert to Wilcox's heirs. The Sportsman's Club was ordered to vacate the 11 acres on Woodland Drive within 30 days of the township submitting its plans to the court.
Club member James Daoust cited what he said were many beneficial services provided by the club, including law enforcement training, programs for Boy Scouts and hunter safety, and certification programs for those seeking concealed weapons permits.
"They provide a safe place, under a controlled atmosphere, where people can do their shooting. It's a wholesome sport," he said.
Kroll urged club members to continue their financial support of the organization, which has now established a legal defense fund in anticipation of an appeal.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Full Disclosure: I am a member of ERSC and have shot there many times. This was also on the Upland .....Forum but I'll also add a couple of background items here. Linda G. has given good background information. 
I was at two of the Township meeting on this issue last summer and was impressed by the community support for the Club by local folks who are not members. The lawsuit was originally against the Township, not the Club. The Club later joined as a defendant. The Township officials have felt that they always acted responsibly and in accordance with the will. So has the Club. Anything the Township has ever asked, the Club has done.
As Linda has said, my contacts *(WHO KNEW HER)* also say that Mrs. Wilcox was fine with the Club being there. And that the very vocal opposition to the club came, not from the heirs at first, but from a couple of "Important People" from downstate who are summer residents on Birch Lake, which is right next to the Club. As the story goes, this "Important Person" was trying to sell a piece of property and a potential buyer turned away "because of that *%#@+# shooting range next door". So this "Important Person" said, "Well, Lets see if we can just get rid of the Club. " Keep in mind , "the heirs" were perfectly OK with the arangement for 50+ years!!!  
So the case is under appeal. For all sportsmen and women in NW Lower, I hope a settlement can be reached. This Club has ALWAYS been open to the public and many who are not members shoot there every week. 
My check is already in the mail


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Alibi said:


> I agree!


I agree as well. The township and the club have only themselves to blame for this situation. Had they played by the rules, instead of trying to get by on the cheap, there wouldn't have been a leg to stand on. Intentions or motivations of the parties matter not a bit. This could have been easily avoided.


----------



## Little Bob (Oct 31, 2004)

This looks like another prime example of the news media taking 1/2 of a story and ignoring (or more commonly providing only a passing, condescending mention) of the other side.

I don't know anything about this, I've never been there or nothin. But reading this stuff I think the news reports leave out some key questions:

Why 57 years? What happened now to make this an issue?
Some of the things I am reading indicate that the club was there while she was alive. Was it? If it was, and it was supposedly "against her wishes", why did she still leave the land to the town?

The 57 years makes me very suspicious of the motives here. I wonder how much this land is worth now.

I wonder if I willed a hundred acres to be open to hunting forever and PETA wanted it closed would "my wishes" be treated the same by the media?

When I read a news story about hunting and guns I always assume that it is written to put the gun side in the worst possible light.


----------



## Randy Kidd (Apr 21, 2001)

I have been following this since the first post, and to be honest with the available information in the first days, I also sided with the family. My thinking was the Lady's wishes were not carried out due to greed and apathy by the club and Township..But since more information has been put out I have changed my thinking..The definition of "park" by todays standards are a far cry from those of the 40s, 50s and even the 60s. Back then a "park" was any place that was in pretty much a natural state, but open enough for picnics, strolls in the woods, and available to the public..This area meets that criteria according to those who have been there. The contention that rent was not paid is untrue according to the article..the contract was for a dollar a year..unreasonable? I believe we paid Panama a dollar a year to lease the Canal. until that contract expired in 1999..The fact that this was not even an issue until some "city" people moved to the country and wanted to change things, ( How many threads and posts have been on this site over the years about this? hundreds I'll wager)..did this change. and it's not even being changed by the Lady's children, It's by her grandchildren who never knew her..Nah I believe there is greed and shady dealings going on, but not from the folks I initally thought it was...I'll be sending a check..


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

The ERSC started from a group of guys, led by a very well known area resident, Doc Kelly, who had everyone's respect, who had been going all the way out to Alba (30 miles or so, a very longs way then) to a shooting range there at the time to target shoot their firearms. That was 1937.

They wanted to be closer to their homes to do this, understandably, in those days it probably took two hours to travel the dirt roads to Alba. As I understand it, Mina allowed them use of her land there in ER until 1948, when she willed the land to the township. Mina was very much in favor of the club. 

1937 was a great year for conservation in Michigan, we haven't had one as good since...that was the year the national Pittman-Robertson Act was passed, the year MUCC got started, and the year the ERSC began. 

Never, never look at anything on the FRONT page of a certain very liberal northern MI newspaper as absolute fact...I've had discussions with folks about this before, but there is a reason Traverse City is called "Little LA"...or la-la land. 

I understand the club had their attorney have a chat with the paper regarding the first article, that's why you saw a follow up the next day. I'm doing one now for the same paper, but back on the Outdoor Page, will have it next week, I hope.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Finally, a voice of reason. Thanks for that additional background on the ERSC situation. I'll be looking forward to your article next week.
And I'm really surprised at some of the "Michigan Sportsmen" who are so quick to throw bricks at the Club and Township officials (all who have changed many times over 50 years). Let me pose a couple of questions for you guys:

When it comes time for your kids or grandkids to take Hunter Safety, who ya gonna call? The ERSC has instructed *MANY* thousands of kids in firearms safety.

When you want to see your kids or grandkids catch their first fish, where ya gonna go? The ERSC provides a free fish pond for *HUNDREDS* of kids every year.

When area LEOs need to qualify and practice with their weapons, where are they gonna go? Gaylord?? Mantisee? Clare? A local gravel pit type informal range was just closed last year in Antrim Co. Those things are going, going, gone.

And as for that half-baked paper here, the Traverse City Record Eagle. Both articles were missing half the salient facts in the case. Liberal media bias is their credo and ,trust me, they live up to it every day. Many here call TC "Ann Arbor North" and the TCRE is all about that mindset.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Those of you who think that the club may not have grounds for appeal, based on the fact that they never erected any signs or asked for specifications over what constituted a park or park improvement may be right...I am hoping that the township and club's lawyers will try to base an appeal based on a misunderstanding of the thoughts of those around in 1948...

If habitat improvement was what Mina wanted, and we'll never know that, that's been done...lots of work by the club, the township, the state, the local conservation district over the years. It's a beautiful piece of land now, with a wintering deer yard right in the heart of it, and yes, this is less than two miles from town. 

Signs were probably not of the importance they are now-everyone knew that land was there, and that they could use it, they didn't need signs..and putting a sign out doesn't constitute a park, anyway...

Signs were placed at the other two Antrim County parklands I know of, but not for at least 50 years after they became county forestlands...and even today, you have to really look to see them...most people still don't know these parks are even there.

And Natty is right when he reminds you of the numerous changes in both club and township officials that would have been concerned with this, all people who had lots of other things to do to survive besides examine dusty old documents of a deal that no one had ever questioned-it's a shame that what wasn't a big deal 60 years ago is so critically important today, but I still think the court should have looked a lot closer at the history of this club, and taken attitudes of the 40's into serious consideration. 

But, standing on just what the judge said and what the documents say right now, you're probably right about the club's right to appeal. Which means we may have lost the LARGEST AND OLDEST SPORTSMANS CLUB IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN...

At $5000 or more an acre, the likelihood of even being able to afford another piece of land is highly doubtful, if one can be found that a series of objections aren't voiced about...so far, at least, that hasn't happened in any other part of Antrim County, or for that matter, just about anywhere I can think of in northern Michigan.

What also frightens me, again, is the precedent...does this open the door for every shooting range in the state to possibly face closure because of a dusty old document that intended something completely different 30 years ago from how it's interpreted today??

Could you leave a piece of land to the county, township, state, (any one of millions of acres of public land in the state that we now enjoy today as public land) only to have your descendants come back 65 years from now, and claim that wasn't your intention at all-and then develop it into an AMUSEMENT PARK??

Hey, now, there's a precedent for the future that we should all look forward to, huh??


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

For those of you who rush to judgement based on the initial newspaper article I would second Nattys & Lindas advice that you take what is published in that newspaper with a major grain of salt. 

Traverse City has become an increasingly liberal bastion and the newspaper reflects that trend. There is a strong pro-environmentalist, anti-hunting element in this area and they are very vocal. This is the the mentality that opposes the Navys Blue Angels performing here because it "scares" the animals in the zoo and believe me they have threatened litigation over it. They have an annual earth day parade where they dress their kids up as animals and parade through the streets promoting animal welfare. You can laugh at this and say they are just a bunch of kooks but think again. When was the last time you saw a bunch of hunters parading through the streets promoting our cause. The schools are teaching their agenda, not ours. Groups like the ERSC are out there promoting hunting and the shooting sports. We NEED organizations like this! Im a native of TC and remember taking a shotgun to school in 7th grade to demonstrate how to properly clean a gun. I took hunter safety as part of school in 8th grade. Try doing that today, heck the kids in our schools cant even eat with plastic knives because they resemble a "weapon" . The "Spork" mentality is becoming more and more common. 

I was serious in an earlier post when I asked how many new shooting ranges have opened in Michigan lately. The trend is that they are closing not opening and eventually, through attrition, the anti-gun movement will prevail. This club has been a tremendous asset to the community and it would be a darn shame if it closes because of this. 



One more thought for those who are concerned that the current use does not comply with the original intent in the bequest. Let me offer this comparison. Around the turn of the century Philanthropist Andrew Carnegie endowed Libraries across the country because he saw them as a means for the common man to better himself through education. Traverse City was fortunate to receive one of these libraries and it was located on a prime spot, on the Boardman River, in downtown Traverse City. It served Traverse City well until the late 1990's when the decision was made to move the public library to a new location. Under the terms of the original Carnegie Endowment if the building was no longer used as a library it was to revert to the Carnegie Foundation. Understand that the property its located on is now worth millions of dollars. I did not see the city handing this property back to the Carnegie Foundation when they decided to no longer use it as a library. Instead, they managed to get a kind of twisted legal interpretation and it is now used as a historical museum. Because a historical museum is considered to be PC there was no outcry over this but if Carnegie had originally wanted to endow museums he would have. Now Imagine if it was suggested that it be used as a firearms museum or was used to house a collection of trophy animal mounts. The same anti-gun, anti-hunting element that is working to get the ERSC closed would be making the claim that Carnegies original intent was being thwarted.

Understand clearly that this is a battle over the rights of sportsman and it effects all of us!
____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

NATTY BUMPO said:


> When it comes time for your kids or grandkids to take Hunter Safety, who ya gonna call? The ERSC has instructed *MANY* thousands of kids in firearms safety.


I'll answer from my perspective...it doesn't matter and that was an emotional argument at best. There was a deal and that wasn't followed for whatever reason. There are only two entities to blame and you've mentioned them both. 



NATTY BUMPO said:


> When you want to see your kids or grandkids catch their first fish, where ya gonna go? The ERSC provides a free fish pond for *HUNDREDS* of kids every year.


Same response. Wanting something for your kids or grandkids isn't a justification for not following the situation that was put in place. 



NATTY BUMPO said:


> When area LEOs need to qualify and practice with their weapons, where are they gonna go? Gaylord?? Mantisee? Clare? A local gravel pit type informal range was just closed last year in Antrim Co. Those things are going, going, gone.


Again, I fail to see where this situation trumps property rights.



NATTY BUMPO said:


> And as for that half-baked paper here, the Traverse City Record Eagle. Both articles were missing half the salient facts in the case. Liberal media bias is their credo and ,trust me, they live up to it every day. Many here call TC "Ann Arbor North" and the TCRE is all about that mindset.


While I'm no friend of the TCRE, far from it actually, can anybody here definitively tell me that rent (I won't even go into the issue of meaningful rent) was paid into a park fund? If that $1.00 per year amount was truly worked out and agreed to by all parties, and paid continuously by the club and not simply forgotten after a couple of years, I'll get off my soapbox, but until then, all the good and well meaning intentions and what if's shouldn't trump private property rights. 

Need doesn't matter, desire doesn't matter. If we cross that line now, wait fifteen or twenty years when outdoorsmen are really in the minority. To be honest, I'm somewhat shocked at the reasoning that is being applied in the situation as a basis of overturning this decision.


----------



## Steely-Head (Dec 2, 2001)

Bwana said:


> The land was bequeathed to the township to create a public park. The townships subsequent leasing to the privately owned gun range was a violation against the original instructions left by the lady who bequeathed the land. I am very pro-gun, but allowing government officials to ignore the whishes of a citizen who bequeaths an asset to the government would be a very poor precedent to set. From what little I have read on this board, the Judge ruled properly.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Bwana,

Ever hear the expression "Dont believe *EVERYTHING* you read in the paper"???

Well, that goes double for the Traverse City Record Eagle!

Natty B.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

NATTY BUMPO said:


> Bwana,
> 
> Ever hear the expression "Dont believe *EVERYTHING* you read in the paper"???
> 
> ...


It also goes for the internet. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

NATTY BUMPO said:


> Bwana,
> 
> Ever hear the expression "Dont believe *EVERYTHING* you read in the paper"???
> 
> ...


The only time I have ever heard of this issue was on this website. Notice how I said "From what little I have read on this board, the Judge ruled properly". Besides, I don't utilize the mainstrem media anymore unless it is Fox News as I believe they have an agenda. Sorry to kill your paper theory though Natty B.  

I have now read differing reports/opinions from other members but in reality, like most others here, have no idea what the actual facts are in this case. If the original posts are complete and accurate then I stand by my original post. 

We need to realize there are other abuses going on in this country besides 2nd Amendment Rights by our Government. The First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and sixth Amendment are under attack at the Federal Level. The 10th Amendment is only acknowledged when it is convenient but has generally been relegated to the scrap-heap. Now I am very pro-gun, but I believe tradeing Private Property Rights for a Gun Range is very short sighted.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

*Bwana -

I dont think anyone here is advocating that anyones property rights be trampled on. What is really in dispute is the definition of what a "park" is. Depending on how you define this word you can reach the conclusion that the township either has or has not complied with the terms of the bequest. The existence of the shooting range is really not germane to the issue, other than some of us feel that its existance is the motivating factor behind the heirs bringing suit and that it being there also may have influenced the judges decision.

If you define a park as a parcel of land offering the public recreational opportunities, then the parcel in question clearly fits this definition and you can logically conclude that the township has met the terms of the bequest.

If you define a park as an improved piece of property with benches, gazebos, duck ponds, landscaping, etc., then you can reasonably conclude that the township has not met the terms of the bequest. It seems that the judge has the latter definition in mind.

What has some of us so hot about this issue is that we feel that the status quo fits with the desires of the original owner and that the township has complied with the terms of the bequest and that the issue is being driven by anti-hunting/anti-gun proponents. 

Now you can argue about the correct definition of a park but please dont think that I want to take away anyones property rights.
____________________________

Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training
*


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> *Bwana -*
> 
> *I dont think anyone here is advocating that anyones property rights be trampled on. What is really in dispute is the definition of what a "park" is. *


 
Usually groups promoteing issue advocay are not advocating the trampleing of ones rights; it just kinda happens. Like most MODERATE environmentalists don't want to restrict private propery rights but the bills they support have that effect. 



Munsterlndr said:


> *The existence of the shooting range is really not germane to the issue, other than some of us feel that its existance is the motivating factor behind the heirs bringing suit and that it being there also may have influenced the judges decision.*




If the shooting range is not defined as a park, and it is the motivateing factor behind the heirs bringing the suit, then it is germane to the discussion.



Munsterlndr said:


> *If you define a park as a parcel of land offering the public recreational opportunities, then the parcel in question clearly fits this definition and you can logically conclude that the township has met the terms of the bequest.*


 
So people who bequeath land to a govenmental agency for a park really mean they want a three acre privately held gun range and the rest of the parcel to remain raw land? So by appliying a loose definiton of a park, as your advocating, the city could also have leased it to a shopping center developer since there are some who would define shopping as a "recreational activity" provided some of the land remains in its raw state. Do you see the problem yet?




Munsterlndr said:


> *What has some of us so hot about this issue is that we feel that the status quo fits with the desires of the original owner and that the township has complied with the terms of the bequest and that the issue is being driven by anti-hunting/anti-gun proponents. *


 
Unfortunately it is a property rights issue more than anything. I am all for beating up on the anti's, but to weaken Private Property Rights, intentionally or not, to defeat the anti's is short-sighted.




Munsterlndr said:


> *Now you can argue about the correct definition of a park but please dont think that I want to take away anyones property rights.*


 
I do not believe you want to take away ones rights and i didn't say that you did. But the position your taking could have long term consequences and it won't matter if they are intentional or not.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Hello everyone, my name is exactly as listed for my user name. This is my first post on this site, and I am the current Chairman of the Elk Rapids Sportsman's club.

I believe that I have read, and for the most part comprehended the bulk of the messages posted on this thread regarding what we can all agree is a controversial subject.

Because of the demands of this dispute, and the resulting lawsuit, I have had to read a tremendous amount of material, including especially the available archives of the Club's history.

As Linda stated, the Club actually got started when "Doc Kelly" and the "boys" got tired of traveling to Alden to shoot their guns. It was then that Doc Kelly said: This is ridiculous, we should start our own Club here in Elk Rapids." I have that letter from one of the founding members, Fred Williams, who at age 90 was renewing his membership to the Club in November of 1991. Certainly now, Fred is with "Doc Kelly" and his buddies that took those initial first steps.

I have the front page of the Elk Rapids Progress that proclaims: "Sportsman's Club Perfected". That was in December 1937.

The Club became official on December 13th. 1937.

For perspective, let's remember that Mina Gates Wilcox was still very much alive in 1937, although she lived full time in Thornwood, New York.

Doc Kelly knew the Club needed land, but had no money. Let's remember that this was during the Great Depression. Doc approached Mina Gates Wilcox about some land for use by the Club and the community and Mina obliged with a ten year lease knowing what the Club would contribute to the community, and trusting in the character of it's Officers, led by Doc Kelly, and other notable citizens. She also knew about the darkening shadow taking form in Europe at the time, particularly in Germany.

From the very beginning, the Club did good things for the community. I have the many newspaper articles that speak about transporting netted Whitefish from East Bay to Elk Lake to stock the Chain of Lakes for all sportsmen, especially to bolster the catch of the "resorters", and give a boost to the area Tourist economy. Remember at this point Mina owned the Wandawood Resort over on the Northwest corner of Elk lake, now owned by the lead Plaintiff, and granddaughter of Mina. The Club also hosted huge dinners for the Community, and hosted "Turkey Shoots" open to the public at its new grounds provided by Mina.

The Club had a ten-year lease that lasted from 1938 until 1948. To date we have not been able to locate that document, but we are still searching. It is strongly believed that the "rent" was a very nominal amount because Mina recognized the good the Spostman's Club was doing in the community.

Now let's move forward to 1948, specifically January 24th, 1948

On that date, in Thornwood New York, Mina executed a codicil to her will carving out the 23 acres of land as a donation to the Township, for use by the Club, and for a public recreation field. At that time, there was a Boy Scout campground to the west of the old "Bay Shore road" (now U.S. 31). The Club was responsible for the maintenance of the campground; they referred to this process as "brushing out" the campground. This community support, and the others already mentioned were why Mina remembered the Club in a codicil just eight days before she died on February 2nd, 1948. I have her obituary from the "Wretched Eagle" published on February 8th, 1948.

In July of 1948, her son, Paul Harlan Wilcox appeared as executor of the estate, and transferred the 23 acres to the Township according to Mina's wishes. What's important here is that there were three surviving children of Mina Gates Wilcox. In addition to her son, there was also Emily Palmer, and Helen Bard. Emily and her husband Carlos lived in Ann Arbor, except when they summered at the Wandawood resort near Elk Rapids, on Elk Lake. Helen Bard and her husband lived full time in Thornwood New York, but "summered" as well near Elk Rapids with the rest of the family.

What's important however is that Paul Harlan Wilcox lived on Tenth st. right here in Traverse City. As such, he had full knowledge of all that was happening in Elk Rapids, and at the Club. One must assume that if anything weren't satisfactory in the way that the Club was conducting it's business and continuing it's good deeds to the community he would have taken necessary action. Let's also remember that from 1948 on, there was no formal lease for the club, but all of the surviving children were aware of their mothers wishes with respect to the club and the property she donated.

In 1957-58, the State acquired a little over six acres from the 23 acres, and built U.S. 31. The result was that now the 23 acres was almost evenly bisected, and left with six acres to the west, and then almost 11 acres to the East, where the Club was forced to relocate to where it is now.

U.S.31 was to become a limited access highway so a new access road was necessary for egress ingress to the Club.

To accomplish this, the still surviving three children of Mina cooperated in a land transfer of part their remaining holdings to the North of the club for the necessary driveway, in exchange for the now bisected six acres to the west.

There was no objection to the Club then, or how it was functioning, as it continued to benefit the community with it's many service projects.

In 1968, now 30 years after the club was formed, Helen Bard was approached by Club Secretary Jerry Bradfield to donate "lot#3" so that the Club could expand. After two letters, she and her husband complied and donated that land to the Township, at the request of the Club to help the club. I have the letter to the Bard family from the club thanking them for the donation and speaking of a "standing ovation" recognizing their generosity.

So here is the history of the Club for at least it's first thirty years, during a time when both Mina, and her children were all still alive. Never once in that span of time did those that knew best of what Mina wanted object to the club or it's conduct in the community.

Why is that?

Because as it was formed to do "good things for the community of Elk Rapids and it's environs", it continues to do so today.
Brian S. Kroll
Chairman,
ERSC.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

...This is the Press release and letter to the membership that went out Wednesday evening. (January 19th,)


*TO THE ERSC MEMBERSHIP*.
​As many of you know, Circuit Court Judge Phillip Rogers ruled last Friday, in favor of plaintiffs Carolyn Shah, et al, That the Township had 180 days to submit a Township approved plan for a public park, and following that, the Club would have thirty days to vacate the property which we currently occupy 

 To say that the Club is disappointed is an understatement to say that we are mortally wounded is premature. 

 On Wednesday evening, January 19th, the ERSC Board of Directors met in closed session and reviewed the Club's options based on the opinions of the Attorneys involved with the case. 

 It was the unanimous decision of your Board, based upon those opinions, to authorize our legal counsel to proceed with an appeal in an effort to save your Club. 

 As intensely as we, and our Attorneys are working in this endeavor, we ask every member for their support, especially their financial support. 

 In the recent few months, members, non-members, organizations, and companies have stepped forward with their checks to help save the Club. This need is now even more acute. The alternative is to abandon everything that we, and many others before us, worked so hard for these past sixty-five years. 

 It is the carefully considered opinion of your Board and our attorneys that there are specific issues of law relative to the courts ruling which should be reviewed at the appellate level. Therefore the costs and expenses continue and it is necessary that your monetary support also continue. 

The decision to proceed with an appeal was not taken lightly, nor was it simply a knee-jerk reaction to an adverse result. The matter was considered in depth and only after thorough scrutiny of all the facts and findings in the courts ruling was a unanimous decision made to proceed with such an appeal. 

The loss of the Club would be a devastating blow to not just every recreational shooter, and hunter/sportsperson who uses the Club now, but to the entire community as a whole. 

 Without the Club, there will be no Hunter Safety program for our youth in the immediate area. The "Kid's fish Pond" will cease to be a huge event every June where hundreds of kids enjoy the pleasure of catching Trout, some for the first time. 

 Nearby homeowner groups will lose the facility for their annual meetings, and Law Enforcement, including most recently the Coast Guard will lose the ability to conduct their Training so essential for our collective public safety. 

 Even in the face of this setback, we are undeterred in our commitment to the membership and the community that has supported us so much in the past. 

 We realize the road ahead is one with many hazards, but we must pursue the path that we feel is right. 

 The ruling by the court can be read in its entirety by linking to the ERSC site :http://www.ersc.org/ 

 Donations to the legal defense fund can be sent to the Club at: 

Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club,
P.O. Box 536, Elk Rapids, MI 49629-0536 

 Further information will be available through this list, and through the Club's newsletter. 

For the Board of Directors

Brian S Kroll

Chairman,

Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club.


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Brian S.Kroll said:


> ...So here is the history of the Club for at least it's first thirty years, during a time when both Mina, and her children were all still alive. Never once in that span of time did those that knew best of what Mina wanted object to the club or it's conduct in the community.


Brian--I appreciate you taking yoru time to post more information, but what I want to know is whether or not the club and the township followed all the terms of the argeements over the years and continuously so. Hanging your hat on whether or not family members previously objected to the situation seems precarious. 

Thanks


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Hi Chris,
If you mean by that, did the Club function in the Community as it did when it was formed, the answer is a resounding "yes."
If the reference is to the terms of the will, we also answer in the affirmative.
With 23 acres originally including the Boy Scout camp there was plenty of room for everybody. The problem started about ten years after her death when U.S. 31 bisected the property.
Our position is that she left the use of the property to the discretion of the Township Board.
From The will:


> "I do wish that the Township of Elk Rapids shall be permitted to lease to the Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club the site of it's present shooting range, at the discretion of the Township Board, for reasonable periods of time (for example, five year periods) for some appropriate annual rental."
> ..."It is my suggestion, but not my dictation, that the permanent access be along the East-West quarter line which is the Southern Boundary of the said parcel"


To this day, we are open to the public two days a week, lately now three, when we are staffed by Club personnel for safety reasons.
Last fall we had over 200 non members sight in their rifles just prior to the start of the Deer season. We charge a nominal five dollars to non members to do this. The money goes into the general fund for maintenance of the club buildings and grounds.
...In the fall we train over 300 kids in Hunter Safety before they can get their first firearms hunting license. This is done NO CHARGE for any student.
If one were to quantify the many benefits of our community service efforts, it would far exceed any monetary rent that would be reasonably expected in a standard landlord/Tenant relationship.


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Brian S.Kroll said:


> Hi Chris,
> If you mean by that, did the Club function in the Community as it did when it was formed, the answer is a resounding "yes."


Brian--Again thank you. My question wasn't so much one of operational philosophies or methods of the club. But in your quote from the will there was mention of five year renewal periods and appropriate rent...and that is where the heart of my question lies. Was appropriate rent continously paid as it should have been? If not, then the problem lies with the township and the club for not fulfilling that requirement. 

With respect to renewal periods, there is some expression of intent that is interesting...to me that doesn't indicate a perpertual intent of use, if we're going to go down the road of intentions. 

This is just my opinion from what I've heard and read so far.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Hi Chris,
All to often "rent" is considered exclusively an exchange of dollars. What it really is an acceptable exchange of value between a Landlord and a tenant.
In 1986, a formal written lease was entered into with the Township for 50 years at one dollar a year, with an option by the Club to renew at one dollar a year for another fifty years.
Keep in mind that the Club operates at no cost to the Taxpayers, but offers substantial value as I have described above.
At the time the club entered into the lease in 1986, the Township recognized our community service as part of the "rent."
They also have two conventional parks that nobody uses.


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Brian--So from 1948 to 1986, rent, at least as far as the club's perspective, was in the form of good will and services offered to the community, correct? If so, that's more than a bit of a stretch in my opinion. After 1986, $1.00 a year was an obligated contraction and assumably paid each and every year, correct? If not, why??? 

While I understand what you're trying to convey on the first question, I don't necessarily agree with that perspective and think the club's position isn't the best it could have been had appropriate rent been paid. With respect to the second question, I really don't think $1.00 per year is appropriate but I understand why that amount is often selected in situations like this and acknowlege there would appear to have been a fair amount of discretion given to the township in that regard. 

But I have to be honest, with that five year renewal period mentioned, in addition to payment of rent expectations, mentioned in the will, I would have thought the club and/or the township would have cleaned up some of the ambiguity of this situation (at least before attempting to do so in 1986) or done everything they could have to prevent it from rearing it's ugly head. Now you're left with having to fight on the basis of intentions, emotionalit, definitions (or changing definition) and objections to the situation not voiced by family members, tactics some of which we've seen used by the other side against us in the past. While I wish you well in your fight, I still believe this is a property rights issue. One that I would rather we had the high ground on as it were.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

_Originally posted by Bwana_
_"So people who bequeath land to a govenmental agency for a park really mean they want a three acre privately held gun range and the rest of the parcel to remain raw land? So by appliying a loose definiton of a park, as your advocating, the city could also have leased it to a shopping center developer since there are some who would define shopping as a "recreational activity" provided some of the land remains in its raw state. Do you see the problem yet?"_

In my opinion, the analogy is flawed since the township did not lease it to the club "after the fact". The range was in existence at that time of the bequest and the donor stipulated that the township could continue to lease the land to the club. Nobody is saying that the township had carte blanche to do with the land what they wanted, which is what is implied in your analogy. As far as "raw land" being a loose definition of a park, Linda G has pointed out the existance of two other undeveloped parcels of publically owned land in the same county that are "officially" parks, so It would seem that in Antrim County "raw land" is acceptable as a park. So to answer your question, no, I guess I don't see the problem your referring to.

Again, this perception that the township ran roughshod over the property rights of the deceased and simply ignored the contents of the codecil to her will results from the way that the story was originally reported in the newspaper. I would repeat that the original reporting only told part of the story.

Depending how this comes out there may be some rights trampled on but I don't think they are going to be property rights. 
______________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## A-plus (Mar 30, 2003)

It is very good of you to provide greater details into the history and background of ERSC, as it relates to the grant made by Mina G. Wilcox and the actions of the township. The scout camp and the actual grant of 23 acres has not been mentioned in any other posts or in the judges opinion. Further, the donation of further property by her daughter to help the club in 1968 also seems rather important to this discussion.

Through all of the reading I have done, it seems that Mrs. Wilcox's wishes have been honored as much as possible and fail to understand why so many see this as a violation of property rights. Although I have not seen the entire original language of the will, and suspect very few here have either, it appears that the township was left with a great deal of discretion in this matter and they acted honorably in managing this property. There seems to be a few matters that keep hanging things up and make people question the correctness of the township and ERSC in this though:

First - The paper reported that ERSC is a privately held gun range, which would indicate that there is an 'owner' and it is operated for profit.

Second - The issue of what constitutes a lease agreement and whether there has been a continuous, binding, agreement that has been honored by both the township and ERSC.

Third - Whether the terms of the lease met with the desires of Mrs. Wilcox.

Fourth - Whether it conflicts with Mrs. Wilcox's directives to have ERSC expand beyond it's original three acre allotment.

Fifth - What constitutes a 'park'.

If I may be allowed to submit my opinions regarding these issues so that they may be corrected as necessary.

First - Is not ERSC a membership based, non-profit organization which derives it's members from the community at large for the purpose of providing recreation and service to said community?

Second - Even though it seems from 1948 to 1986 there was no formal contract between the township and ERSC, since 1986 there most definitely has been. (The courts may have a fair amount of power, but I doubt they can turn back time nearly twenty years and retroactively revert the property to Mrs. Wilcox's heirs. Of course would that mean they would be responsible to pay the last 18 years property taxes?)

Third - It seems Mrs. Wilcox left the terms of a lease agreement up to the township, only giving an example, not setting forth any requirements for it's contents, or even mandating that the lease is necessary.

Fourth - Since the property was granted to the township for public recreational purposes and assuming that ERSC is a public, non-profit entity, providing not only service to the community, but also public recreational opportunities, it would seem to be a very appropriate use of the property.

Fifth - A 'park', according to my dictionary, may be defined as "a tract of ground kept as a game preserve or recreation area". Based on what Linda G. has said about part of the area being preserved as quality wildlife habitat and the remainder being used for recreation, (shooting is recreational to me anyway) it would seem we do indeed have a 'park' here.

Well, there is enough for my $.02 worth of opinion for tonight.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Thats a lot of typing for one weekend! 
Your original post and answers to questions have provided much needed accurate and up-to-date information on this situation.
As noted previously, my check in support of ERSC was already sent a few days ago. Hopefully, other members and friends of ERSC will do the same. 

Natty B.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Here is a little additional information that was published in the "Town Meeting", the local paper in Elk Rapids. They do a far better job than the "Wretched Eagle" in Traverse City.
>
>
>
*Judge rules for heirs in township land suit*
BY DAVE LEIN
Town Meeting Editor

After nearly two months of deliberation, 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers ruled Friday that land donated to Elk Rapids Township over 50 years ago by Mina G. Wilcox was not used as intended, and should revert back to her heirs.
Rodgers' decision essentially evicts the Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club, and requires the township to build a public park on the vacated land. Any challenge to Friday's ruling by the township and/or sportsman's club is pending, according to defense representatives (see related story).
The current ruling followed a Nov. 15 hearing on cross-motions for summary disposition. At that time, attorneys for the defendants _ the township and sportsman's club _ argued that the land had been used as intended and that no right of reversion exists.
The sportsman's club joined the township in defending the lawsuit filed by Wilcox heirs last summer. In August, the decision to allow the club to intervene as a codefendant was granted by Rodgers. 
The suit was officially filed June 8, in response to the township's pending lease with the sportsman's club on land Wilcox originally deeded to the township for public use in 1948.
Plaintiffs in the suit include Willard P. Wilcox, Gordon W. Wilcox, Theodore W. Wilcox, David W. Palmer and Carolyn P. Shah. The group is represented by Karen L. Ferguson, serving as council for the Traverse City firm of Olson, Bzdok and Howard.
On June 8, Ferguson said the basis for the suit was that her clients want to ensure the original deed is honored and a recreational park is established.
"After two years, it appears the township is going to enter into a lease that violates the deed," she said at that time. "It comes down to the intention of the deed and the township's obligation to honor that deed."

Short history
The land in question, about 11 acres, originally included nearly 23 acres just north of Elk Rapids which was owned by Wilcox. In 1938 Wilcox entered into a 10-year lease with the sportsman's club for a portion of the land. In 1948 she deeded all of the property to the township, with open provisions for the continued lease of a segment to the club, and the "development of a public recreation field."
The property was split and reduced by about half in the late 1950s, when U.S. 31 was established.
A new 50-year lease, signed in 1986 renewed the township's agreement with the sportsman's club. However, because of an erroneous legal description in the lease and several land use questions, the agreement was first challenged by several local property owners and the Wilcox family heirs over two years ago.
Following a year of discussions and meetings between township representatives and Wilcox heirs, the plaintiffs unexpectedly filed suit on June 8.
On Nov. 15 the plaintiffs argued that because the township had not used the land as intended, it should revert back to the heirs. At that hearing, township attorney Michael Turkelson said the original deed stated that the land's use "is subject to suggestions and directions, not conditions."
He said it was up to the township to decide if and when a park is developed, along with the terms of any lease of the land, and fees related to a lease. He also said the area is already known as the Mina G. Wilcox Recreation Park, and a recognition plaque was placed at the sportsman's club in 2000.
Speaking for the club, attorney Kevin Winters said "the law and facts" show the plaintiffs don't have a right of reverter.
"There is no mention in the deed or codicil of a reverter," Winters said. "Mina gave all of her rights on the property, including reverter, to the township. After over 30 years of the township and sportsman's club using the land _ no objections were voiced ..."
Speaking for her clients, Ferguson argued that the township "did nothing to establish a park" and gradually turned the property over to the sportsman's club. She said the land was given to the township with the understanding and trust that it would be for public use.
"The general public is the loser when the township didn't fulfill the request of this gift," she said. The township has clearly not used this land as it was intended. It is not public land. Anyone who wants to use the land (and facilities) has to apply to the sportsman's club, be put on their agenda for a meeting, and be approved by a private club."
Because of what her clients believe was a public trust obligation, and the township's failure to act on the original intention of the deed, Ferguson said conditions for reverter did exist.

Recent judgement
Rodgers agreed, and offered the following conclusion in his ruling last week:
"Mina Wilcox gave the subject property to the defendant township for use as a public recreation park. She provided for the township to rent the property to the sportsman's club and accumulate the rental payments to make park improvements. The township accepted the dedication but subsequently abandoned it by essentially giving the land to the private, member-only sportsman's club. No rent was collected and no park improvement fund was created.
"By operation of law, the title to the property should revert to the plaintiffs as the heirs of Mina Wilcox. However, plaintiffs have indicated an overriding interest in the creation of the park. Therefore, this court grants the defendant township 180 days from (Jan. 13) to submit a township approved plan for developing a public park. The plan for development of the park must provide the substantial progress towards completion of the park within one year of the date that the plan is officially adopted and final completion within two years. The defendant sportsman's club shall vacate the property within 30 days after the township's approved plan is filed with the court.
"In the alternative, the township may, within 180 days of (Jan. 13), reject this opportunity to satisfy the Wilcox grant by so notifying the plaintiffs in writing. In that event, title shall revert to the plaintiffs and the defendant sportsman's club shall vacate the property within 30 days after this notice is filed with the court."
Rodgers said his decision and order "resolves the last pending claim and closes the case." He also offered a statement in response to the club's affirmation that it has spent "enormous amounts of money" on the property.
"In light of the fact that the sportsman's club did not pay for the land or pay reasonable rent or pay property taxes," Rodgers wrote, "the court believes that the club has been compensated for the improvements it has made."






*Sportsman's club, plaintiffs comment on verdict*
BY DAVE LEIN
Town Meeting Editor

Representatives from Elk Rapids Township and the Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club were surprised over last week's ruling that land given to the township, and used by the club since 1938 may now become a public park.
In turn, the plaintiffs believe Friday's ruling by Judge Philip Rodgers was a "proper decision" to ensure the land will be used as intended when it was first given to the township in 1948.
While Judge Philip Rodgers' recent action essentially closed the case, several issues remain unclear and are currently under review, according to attorneys for the defense.
"We were certainly surprised at the ruling," said Kevin Winters, attorney for the sportsman's club. "Right now we have some questions, and are taking a closer look at the judge's decision to determine our next course of action.
"Later this week the board for the sportsman's club will meet. At that time they will decide what the next step will be," he added. 
Township attorney Michael Turkelson offered a similar statement regarding a possible challenge to the ruling.
"All I can really say at this time is that the judge's ruling is currently under review," Turkelson said.
Sportsman's Club chairman Brian Kroll expressed concern over the recent decision. 
"The club has always been available to the public for such activities as our annual sight-in days," Kroll said, "and when it is open on Wednesdays and Sunday and staffed by club personnel for safety oversight.
"It's ironic that this issue first surfaced when the club was preparing to relocate its pistol range to another existing location at the club, where additional safety and noise abatement improvements were planned. 
"From the beginning, the club has expressed a willingness to work with all parties involved," he added. "If the club were to be displaced from it's current location after 65 years, the entire community would lose club-sponsored community programs such as Hunter Safety, where hundreds of local youth learn firearm safety and hunter ethics. The Kid's Fish Pond, a huge event every June will disappear, and use by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies would also end.
"Area hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts will not have a safe, regulated and supervised range. Instead, it is likely a lot of people will have to resort to practicing with their firearms on their own property or other areas not usually ideal, nor potentially safe," Kroll said.

Plaintiffs' statement
Commenting on behalf of her clients, plaintiff attorney Karen Ferguson offered the following statement Monday:
"We feel that the judge reached the proper decision in this case. For over two years, the plaintiffs who are grandchildren of Mina G. Wilcox asked the township to honor their grandmother's gift of property by establishing the Mina G. Wilcox Public Recreation Park. They had hoped to resolve this matter without the need for the lawsuit. Only when it was clear that the township would never establish the park, but would continue leasing the property for a private or exclusive purpose for the sportsman's club, did the grandchildren bring this lawsuit.
"Either the township did not understand or ignored its public trust obligations. When property is given to a municipality for use of the public, it must preserve that gift for the specific public purpose and must not use it for any other purposes. Judge Rodgers' decision recognizes that when municipalities receive gifts of property, the law will hold them to a very high standard.
"Mina G. Wilcox gave the property to the township for use of the public for the purpose of establishing the Mina G. Wilcox Public Recreation Park. The township accepted the property subject to the terms of the gift. Those terms were that the township could lease to the sportsman's club for a temporary period of time three acres of what is now an 11-acre property.
"The township was supposed to charge an appropriate annual rent which was to be set aside in a public park improvement fund. The deed said that the property was not to be given to any private group.
"However, the township never lived up to its promise. It never established the public recreation park. Instead it allowed an exclusive private club, the sportsman's club, to eventually take over the entire property. The township took no active part in monitoring or controlling the property.
"The township either charged the club no rent or a minimal rent of $1 per year, did not set up the public recreation park improvement fund, and did not assess the club any taxes. It allowed the club to submit applications for zoning permits and county building permits as the `owner' of the property. Judge Rodgers found that these actions constituted abandonment of the gift.
"The township and sportsman's club argued that the township could do anything it wanted to with the property, but as Judge Rodgers explained _ that is not the law. If it were, all gifts of property to municipalities or conservancies would be at risk. Donors would not make such gifts if their wishes for use of the gift could be so easily disregarded. Donors should not have to appoint their heirs as watchdogs over municipalities to ensure that their gifts are used properly.
"Contrary to the township's position in the lawsuit, Judge Rodgers found that because the township abandoned the public recreation park use, it reverts by operation of law to the heirs of the donor. Although the judge held that title to the property should revert to the plaintiffs as heirs of Mina G. Wilcox, he acknowledged the plaintiffs' preference for the establishment of their grandmother's park, and he extended a courtesy to the township to avoid reversion by submitting an appropriate plan for the development of a park."


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Just a little update here.
We now have the original language from the very first lease made to the Club by the donor in 1938, Mina Gates Wilcox. Remember as well that she lived for nearly the entire ten year term of the first lease. The point is that the donor herself favored the Club's presence with the terms of the first lease rather than seek "market value rent" even then.


> "in 1938, Mina Wilcox leased 3 acres of the property and road access for $1 for 10 years plus 2 membership tickets to the shooting range."


 


*A recreation field for the public*

Steve Francis



Samuel Johnson stated, law is the last result of human wisdom acting upon human experience for the benefit of the public. Circuit Judge Phillip Rodgerss decision in the Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club case calls into question at least one aspect of Dr. Johnsons claim. Whether or not the will of Mina Wilcox actually required a _public_ recreational field, it is clear that the Sportsmans club is, in fact, a public recreation field.



The codicil to the Wilcox will describes a gift of land for a recreational field and recognizes the existence of, and her desired indefinite continuation of, the Sportsmans club lease for a shooting range. The only mention of a _public_ in the codicil is in relation to Michigans requirement of non-discrimination in public parks based on race, color, or creed. The words public recreation field do not enter the documentation until the deed of the land to the township in fulfillment of the will, something that occurred after the death of Wilcox and did not necessarily reflect her intentions.



Even if wisdom, or divination of intent, leads one to conclude that Wilcox intended a public recreational facility, the Sportsmans Club already clearly fulfills that requirement. Space does not allow, nor common understanding of the term require, a justification for shooting sports to be categorized as recreation. It should suffice to state that Michigan public state game areas are established for exactly that form recreation. The issue must then be the public, or non-public, nature of the Sportsmans Club.



Much has already been written here regarding the public, and public-spirited, activities of the club. The club is open to the public during its hours of operation and turns no one away. That it is closed to all during many hours of each week is not a bar to it being a public recreational field. Many other local parks are closed during certain hours of the day and even during some months of the year. That the club requires fees to shoot is no different from paying fees to state or National parks to use their public facilities. In fact, shooting ranges in Michigan state recreation areas also charge a fee to shoot. The club has established safety rules for all to follow, such as exist for every local, state, or national park. These cant render the club non-public while the others remain public.



Perhaps the decision involves the potentially troubling term, club in the Sportsmans Club name. In our age of inclusiveness, a reflexive understanding of the word club is one of non-public exclusivity. I trust the appeals court will not be bamboozled by a word and, through wisdom and experience, recognize that the continued existence of the club not only effects Wilcoxs intent, but also benefits the public. 



_Steve Francis is an academic lawyer and professor of political science. He lives in Elk Rapids. Steve first published this guest editorial in the Elk Rapids Town Meeting, and has given me permission to repost it as appropriate_


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

I was up there a few weeks ago and went to check out the range. At the gate there is a sign saying something like "This is a private club. Guests must be accompanied by members" (from my memory).


Might be a good idea to take down the sign.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

You can now read the Appellate Brief by clicking to our website, and then the link at the top.
http://www.ersc.org/


----------



## Dust (Aug 29, 2003)

"I was up there a few weeks ago and went to check out the range. At the gate there is a sign saying something like "This is a private club. Guests must be accompanied by members" (from my memory)."

Private club on public land, no rent for 57 years, sometimes reality hurts. Ain't life a bitch.


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Not sure what Club, or what gate you found yourself at, but ours reads: "Open to members, and accompanied guests. Membership applications are located in the Clubhouse"

...Although the message may be the same, the connotation is far less suggestive of exclusivity than your "recollection". The reason we ask guests to be with members, at least the first time is because of safety issues. In reality however, a lot of non members just show up to shoot, thinking it's a quasi public range, which it pretty much is. When we have people show up who are not members, we take them around on a grand tour to explain how things work, and where the rules are posted for each range. We charge a nominal five dollar non member range fee, which is good for the day. We usually also give them a complimentary copy of the most recent newsletter with a membership application.
...Most of these people appreciate the hospitality, and some join.

...With respect to your second comment, it is apparently as flawed as your memory.
...If you take the time to read the Appellate brief, you will see that both the issues of a "Private Club", and the "rent" to be charged are addressed extensively, beginning with the original donor's intent.
...Just in case that much reading is too much of a burden, or perhaps that your memory is clouded by your perspective, I will include page references along with appropriate quotes.

On the issue of a Private Club:
...(From page 8)*STATEMENT OF FACTS*
The Club was formed in December 1937 (Appendix 9, Exhibit A). On May 4, 1938, MinaWilcox leased a portion of the land at issue to the Club, for the *exclusive* use of that land as ashooting range for ten (10) years, in return for one dollar ($1.00) and two memberships in the Club.
The lease also expressly allowed the Club to improve the land for shooting range purposes. The lease relevantly stated:"This Indenture Made and Executed at Elk Rapids, in the County of Antrim and State of Michigan this 18 day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine Hundred and thirty-eight, By and Between Mina Gates Wilcox, party of the first part, and The Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club, party of the second part,Witnesseth: That the said party of the first part *in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other considerations*, does hereby let and lease and the said party of the second part has agreed to take and does hereby take(* * * [property description)For the *term of ten years*, commencing on the first day of May, 1938 and ending on the 30 day of May April, 1948.*This lease is to remain in full force and effect so long as the property above described is used for the purpose of a shooting range. *And the party of the second part agrees that the property herein described is to be used as a shooting range.The party of the first part agrees to allow the party of the second part access to above described parcel of land by way of a woods road . . .*It is understood and agreed that the party of the second part maymake such improvements upon the above described shooting range as are suitable for its purpose and use.*​ 






*The compensation for the exclusive use by the Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club of the parcel designated as a shooting range, and for the joint use of the road designated as an access thereto shall be rental of One Dollar ($1.00) and the granting to the party of the first part two membership tickets without charge​*." When Mina Wilcox died in 1948, she left the land to the Township. The January 24, 1948 Codicil to the Will of Mina G. Wilcox directed the administrator of her estate to deed the land to the Township for development of a recreation field at the Townships discretion. The Codicil contained no reversionary clause, and stated Mina Wilcoxs "wish" that the Township could continue leasing the shooting range site to the Club, which should continue to have access to the land. The Codicil relevantly stated: "I direct my son, Paul Harlan Wilcox, as administrator of my estate, to deed to the Township of Elk Rapids


* * * [property description]








*This parcel of land is given to the Elk Rapids, Township for development of a recreation field. It is my wish that the Township of Elk Rapids shall not relinquish ownership of this parcel to any person or group, but I do wish the Township of shall be permitted to lease to the Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club, the site of its present shooting range, at the discretion [sic] of the Township Board, for reasonable periods of time (for example, 5 yr. periods), for some appropriate annual rental sums be put aside as a park improvement fund​*. At the present time the Elk Rapids Sportsmans Club has a nearly expired lease for the site of its shooting range. It uses an unimproved drive extending from the Bay Shore road across the field to its shooting range. This drive should be considerated [sic] as a temporary access and *the Sportsmans Club should be allowed to do sufficient grading to make the drive passable at its off-shoot from the Bay Shore road, pending the provision for a permanent access which should be designated by the Township Board, when the field is needed for some recreational project. *It is my suggestion, but not my dictation, that the permanent access be along the east-west quarter line, which is the southern boundary of said parcel. It is my understanding that the use of Michigan public parks is not denied to any person because of race, color or creed." (Appendix 4, emphasis added)​





From page 11... The Club continued to operate its shooting range and also significantly improved the property and provided benefits to the public (11/15/04 TR 7-8). There was no complaint or dispute. 

​





...page 18 The record demonstrates that Mina Wilcox considered shooting to be recreation, and a shooting range to be appropriate on the land. She leased the land to the Club for 10 years in return for one dollar ($1.00) and two memberships in the Club (Appendix 3). She never mentioned swing sets or anything else that the Circuit Court apparently contemplates for its "park plan" remedy. Instead, she expressly required in her lease to the Club that the land continue to be used as a shooting range (Appendix 3). Her Codicil expressed her wish that the Township continue entering leases with the Club (Appendix 4). The Township appropriately leased the land to the Club, which appropriately provided recreational activities on the land. 

...From page 19
The land is* not* closed to the public as the Court suggests (Appendix 1, p 7). The Club does not deny access based on race, creed, gender or other such criteria (8/19/04 TR 5-6; 11/15/04 TR 6). The Club is a nonprofit corporation that collects money to cover expenses, and maintains certain rules as necessary to safely operate a shooting range (ERSC answer, ¶ 43). It is also well known, and the Court might take judicial notice, that various state parks and state recreation areas have shooting ranges, and that there are certain hours of operation and other rules at shooting ranges. Thus, there is no sound basis for the Circuit Courts apparent belief that the Clubs shooting range is inconsistent with the use of the land for park purposes. 

...On "rent" 
...(page 21)
The Court indicated a belief that the Township should charge the ERSC higher rent, and establish a park improvement fund (Appendix 1, p 7). The only evidence of appropriate rent on this record, however, is Mina Wilcoxs 10-year lease to the Club for one dollar ($1.00) and two memberships in the Club (Appendix 3). Moreover, it is undisputed that the Club provides various public services that benefit the community and relieve the Township from providing these public services. (11/15/04 TR 7-8). As for park improvements, the Club expended considerable funds to improve the shooting range, just as Mina Wilcoxs 1938 lease to the Club expressly contemplated and stated (Appendix 3: "It is understood and agreed that the party of the second party may make such improvements upon the above described shooting range as are suitable for its purpose and use"). 

The Circuit Court also seemed to think that the land was being used improperly because a private entity (the Club) is operating the shooting facilities on the land (Appendix 1, p 7). Again, the Circuit Court cited no authority for its apparent belief, which is contrary to well-established authority
​







(​On April 12, 2005, SB 366 was introduced to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.101 et seq, to provide, in part: "On each day that a state park containing a designated shooting range is open to visitors, the department shall post a notice at the entrance to the recreation areas of the state park that states the hours of operation of the shooting range on that day.")



​







Recognizing that private entities may contract, operate and charge for facilities in parks. For example, in Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority v Attorney General, 146 Mich App 79, 80; 379 NW2d 474 (1986), this Court observed that at the park involved in the case, the "plaintiff or its various concessionaires charge fees for the use of a golf course, roller rink, boat riders, miniature golf course, tennis courts, binocular viewers, trackless train rides, boat shows and marinas." The circuit court entered a declaratory judgment against the plaintiffs proposal to lease parkland to a private entity for the construction, operation and maintenance of a water slide. This Court reversed, explaining, among other things, that the proposed lease did not violate the public trust, since the plaintiff was not selling the land, and was providing park facilities to the public. 146 Mich App at 86. Similarly, here, the Township leased the land to the Club, which has provided park facilities to the public.​







*III. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY CONSENT, WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL.



​







*The Circuit Courts decision should be reversed as a matter of law, as discussed above. For purposes of completeness, however, the Club respectfully submits that equity also bars Plaintiffs claims. The Club was formed in 1937 (Appendix 9, Exhibit A) and has continuously operated a shooting range on the land for nearly 70 years, beginning with the 1938 lease from Mina Wilcox (Appendix 3). The Club is well known in the community, particularly because it provides various community services (11/15/04 TR 7-8). The sounds of its shooting range are obvious to anyone who is near the land, and its improvements to the land are impossible to miss for anyone visiting it. Mina Wilcoxs children expressly consented to this use, and actively aided that continuation of the Clubs shooting range by making additional land transfers in 1959 to provide access to the ERSC (Appendix 9, Exhibits E and F), and in 1968 at the request of the Clubs Secretary/Treasurer (Appendix 9,Exhibits G and H). This record evidence demonstrates that Mina Wilcox and her children were well aware of the Clubs operation of a shooting range on the land, and expressly consented to and even supported the Clubs activities. There is no evidence that any of Mina Wilcoxs successors complained, or even suggested some different use of the land for several decades. Plaintiffs acknowledged that they first raised a concern in 2002 (Appendix 9, Exhibit L). Plaintiffs claims are therefore barred. Kirchen, supra, 291 Mich at 117 (owners of lots dedicated for park purposes were estopped from questioning a beer tavern owners right to maintain the tavern on the dedicated park land, where the lot owners permitted a building to be erected and used for many years without protest, and stood by and permitted the tavern owners to improve the building); Weber v Ford Motor Co, 245 Mich 213, 217-18; 222 NW 198 (1928) (assuming that deed created condition subsequent, the grantor was estopped to assert a breach of that condition subsequent, by not protesting nor asserting any rights for many years, with knowledge that improvements were being made). See also, Beulah Missionary Baptist Church v Spann, 132 Mich App 118, 124; 346 NW2d 911 (1984) ("a party certainly can be estopped from challenging the consequences of his own inaction.") 


...So, there you have it, both issues of use and rent first addressed by the donor herself, and following her death, the continued efforts of her direct descendants for another 30 years.

Your interpretation may vary, but in the absence of any facts, amount to so much, well, _dust!_

Please let us know the next time that you are in the area, just in case we have left the gate open.

Life isn't so much a _"bitch"_ to most, as _"reality"_ is to some.

...Time to get some, _reality_ that is.
:tsk: 
​





​


----------

