# Return to "Department of Conservation"



## bradymsu

The Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality would become the Department of Conservation under SB 251, passed out of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural Resources this afternoon. The Senate explained that the combination would result in $800,000 in savings by shrinking the size of state government.


The combination of the two departments into a Department of Conservation faces an uncertain future in the House. Thirteen years ago, the House under former Conservation Committee Chair Rep. Tom Alley (D-West Brach) worked with former Republican Governor John Engler to split the two departments. Some current House members such as Rep. Joel Sheltrown (D-West Branch) favor retaining the current Department of Natural Resources and eliminating the Department of Environmental Quality by transferring its functions to the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and local conservation districts.
The combination of the two departments into a retro "Department of Conservation" is a significant change that has not been widely discussed by Michigan Sportsmen.


----------



## tommy-n

So your saying if passed it will go back to the way before Gov Engler changed it?


----------



## bradymsu

Prior to the split the department was a lot bigger than what would emerge with a combined department. What role the NRC would play over the new department and perhaps even the future of the NRC would be up in the air as well. And the change in name back to Department of Conservation wouldn't reverse a change Engler made, but a name change that was made long before Engler.


----------



## ridgewalker

To me, it would make more sense to leave the DNR alone. They have enough problems getting the job done without putting more into the pot. The DEQ would be better served by combining with other interests that are more aligned with theirs such as was mentioned in the second suggestion.


----------



## swampbuck

bradymsu said:


> Prior to the split the department was a lot bigger than what would emerge with a combined department. What role the NRC would play over the new department and perhaps even the future of the NRC would be up in the air as well. And the change in name back to Department of Conservation wouldn't reverse a change Engler made, but a name change that was made long before Engler.


 I guess I am nuetral on the proposal.......But if it got rid of the NRC I am 100% in support.


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

NRC as it is today needs to go. A NEW NRC with a few more members, representing the various interests, Hunters, trappers, motorized, horses, bikers, hikers, from ALL regions of the State, yet presiding over their home zone 1,2, or 3 perhaps, you get the idea, with the power to fire the DNR Director, and NOT named by elected or appointed positions. Their majority vote would approve or deny DNR policy requests. Eliminates the legislature, eliminates political appointments, voice of the users.

Oversight of this NRC could be held by 3 or 4 outdoor resource user groups, I.E., Upper Peninsula Sportsmans Alliance, MUCC, Equestrians, Motorized Recreationalists....ALL are permit purchasing groups that provide funding for their pursuits. (I think it's in the works for Equestrians for bridle tags?)

Whatever we do, we best get together, ALL OF US. We have been divided. DNR is currently puppet to Sierra Club, Humane Society of United States, eco groups, all with an agenda to eliminate trails into the forests, frustrate the users, dwindle the interest, and ultimately eliminate tresspass into the wilderness. The dove hunting bill is case in point. 

I heard USFWS agent say today, they essentially roll with the local DNR or DOW. He didnt want to admit it but got pinned down. For the record, federal guidelines acknowledge no conflicts with horses and wildlife management UNLESS the local authority determines the conflict, which the feds will back up. This is what happened in Michigan. It's bad policy. THe DNR broomed the horses, Now we have pending legislation viewed as hazardous bad legislation. Well, the fight is worth it, and would not have been necessary but bad DNR policy has forced the only possible option to stop it. ANY LAND TAKEAWAY FROM USERS IS BAD POLICY.

This is simply the beginning of ALL users losing access to public land.

I am really curious how they would handle the Amish if they decided to traverse pigeon, recreate, hunt, pick berries or camp. USFWS says "Well we would have to be politically correct". 

I report, you decide.

I dont care if you hate horses, bow hunting, trapping, hiking, berry picking, whatever...swallow your pride and get together. The end is closer than you think.

I was just informed of an article in NRA publication about trails and how they will systematically FORCE you to hire the local guide to retrieve your downed game....you pay the guide, the guide pays for a permit to do the work. Get the picture? 

Gradually you wont have the ambition to hike 5 miles in to hunt, which turns that area into the big wild for the hikers and bird watchers, who wont use it due to the predators. Take it from there.

I dont know about you, but I find it hard to imagine trying to introduce a kid or adult for that matter, to hunting, with all the obstacles being put in place.

The anti's are smart enough to organize, they are in Michigan, they are manipulating us, and we are fighting amongst ourselves. United we stand????

One thing cited was EROSION. PULLLEEZZE..Erosion is a natural phenomenon. Without it we wouldnt have the grand canyon, bryce, etc. The special interest anti's need to leave.


----------



## Michihunter

Brady- Does Rep. Sheltron have any plans of offering an amendment or authoring an entirely new bill that would leave the DNR as it is and meld the DEQ with the EPA? That seems to make the most sense to me.


----------



## PWood

I support the combining of the DNR and DEQ. Engler made a big mistake pushing to split the two creating a larger bureaucracy. I fail to see how we can separate the forests, wildlife and fishery from the environment the live in.


----------



## bradymsu

Michihunter said:


> Brady- Does Rep. Sheltron have any plans of offering an amendment or authoring an entirely new bill that would leave the DNR as it is and meld the DEQ with the EPA? That seems to make the most sense to me.


Not at this time. As usual, I posted this to get a sense of the opinion of sportsmen outside the Legislature. Reaction seems to be much more muted than what I would have anticipated.

In the House, Sheltrown works on the policy side, not the Appropriations side. Because this is an Appropriations item, I would anticipate seeing any changes coming from the House Appropriatins Committee. The questions this raises though are interesting. Would their be one director or dual directors? What role would the NRC play? I can't imagine Director Humphries would want to handle wetlands permits or the NRC serving as an appeal board for denials of air quality permits.

The reason the DNR and DEQ was split in the first place is twofold. It was to break up the bureaucratic power and abuse of the DNR that existed before the split. And was also to improve a focus on both environmental quality and conservation. Do we really want a conservation department that will need to spend a lot of its funding, staff resources and attention focusing on wetland permits, air quality permits, solid waste permits and drinking water quality, rather than on hunting, fishing, parks, trails and marinas? In 48 of the 50 state, environmental regulation is handled by the EPA at the federal level, not by state conservation departments.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Wow! What a bad idea. I agree that the DEQ should be merged but not with the DNR. I remember those days. Can we eliminate the NRC while we are at?


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE

QUOTE*
NRC as it is today needs to go. A NEW NRC with a few more members, representing the various interests, Hunters, trappers, motorized, horses, bikers, hikers, from ALL regions of the State, yet presiding over their home zone 1,2, or 3 perhaps, you get the idea, with the power to fire the DNR Director, and NOT named by elected or appointed positions. Their majority vote would approve or deny DNR policy requests. Eliminates the legislature, eliminates political appointments, voice of the users.
END QUOTE*

X2. I fully support the above, and while where at it, shrink the DNR a little bite more too.


----------



## TC-fisherman

bradymsu said:


> The reason the DNR and DEQ was split in the first place is twofold. It was to break up the bureaucratic power and abuse of the DNR that existed before the split.





bradymsu said:


> In 48 of the 50 state, environmental regulation is handled by the EPA at the federal level, not by state conservation departments.


Where do you get these ideas from??????

Complete and utter untrue BS!


----------



## bradymsu

TC-fisherman said:


> Where do you get these ideas from??????
> 
> Complete and utter untrue BS!


Regarding the split between the DNR and DEQ, I worked for Rep. Tom Alley as his committee aide prior to him being term limited. Tom chaired the House Conservation Committee and worked with Engler to split the DNR in the mid-1990's. I have been in touch with him several times regarding the recombination of the departments. So, I'm a primary historical source with an even better primary historical source.

In terms of environmental regulations, I should clarify that Michigan is one of only two states to do its own wetlands permitting. The other 48 states do their wetlands permitting through the federal government.

I have no interest in getting into a flame war with you on the internet. It's pointless. But if you have a different view on this issue from what I have offered, you are welcome to share it.


----------



## TC-fisherman

bradymsu said:


> And was also to improve a focus on both environmental quality and conservation.


I'm not interested in a flame war but if you post crap expect to be called on it.

Yeh the Engler admin was very interested in improving the focus on environmental quality. If you can say that with a straight face well you'll say just about anything


----------



## bradymsu

TC-fisherman said:


> I'm not interested in a flame war but if you post crap expect to be called on it.
> 
> Yeh the Engler admin was very interested in improving the focus on environmental quality. If you can say that with a straight face well you'll say just about anything


I'm sorry you feel my perspective is "crap", especially considering it can be supported by primary evidence. If you feel the need to call me on it, I would be open to hearing your perspective on why the former DNR was split and how you came to that conclusion.

It terms of the split of the DNR and the DEQ resulting in a greater focus on conservation by the DNR, this comes from statements made to me by DNR staff. I know many DNR staff were very happy to be rid of being an environmental regulatory department.

Regarding Engler and the DEQ, I agree that Engler certainly wasn't seen as a "green" governor and that Russ Harding as DEQ director frequently sided with business interests over environmentalists.


----------



## TC-fisherman

bradymsu said:


> I'm sorry you feel my perspective is "crap", especially considering it can be supported by primary evidence. .


fact or crap?



bradymsu said:


> In 48 of the 50 state, environmental regulation is handled by the EPA at the federal level, not by state conservation departments.


fact or crap?



bradymsu said:


> And was also to improve a focus on both environmental quality


My perspective is based on the fact I haven't been in vegetative state the last 15 years.

Tom alley hated the dnr and he hated the dnr and the deq after it was split. Both the Engler admin and members of the legislature didn't like the fact the DNR was enforcing environmental laws on the books. Rather then repealing those laws they instead split off the DEQ, put in their own management, and basically proceeded to ignore the laws they were supposed to enforce.

Don't thinks thats true. well the DEQ employees recognized what was going on http://www.peer.org/pubs/surveys/1998_mi_deq.pdf


Its intellectually dishonest and cowardly when reps like sheltrown rather than get the votes to change environmental laws they disagree with instead propose to get rid enforcement agencies altogether under the guise of saving money. To think that local conservation districts have the capacity or organizational structure to enforce laws is the height of stupidity. I guess when you represent counties where a high school education is the pinnacle of higher learning you can get away with that stuff.

Its no wonder lansing is the cluster that it is


----------



## S.E.M.O.R.E.

TC-fisherman said:


> fact or crap?
> 
> 
> 
> fact or crap?
> 
> 
> 
> My perspective is based on the fact I haven't been in vegetative state the last 15 years.
> 
> Tom alley hated the dnr and he hated the dnr and the deq after it was split. Both the Engler admin and members of the legislature didn't like the fact the DNR was enforcing environmental laws on the books. Rather then repealing those laws they instead split off the DEQ, put in their own management, and basically proceeded to ignore the laws they were supposed to enforce.
> 
> Don't thinks thats true. well the DEQ employees recognized what was going on http://www.peer.org/pubs/surveys/1998_mi_deq.pdf
> 
> 
> Its intellectually dishonest and cowardly when reps like sheltrown rather than get the votes to change environmental laws they disagree with instead propose to get rid enforcement agencies altogether under the guise of saving money. To think that local conservation districts have the capacity or organizational structure to enforce laws is the height of stupidity. *I guess when you represent counties where a high school education is the pinnacle of higher learning you can get away with that stuff.*
> 
> Its no wonder lansing is the cluster that it is


Apparently you resent folks with common sense and the ability to spar with and defeat institutionally crafted sheeple.


----------



## bradymsu

S.E.M.O.R.E. said:


> Apparently you resent folks with common sense and the ability to spar with and defeat institutionally crafted sheeple.


Well, put SEMORE. There is an elitist mentality within state government and their cheerleaders outside of state government who believe the public is too stupid to have a say in environmental protection and natural resource mangement in our state. While some of these people may have good intentions, they are a cancer on the public support necessary to adequately fund these departments.

Those whose "pinnacle of higher learning" is a high school education make up the majority of taxpayers in this state. State government exists to work for them, not the reverse. A state agency that is doing a good job is going to welcome meaningful public involvement in the policy making process, not try to insulate itself from it.


----------



## TC-fisherman

a state agency (and politicians) doing a good job also educate the public about the choices involved in the decision making process rather than hiding the true consequences of their bills. Keep bashing those elitists in state government who work for the DEQ and DNR. It's definately a crowd pleaser.

Like I said it no wonder lansing is a mess


----------



## bradymsu

TC-fisherman said:


> a state agency (and politicians) doing a good job also educate the public about the choices involved in the decision making process


I agree, but that education has to work in both directions. The public needs to know that their views are not only being heard by policy makers but that they also are having a significant influence on the policy making process. The problem with the DNR and DEQ is that they'll have a proposal, hold a public meeting or a public comment period on a proposal, and then go ahead with what they intended to do anyway with little or no modification regardless of the public comment. Then they wonder why so few people show up for their public meetings.

I didn't come on Michigan Sportsman because I had an agenda to press. When I put a post on here about a natural resource policy issue happening in state government, it's because I'm looking for feedback from people who are going to have a variety of perspectives and often much more informed opinions on an issue than I or Rep. Sheltrown have. Sure, any internet forum is going to produce its share of drunks, cranks, flamers and general critics of government, but in between those posts are a wealth of thoughts on issues that policy makers could never find simply by contacting organizations that lobby the Legislature or NRC/DNR. The recent discussion about OBR on the Deer Management forum or the very active discussions that took place regarding crossbows are two great examples.

State government not only has an obligation to educate the public, it also has an obligation to be educated by the public. I'm not saying this for the purposes of political pandering although I understand your skepticism. I honestly believe that we need to have far more openness and citizen involement in environmental and natural resources policy in this state than exists currently.


----------

