DNR Forest Management Stakeholder's Meeting

[signman]

The following comments are my perspective after attending today’s State Forest Management Plan Stakeholder’s Meeting. I will provide more detail later, but wanted to brief you on some general observations:

1)Each one of you should read the entire plan, or at the very least the Recreation and Transportation System sections that pertain to ORV use.

2)The DNR plans to have the final draft of this document in place by December 2006.

3)The last plan was implemented 28 years ago. Now the DNR is trying to hasten the implementation of a new plan that will guide policies for the next ten years.

4)The draft in its current form is based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading data.

5)The plan does not include a glossary of terms or definitions. The lack of such makes it very difficult to understand technical terms used by professional groups i.e., Timbermen’s Association, conservation groups, and others.

6) The December 2006 timeframe does not allow for adequate comment/public input for a plan of this complexity.


:WhiteRhino: Paul

[Zookeeper]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(signman &#064; Aug 23 2006, 05&#58;02 PM) 16832</div>

The following comments are my perspective after attending today’s State Forest Management Plan Stakeholder’s Meeting. I will provide more detail later, but wanted to brief you on some general observations:

1)Each one of you should read the entire plan, or at the very least the Recreation and Transportation System sections that pertain to ORV use.

2)The DNR plans to have the final draft of this document in place by December 2006.

3)The last plan was implemented 28 years ago. Now the DNR is trying to hasten the implementation of a new plan that will guide policies for the next ten years.

4)The draft in its current form is based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading data.

5)The plan does not include a glossary of terms or definitions. The lack of such makes it very difficult to understand technical terms used by professional groups i.e., Timbermen’s Association, conservation groups, and others.

6) The December 2006 timeframe does not allow for adequate comment/public input for a plan of this complexity.


:WhiteRhino: Paul
[/b]

The stakeholder&#39;s meetings was what I expected: a way for the DNR to say they held a stakeholder&#39;s meeting. The DNR staff I interacted with was more interested in defending their work on the draft plan than listening to what the participants had to say about suggested revisions. I sent my comments to the DNR regarding the draft plan; if anyone wants to see mine for ideas on how to write yours, PM me and I&#39;ll e-mail it to you. The main thing I wrote about was Section 5.11.1, which deals with concentrated recreation areas. That section alone has several contradictory statements within just a few paragraphs -- and sets the tone for LESS wheeling in Michigan.

:motz_6:

[Deathdealer]

I wouldn&#39;t mind seeing it, please PM me.

[Trail_Fanatic]

I&#39;d like to a copy too, please.

Thanx