Camo At The Capitol

It’s baaaack - Bill would force sale of public hunting land to golf course developer

Maybe it’s the afterglow of Phil Mickelson's recent 2010 Masters masterpiece. Or the greening of Spring...or some other type of green. Whatever the inspiration came from, apparently some state legislators did not get the hint last year when sportsmen and women across the state chastised a legislative proposal that would force the DNRE to sell 475 acres of state-owned hunting land in Iosco County to a developer who intends to build yet another golf course on top of three he already owns in the same vicinity.

For awhile it seemed that the issue had long gone away, until it popped right back up like bad weed this week when MUCC learned Senate Bill 730 (Stamas, R-Midland) would be taken up for consideration in the Senate DNRE Appropriations Subcommittee next Thursday. That bill’s identical House counterpart, House Bill 5058 (Sheltrown, D-West Branch), tee’d off the whole debate last June but that bill does not appear on the agenda for testimony. Last summer Sheltrown worked the floor for a veto-proof majority as House Bill 5058 passed the House over a strong objection from hunters across the state.  The ensuing public outcry appeared to have diminished the Senate's appetite to let either bill surface under Subcommittee Chair Michelle McManus, but it appears McManus is allowing competing interests to air out their pent-up frustrations on the legislative dead-lock in a hearing next week.

Here’s some background for those who may have been deaf to outdoor legislative news last year…

Senator Stamas and Representative Sheltrown each introduced the bill as a favor for a constituent seeking to build a replica of St. Andrews Golf Course on the property close to where the Au Sable River dumps into Lake Huron – a popular public hunting area in Iosco County. Despite numerous attempts to purchase the land, the gentleman had been turned down by the DNR because the land is not considered “surplus” and is used heavily by hunters. So he sought the legislative route.

The sudden urgency to legislatively force the land sale came as a surprise to most in the hunting community since Sheltrown, who is endorsed by the NRA and has a legislative reputation for working with rank-and-file sportsmen, worked feverishly to make sure this issue came to the forefront of the legislative agenda.

The bill ironically also came on the heels of one of 2009’s first Public Acts – the “No-Net-Loss” of hunting land bill, which sailed easily through Sheltrown’s Committee just months prior to his introduction of HB 5058. Needless to say, MUCC harshly criticized the bill, arguing that large tracts of public hunting access should not be sold for economic development that would come at the expense of the hunting community. And certainly forcing the sale would fly in the face of the "No-Net-Loss" bill that unanimously passed the legislature just months prior. At least before the bill was passed out of the House, Sheltrown amended the bill to place proceeds from the land’s sale into the Game and Fish Fund instead of the General Fund as originally drafted – a change MUCC called for in its testimony against the bill. In the meantime, local government officials have come out in support of the bill, likely drooling over potential for tax revenue to local coffers. Senator Tony Stamas then introduced an identical version of the bill in the Senate (SB 730), which is being taken up next week.

Fast forward to today – here’s what to expect in next week’s hearing…

After nearly 10 months of idling in legislative purgatory, this hearing will likely be a very healthy debate on whether the legislature should be forcing our state land managers to sell 475 acres of public hunting land for economic development. Given Chair McManus’s purported position against the legislation, MUCC is hopeful that the hearing will be just that – a healthy debate. And after conversations with her office this week, it appears that no vote will be taken next week as the hearing will serve as a venue for testimony only.

Because proponents of the bill are making an economic development/Michigan's "doom and gloom" argument, MUCC will have an opportunity to tell the local governments that hunting and fishing can be – and are a critical part of local economies. Hunting and fishing generate $3.4 billion in annual spending in Michigan, which in turn has a $5.9 billion ripple effect on the state’s economy.  Additionally, sportsmen and women contribute about $406 million in federal tax revenue and $378 million in state tax revenue annually. Meanwhile, according to the Golf Association of Michigan, golf accounts for about $1.3 billion in golf-related hospitality and tourism spending annually. And if the legislators seem content on peddling away large tracts of state land to satisfy local special interests, access to sporting opportunities that drive economic stimulus to rural local communities will start becoming few and far between.

Our take

MUCC does not view this as a “hunting vs. golf” debate - both are two essential components of Michigan's tourism industry. But, we are against giving a special legislative preference to a land developer that alienates hunters, reduces access, and eliminates 475 acres of valuable wildlife habitat in northern Michigan. Plenty of hunters golf and plenty of golfers hunt. But what we’re talking about here is building yet another golf course on top of three existing courses in a state that has more public golf courses than any state in the country. And while we don’t like to remind you of the gloomy facts – more than 20 courses have closed since 2006 in the midst of Michigan’s economic downturn.

So if you hunt, fish, trap, or simply enjoy utilizing Michigan’s public lands and think that a legislative favor to a golf-course developer that would force the state to sell public land that would add to his golf course collection is a bad idea, please consider showing up to have your voice heard. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 29 at 1:00 p.m. at the State Capitol. If you can’t make it, at the very least consider contacting your state Senator (particularly Senate DNRE Appropriations Subcommittee members) about your opposition to Senate Bill 730 and House Bill 5058.

Leave a Comment Comments (1)