Camo At The Capitol

Michigan needs a hook and bullet governor

January 5th, 2010 by Dave Nyberg.

If you have not been watching the latest poll numbers lately regarding Michigan's 2010 gubernatorial race (yes, that's right - it's already election season), you may be shocked to hear that Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry today officially threw in the towel on his aspiration to become the Democratic Party's nominee and hopeful successor to term-limited Governor Granholm. Most political insiders considered Cherry a shoe-in for the Democratic nod not too long ago, but being unable to break the natural link between himself and the state's top executive, Cherry's demise dove with along with the public's increasing discomfort with her.

Cherry's congenial personality and admiration for hunting, conservation and the outdoors create a natural connection between him and the average sportsman or woman. As MUCC's 2005 Conservationist of the Year, Cherry has worked closely with MUCC over the years to conserve Michigan's natural resources and enhance our outdoor heritage. In 2008, Cherry worked directly with MUCC to create a comprehensive statewide action plan for Great Lakes restoration in the MI Great Lakes Plan and in recent months has preached loudly about the importance of improving the health of the Great Lakes as part of Michigan's "Blue Water Economy."

However, despite a strong plea from MUCC and the Michigan Conservation Coalition to reject Governor Granholm's proposal to strip the bi-partisan Natural Resources Commission's ability to appoint the director of Michigan's new Department of Natural Resources and Environment and transfer that authority to a politically-motivated governor, Cherry instead chose to defend the idea - a move that left a very bad taste in the mouth of conservation organizations and rank-and-file sportsmen across the state. As a result of Cherry's inaction and Granholm's power grab, Michigan's new DNRE director will now be subject to the political whims of election years instead of the bi-partisan NRC. This move is not only bad policy, but also flies in the face of the concept Michigan citizens overwhelmingly supported by the passage of Proposal G in 1996: Removing politics out of natural resource management.

In order to ensure Michigan's natural resources are managed from a science-based perspective instead of a political one, it's absolutely necessary that we continue the fight to return control of Michigan's DNRE back to the NRC. So as primary races tighten and November approaches, MichiganOutofDoors.com and MUCC will be asking each candidate aspiring to be Michigan's next governor what they think...not just about returning appointment authority, but about improving sound scientific management practices and preserving Michigan's outdoor heritage.

With anti-hunting groups working to ban hunting in Michigan and conservation funding plunging along with hunter recruitment, Michigan now more than ever needs a hook and bullet governor. 

Leave a Comment Comments (3)

Previous Comments

#1 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010

Your article is ‘right on’.  Please keep us informed of all the candiates views that are important to the ‘outdoor sports folks’ in this state.  I think you are doing an admirable job.  Thanks again for being there.

#2 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2010

Thank-you MUCC for fighting the “good Fight”. Meanwhile, so many of us Michigan sportsmen/women sit idly by and do not get involved.
Way too many people believe that “old-growth forests” that are left to rot and decay should be the future of Michigan. WRONG, as the available forests in this state decrease we need to be ever more vigilant in the management of them. It is the wildlife that requires timber-cutting and the dense re-growth that begins two years later. It is not what I personally need - but rather what the wildlife needs. Let us all fight this MDNR political appointment business, there is no place for politics in our resources management.

#3 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2010

I agree with most that we’d like NRC to say who the director is rather than the governor, particularly since we can anticipate some less environmentally friendly governors in our future, as it has been in our past.

I mostly disagree with Todd McLain.  Old growth is rare, supports lots of wildlife, is essential to some species, and clear-cutting was exceedingly rare before the European invasion (fire was allot more common though), so it is hard to argue that wildlife requires it. I agree that areas of uniform-age single-species conifers (which are nothing like forests) are like deserts once the trees get to be a certain age.  Plantations around the Ausable are a good example - don’t be shocked if the deer have decreased.  A clear-cut has more deer (and grouse) for a short time, but you pay for it later, for decades. Folks were trying to do almost anything to deal with a landscape almost completely denuded by robber barons and fire 100 years ago, when forestry was in its infancy.  We can do better now. 
- Rork Kuick
I volunteer for the DNR conserving prairie in the southern lower, so I do see another side.  Maybe the DNR could use your help managing the land too, once you are done hunting and fishing, and want to give something back.

Add Your Comment

  • Great Deals on WhiteTail Products. Shop at the Marketplace.
  • Defend Your Rights. Join MUCC.
  • Sign up for Membership. Learn about all the great benefits.

Click here to get the News & Blogs Feed delivered to your RSS.