Here is where we are counting on member Preserves to supply us with pertinent and interesting material.

Reports on events throughout the state held by or related to Michigan Underwater Preserves or other relevant concerns will be welcomed. Photos will be posted on individual Preserve pages as space permits.

We're looking forward to making this an interesting, informative and entertaining feature of this website, so please start sending materials to us through news@michiganpreserves.org
 

• June 22, 2007
• MUPC POSITION "GREAT LAKES STATE PARK"
• MUPC POSITION SUBSTITUTE “GREAT LAKES STATE PARK” LEGISLATION SB 429, 430, 431 / HB 4638, 4640

• June 22, 2007
• INTRODUCTION .....
• THE MUPC WANTS to keep its members and the dive community informed about the legislation creating a “Great Lakes State Park” (this name may be changed)..... FOR THAT REASON, we have added this information to our “News” section of our website.... This information is meant to be factual and not speculation or hearsay.... If a fact is disputed, we have tried to make note of it..... WE EMPHASIZE THAT there are differing views of the matters reported here... It is up to you to determine its wisdom..... WE WILL ALSO try to update with new developments, especially if these bills are changed and post meeting notices when we learn of them.... In the case of committee hearings, we generally get very little notice.... Please do not think if we are being lazy if we post at the last minute.... It only means that we just learned of it.

• June 22, 2007
• Does anyone have some special motive in getting this legislation adopted?
• POSSIBLY..... Proponents of this legislation may benefit from studies to explore this “park” to be done after it is created...... Others may want to alter the preserve system in Michigan and replace it with something else...... You can go to Brendon Baillod’s “Great Lakes Research” website where this has been discussed extensively on a discussion board..... A similar discussion has occurred on “ScubaBoard” under “Great Lakes Wrecking Crew” item: “Great Lakes Legislation”.....and a thread titled The Truth about the Great Lakes Park".... By looking at those sites you will see some of the motives underlying the actions of a few of the legislation’s advocates......You may also want to review a letter from Brendon Baillod that he submitted for testimony before the senate committee.....The committee clerk can get it for you or your senator can get it if you call.

• June 22, 2007
• What is odd about how these bills were introduced?
• THESE BILLS WERE INTRODUCED WITH NO CONSULTATION with any state department or any preserve with the exception of the proposed Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preseve..... Some very odd events surrounded the introduction of this legislation..... One MUPC member heard that some legislation was going to be introduced to create a “scuba park” on the Sunday before it was introduced.....The folloowing day, he attended a meeting of the Bottomland Preserve and Salvage Committee at Lansing believing that someone, especially the DEQ or Department of History Arts and Libraries (HAL) who have jurisdiction over preserves would mention it..... Nothing was said..... He believed he was mistaken..... When he went home, he checked the Michigan legislature website for introduced bills and nothing appeared..... The following day, about 27 hours after the Salvage Committee ended, he again checked the legislature site and found 6 bills introduced to create this “park”..... During the next 24 hours MUPC members contacted the DNR, DEQ and HAL..... None of them knew anything about this..... In some cases, the MUPC members provided them with the first copies they saw..... The departments were not consulted and one official said “We were completely blind-sided”.

• June 22, 2007
• Who is Sen McManus?
• A REPUBLICAN WITH A HIGH RANKING IN THE SENATE..... She is the republican Assistant Senate Majority Leader..... That makes her a ranking member in the party controlling that chamber.

• June 22, 2007
• Did a diver introduce this?
• SEN McMANUS IS A NEW DIVER...... Sen Michelle McManus is the primary sponsor of these laws......Her district is from the area west of Traverse City and to Cadillac and Reed City and Reed City (approx).... She took up scuba diving last year...... She is an enthusiastic new diver and sees scuba diving as a tourist possibility to bring in substantial money (millions) as “diving tourism”......This enthusism is common among new divers who do not really understand the industry in detail..... Some proponents may have convinced her that Michigan can become another Florida Keys or Southern California as a diver destination......Enthusiasm is a good thing, all new divers have it...... But good long term decisions should not be made as an enthusiastic new diver.

• June 22, 2007
• Why were these bills introduced?
• A CLAIM OF INCREASING TOURISM BY DIVERS..... The publicly expressed purpose is to promote diving “tourism”...... It has also been claimed that it will benefit all divers and most recently that it will benefit dive shops in Michigan....Some proponents may have some personal benefit (ego stroking or financial to get contracts to "study" - this is speculation)

• June 22, 2007
• Who wrote these laws?
• A SERVICE AGENCY OF THE LEGISLATURE...... The actual laws were written by the legislative bureau...... It is a non-partisan staff in the legislature that takes requests and/or ideas from legislators and writes up bills to be introduced...... They come up with the language used in the bills.

• June 22, 2007
• Did anyone else have a role in creating this legislation?
• YES, AT LEAST GREG MacMASTER AND A CONSULTANT NAMED KEN VRANA......A Lansing area consultant named Ken Vrana and Greg MacMaster of the proposed Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve......Bob Wilson of the Republican Senate Policy Office may have been involved because the senate is controlled by republicans and Sen McManus serves there...... There is nothing unusual about this it is his job...... There may be others but those are the only ones we can identify.

• June 22, 2007
• If these bills were written by the legislature, how can they be wrong?
• LAWS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE ARE OFTEN OVERRULED BY THE COURTS...... Laws are often written and passed that are confusing or conflict with other laws...... That is why courts exist to interpret laws...... The legislature is not infallible and you have probably heard of cases being overruled as unconstitutional or interpreted because they were not clear or some anticipated problem arose that no one though of......The US Supreme Court is frequently in the news because it did this....The MUPC believes that such errors are contained in these laws.

• June 22, 2007
• Who sponsored these laws?
• SEVERAL SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.... Each bill has a different primary sponsor......They are co-sponsored by a number of others......There is overlap between the sponsors and co-sponsors......The entire group is a bi-partisan mix of republicans and democrats......This form of sponsorship is very common.

• June 22, 2007
• Are there 6 laws or just one?
• THERE ARE SIX 'BILLS' WITH 3 IN THE SENATE AND 3 IN THE HOUSE TO BEGIN THE PROCESS...... This legislation is divided into 6 separate “bills”...... Each bill does something different to amend or add to existing law...... You have to read them all together to understand how they work because they apply to different parts of the laws...... In fact, to really understood them, you have to “cut and paste” them into existing law so that you can read them as they will look in final form...... This is impossible for a lay person/average diver...... It puts divers at a distinct disadvantage...... The MUPC legislative committee has done that and produced a memo for its members outlining the substantial problems caused by these changes........... The 6 laws were introduced with 3 in each house...... The procedure is then to hold at least one hearing before a committee and vote to approve it..... It then goes to the full chamber in each house where a vote is held on its 3 bills and then the bills go to the other house for the same process...... After each house has approved all six bills they go to the governor to sign or veto.

• June 22, 2007
• What has happened so far?
• COMMITTEE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELD IN EACH HOUSE ON THE BILLS......The 3 bills assigned to the house have had an initial hearing before the house of representatives Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday May 22...... The 3 bills assigned to the senate Natural Resources Committee have had 2 hearings...... The first was held on Wednesday, May 23 and a second on Wednesday June 13...... The second hearing was on proposed “substitute” bills for the original senate bills..... There are 2 other substitutes pending in the house but no committee meeting has been held..... We cannot find these "substitutes" in the official records of the bills so it is not clear if they have actuaally been introduced.

• June 22, 2007
• When can a committee vote be taken?
• AT ANYTIME AFTER HEARING OR, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, ON THE DAY OF HEARING...... The custom is for a hearing to be held...... Then it is voted on at the next week or such other time as the chair calls it up...... So far, these have not been called up...... The committees meet each Tuesday (house) and Wednesday (senate) unless cancelled...... The chair controls the agenda and determines what goes on it.

• June 22, 2007
• Why are things moving so quickly?
• IT MAY BE TO AVOID PROTEST FROM DIVERS AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES. THIS IS DENIED BUT WE CAN THINK OF NO OTHER REASON.......There was an initial attempt to rush these bills into adoption..... When we first talked to the representative for the eastern UP, his office thought this was legislation introduced as a “favor”...... This happens often when a legislator wants to show he or she is working on something but it never gets to a hearing...... However, less than a month after introduction, these bills had the first round of hearings...... We got 3 ½ working days notice to appear...... A second senate hearing was 2 weeks later.... We have been told that this is not on a “fast track” but it does not look that way judging by its initial handling...... Some of this may (we do not for sure) be by Sen McManus’s desire to get this passed...... This is not a “favor” legislation..... This plan to move the legislation along may have been frustrated, in part, through the efforts of the MUPC and its members.

• June 22, 2007
• Were any dive groups consulted?
• ONLY THE PROPOSED GRAND TRAVERSE BAY UNDERWATER PRESERVE...... The MUPC was not contacted...... With the exception of the proposed Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve, we know of no individual preserve that was contacted...... We cannot find any dive club that was contacted...... We have not found any dive shops that were consulted although an aide in Sen McManus’s office said that two were...... At the June 13 senate committee hearing, ZZ Underwater offered testimony supporting the legislation but we cannot say that it had any role in writing this...... That is the only dive shop we have found openly expressing support...... One of the Traverse City dive shops outright opposes it and the other appeared at the June 13 hearing and has expressed concerns about its affect on diving.

• June 22, 2007
• Why should anyone be obligated to talk to divers about legislation?
• DIVERS ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF OPERATING PRESERVES AND PROMOTING DIVING IN MICHIGAN....OF COURSE, THEY PARTICIPATE IN IT TOO.....DIVING EVERYWHERE IN MICHIGAN'S GREAT LAKES IS AFFECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION..... Divers originally played an important role in writing the legislation to create preserves and to protect shipwrecks...... Since 1980, the preserves have received very little government support except for some early help from the Michigan Sea Grant Program...... At one time in the early 1990’s they received a supply of buoys and the like through the Sea Grant Program...... Except for that, divers have done everything...... They place buoys, buy buoys and rope as needed, buy shackles and hardware and maintain the whole system with no government support...... The drafters of these laws do not appear to know anything about this...... Divers are more than participants; they are active “partners” with the state in operating preserves...... In fact, they “operate” the preserves in the absence of the state...... Divers deserve an opportunity to be heard on legislation before it is written.

• June 22, 2007
• Do legislators understand diving?
• PROBABLY NOT...... Mostly no...... With few exceptions, we have not encountered any active divers among the legislators...... This is not at all surprising and there is nothing wrong with that...... Because of a lack of familiarity with diving, there is a lot of naïve thinking caused by this lack of understanding......This is easily exploited by proponents to make diving in Michigan look like diving in warmwater like the Caribbean.... We have tried to explain that Great Lakes diving is not Caribbean diving...... It takes special training, experience and equipment....... Even with that, it can be dangerous...... They may not understand this...... At one hearing a MUPC board member had to explain what a recompression chamber is and why it is needed...... They also did not appear to know about narcosis or decompression sickness...... It is not their fault that they are acting on something they do not understand...... One person submitting written testimony observed that they are “being sold a bill of goods”...... This is easy when advocates gloss over everything negative...... In fact, the advocates describe this act of explaining diving as “bashing” diving...... Their focus is on making money from diving; not on diving as an activity.

• June 22, 2007
• Has anything like a “Great Lakes State Park” ever been considered before?
• YES, IN A 1992 SEA GRANT STUDY......In 1992, the Michigan Sea Grant program prepared a study considering the feasibility of converting at least some preserves into “aquatic parks”....... Part of the study measured the willingness to charge for use of the park...... The author was Ken Vrana who found that users were willing to pay...... The charge examined was for a “day pass” to use the "aquatic park".

• June 22, 2007
• How are Preserves affected by this Great Lakes State Park?
• PROBABLY ADVERSELY......This is uncertain....... Preserves include the bottomland and the water above them to the surface....... The description of this “park” being used in the bills only specifies the “bottomlands”....... We do not know the exact relation or if they overlap....... The preserve laws are not expressly repealed but a number of changes are made that seem to impact them negatively....... No immediate improvements to the preserves are spelled out.

• June 22, 2007
• Is the Bottomland Preserves and Salvage Committee be changed?
• YES...IT WILL CHANGE ITS NAME AND FOCUS TO CONCENTRATE ON THE GREAT LAKES STATE PARK AND THAT PARK'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT.......The name will be changed to the “Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Committee” and its composition and duties will be changed....... More emphasis will be on tourism and promotion and conservation and stewardship will be reduced by this change....... No actual money is set aside or provided for promotion or advertising even though the committee is being changed....... It is supposed to “study” it, however (along with how to fund it and recommend the price for "decals").

• June 22, 2007
• Will the state provide any infrastructure like buoys?
• NOT IN PRESERVES AND PROBABLY NOT ELSEWHERE......While a “study” may examine it, no money will be provided for buoying or any other purpose unless the legislature finds some way to fund it someday (except for the paltry "decal" sales")..... At hearings in May, the senate and house committees were told about the need for buoys, air stations, chambers and the like if “diving tourism” is going to be promoted in Michigan as a true “State Park”....... The response was not to address that by redrafting the bills to take the “park” outside the “State Park System” and avoid paying for anything....... The committees were told that a very conservative estimate to place blocks and buoys in the Straits is $40,000 one time plus on going maintenance........ An actual and explicit effort has been made in the text of the revised bills to avoid the state having to pay for anything now or anytime soon.

• June 22, 2007
• Won’t this help dive stores in Michigan?
• BECAUSE OF MARKET CONDITIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IN MICHIGAN, PROBABLY NOT OR ONLY MODESTLY...... It is doubtful...... The proponents have offered only speculation to support this...... Michigan’s dive industry faces a number of unique challenges today that this legislation will not solve...... The numbers of divers getting into diving and staying in it has been relatively flat.... According to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and other reliable data, sales of diving gear across the USA have been fairly flat for 15 years, Michigan’s economy is in very bad condition reducing disposable income.....Perhaps most significant, INTERNET SALES are greatly damaging the sales of local dive shops.... A "park" will do nothing to stop internet sales....The proponents never address this.

• June 22, 2007
• Won’t this increase diving tourism in Michigan?
• PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF MARKET CONDITIONS.......This is doubtful...... The proponents have offered only speculation to support this...... Foreign travel to warm climates has become very popular and cheap...... Many dive shops orient much of their marketing to this year round group...... Michigan also has a dive season of only 3 – 3 ½ months...... The southern United States, Caribbean and other warm water destinations are open year round and attractive to casual divers.....The USA is not the only country with this experience.....The same has occurred in the United Kingdom.

• June 22, 2007
• Did 6000 divers go to the Alger preserve in 1994 and 1995 (each year)?
• NOT LIKELY. IT IS NOT RELIABLY CONFIRMED AND ONLY AN UNSCIENTIFIC "GUESS"......Some proponents cite this number from a “study”...... But this number is not reliable....... It is drawn from a Michigan Sea Grant study prepared to measure how much an individual diver spends in the local community for charters, meals, lodging and the like....... The local community asked for a total contribution by divers....... Because there were no reliable numbers for this and it was not surveyed by the person preparing the study, he told them to “estimate” this number....... The “6000” is an unscientific “guess”.......This information was confirmed with the study’s author in a letter dated June 2007 from the author verifying this.......Another fact that shows that this is not reliable (or provided no real benefit) is that Census Bureau statatiscs for the decade of the 1980's shows that Alger county 1)population declined, 2)median household income decreased;and 3) family household income decreased.

• June 22, 2007
• Won’t this turn all of Michigan into another “Tobermory”?
• THIS NOT POSSIBLE.... In Tobermory a number of things are different...... It is one special geographic destination as opposed to 11 preserves in Michigan...... The provincial government financially supports the preserve there by providing infrastructure like buoying...... There is also a fee to use the preserve and an extra fee to dive the intentionally sunk “Niagara”...... (Diving at Tobermory declined after fees were introduced)...... Canada has also tried to repeat the Tobermory model elsewhere in Canada and failed.

• June 22, 2007
• Can’t diving be as be as popular as snowmobiling that also has a short season?
• THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO........ Not unless some radical unexplained and unanticipated event occurs...... From 1990 to 2005, sales of snowmobiles increased almost 3 fold...... During the same time, scuba sales hovered up and down with minimal increase.....The diving trend is not for lack of places to dive, it is demographics making snowmobiling very popular.

• June 22, 2007
• Can’t we promote scuba ice diving in the winter for tourism?
• THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT DO IT..... One proponent of this legislation has asserted that Michigan could gain tourism dollars by promoting ice diving..... This will not happen...... The farther north you go, the fewer air stations there are.... Most anything in the UP will be closed because the weather conditions do not justify being open...... In the Lower Peninsula, dive shops already offer ice diving courses...... There is no objective evidence the number of ice divers is likely to increase whether this legislation passes or not....Only anecdotal opinion by one proponent has supported this clam.

• June 22, 2007
• Will this help sink ships in the Great Lakes?
• A SHIP CAN ALREADY BE SUNK IN EACH PRESERVE...... A ship can be sunk in each preserve now...... It is uncertain why anyone would sink a single ship outside a preserve because it provides only a single dive site...... All the duties, cleaning and so forth, are still required by these laws...... On the other hand, this legislation does make it possible for a location to sink several ships (we regard this as unlikely) while preserves can only sink one...... However, this is another confused point as to whether preserves can do what the rest of the “park” can do or is limited to what the preserve laws allow.

• June 22, 2007
• If a ship is sunk, won’t it bring millions of dollars to Michigan?
• THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THIS, ONLY SPECULATION...... This has not been studied to find out anything reliable...... Very unreal comparisons are made by proponents...... The experience of the Florida Keys and San Diego are cited as examples of cases where sinkings have produced “millions” for the dive industry...... The actual numbers of dollars can be measured in those terms...... However, these comparisons are not good ones when the total contribution to the local community is made...... Both communities have large tourist economies of which diving is a single small part...... No preserve in Michigan is like that...... In the Florida Keys, other tourist opportunities (it is also a major cruise ship port of call) are actually more popular...... Using numbers from a NOAA study in the Keys, diving accounts for about 1% of the dollars directly spent in the local community....... In the case of San Diego, it is the third most populous metro area in California..... Southern California is the home to a number of major dive organizations (PADI, et al)...... It is the home to military bases, industry, colleges, the San Diego Zoo, the Scripps Institute and home port for cruise lines...... Like the Keys, the contribution of diving to the local community represents a relatively small percentage...... In the case of San Diego, several ships have been sunk in the same area to create “shipwreck alley” as a special diving park...... To do the same in Michigan several ships have to be sunk..... This is very problematic.....In short, no place in Michigan is like either Key West or San Diego.....Both had active economies long before scuba....Michigan is not going to be able to use scuba diving to "create" a local economy around it.

• June 22, 2007
• Is a “State Park” already created because of an 1899 law?
• NO. A "SHOOTING AND HUNTING" "PARK" WAS THE ONLY THING DESCRIBED IN THE OLD LAW...... The MUPC and others contend that the answer is no...... As briefly as possible, the MUPC argument is this:..... The proponents argue that a “state park” was created back in 1899.... That law sets land aside for a “shooting and hunting grounds”...... The next sentence says “This park….” The proponents claim that this reference to a "park" means a "state park" as it is used today - 108 years later.....Their position is undercut by the fact that in 1994-95, Michigan law was rewritten and established a comprehensive "State Park System" and defined "State Park" as something designated by the DNR director.......If you think about this, there is no way the 1899 legislatue could know what the law would say today as defined by a later legislature......No more than they could have made traffic laws for autos in 1899.....The first round of bills to create this "State Park" actually said "create" not "rename".....Since 1994-95, the DNR Director has never designated this bottomland as a “state park” and it has never in history ever been recognized or administered as a “state park” by the DNR...... There is one other odd question that arises...... If the 1899 law was intended to make the "bottomlands" of the Great Lakes a state park, why does it also include 3 rivers and no others?..... This reinforces the point that this law is just one aspect of all of Michigan’s “shooting and hunting” laws...... There are 2 other laws codified with it also dealing with shooting and hunting in other regions (and rivers) of the state...... When viewed together, they create a sensible plan for state-wide “shooting and hunting” grounds - not some sort of "state park" like we know it in 2007 and contended by the proponents.

• June 22, 2007
• How much money can the $15 “pass” generate?
• CLOSE TO NONE...... MAYBE NONE AT ALL..... Using exceedingly generous estimates, the Straits preserve committee has estimated that, assuming every preserve has the number of divers visiting the Straits in a 3 year period (impossible) and a total participation rate of 5% (it could well be less), the $15 “donation” will raise approximately $4125 - $8250 annually, if that.

• June 22, 2007
• Where will the $15 “donation” go?
• INTO A FUND FOR THE GREAT LAKES STATE PARK AND ITS PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT - NOT FOR PRESERVES...... It goes into the “Great Lakes State Park Fund” that can only be used for limited purposes (including ship sinking) related to the “Great Lakes State Park”...... There is no specific mention of underwater preserves (the substitute bills actually added language making this clear)...... The underwater preserve fund, currently with no money in it (maybe $1500) will stay on the books presumably to benefit preserves. None of the $15 "donation" will go to it.

• June 22, 2007
• Can fees be imposed to dive?
• THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST IT...... Under the original bills, the “Park” was in the “State Park System”...... That said “System” permits the DNR Director to impose fees without legislative approval for “activities” in State Parks...... A substitute for this bill has been made...... That substitute specifically says that the “Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Committee” is to recommend the amount to charge for the “donation” (now a decal) and also to recommend ways to fund the “Great Lakes State Park”...... This contemplates the possibility of raising charges or imposing charges for “activities” both because a provision is made to “advise” on its amount and to “recommend” ways to fund the “Great Lakes State Park”...... There is no prohibition against such fees in the future and no legislature can bind a future legislature to anything.....(Anymore than the 1899 legislature could have defined "State Park").

• June 22, 2007
• Is there a possibility of having to be “licensed” to dive?
• THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST IT...... At least one legislator’s aide thought we must be “licensed” to dive...... When told we don’t need one, he suggested maybe a bill should be written to do it...... In fairness, no action has been taken in that direction and none is immediately anticipated...... However, there is nothing to stop it at anytime in the future but that was true before this new legislation came along...... The problem is that the profile of diving has been raised by this legislation...... Legislators that never knew we existed or thought of what we do, do now.

• June 22, 2007
• Have any newspapers come out against this?
• YES,THE TRAVERSE CITY PAPER BY EDITORIAL...... Less than a week after this legislation was introduced, the Traverse City Record Eagle ran an editorial saying it is too big and too soon...... It said the DNR and state simply cannot afford any more obligations now.....It recommended using a preserve system.....This paper serves portions of Sen. McManus's own district.

• June 22, 2007
• What is the position of state departments affected by this legislation?
• THEY OPPOSE IT..... Because the DNR will displace the DEQ and HAL as primary operators of this “park”, they are the “lead agency” to review this and deal with the legislature......It has gone on record opposing the legislation as first written because, among other things, it has no money to pay for anything more, especially when it is funded by a $15 “voluntary” donation...... At the senate hearing on June 13 the DNR took a position against the substitute legislation because it still imposes duties the DNR cannot pay for...... Interestingly, the DNR policy position raises many of the same issues the MUPC raised...... Also, the Citizens Committee for State Parks, a creation of the legislature to make recommendations on state parks, passed a resolution in opposition on June 13..... Since the June 13 hearing, the DNR has been forced to close 15 rustic campgrounds because of budget shortfalls.

• June 22, 2007
• What prominent persons in the dive community oppose this legislation?
• CRIS KOHL AND BRENDON BAILLOD....... Both author Cris Kohl and historian Brendon Baillod have sent letters opposing this legislation to the assigned committees.

• June 22, 2007
• What interest groups oppose this legislation?
• NATIVE AMERICANS, MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS AND SAVE OUR SHORELINE HALL HAVE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION OR RESERVATION TO ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THIS LEGISLATION...... The native American tribes are concerned about how this legislation will impact their treaty rights....... The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and Save Our Shoreline (SOS) do not agree on how this legislation will affect the rights of persons (including divers) to walk along the shoreline and possibly scuba dive (we think this unlikely)...... This disagreement grows out of the 2005 supreme court decision allowing citizens a right to walk along the beach in front of private property....... The MUCC supports that right.... SOS (a group of shoreline property owners) opposes it and does not want to see any expansion, real or perceived....... We have heard that the “park” name may be changed to “Great Lakes Underwater Park” or similar name to deal with the SOS concerns.

• June 22, 2007
• What changes to these bills are being made?
• SOME CHANGES ARE BEING MADE BUT WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE CONTENT. WE USUALLY ARE NOT SUPPLIED WITH COPIES BEFORE HEARINGS AND HAVE TO WORK TO FIND THEM. WE EXPECT THESE BILLS, EVEN IF REVISED WILL STILL ADVERSLY IMPACT PRESERVES......After complaints from the MUPC and some of its member preserves, an effort is underway to rewrite the bills.....We have had some difficulty getting a hold of copies....... The latest changes we know of will change the Bottomlands Preserve and Salvage Committee to the Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Committee....... It will recommend ways to do certain things in the “park” including how to finance it and what to charge for the “voluntary” “decals” (formerly “pass” tokens)....... To avoid having to fund anything, the bills will create the Great Lakes State Park by naming the 1899 shooting and hunting grounds and placing it outside the "Michigan State Park System" as some sort of rogue institution that has never existed before in Michigan history..... Instead of making any immediate improvements, the Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Committee will write a development plan for approval....... Implementation will wait until it is funded by the legislature....... No deadline for the plan or appropriation is made....... It may never be funded....... In sum, the “park” will be created, the state will “study” it and it may be funded someday....... After the last hearing in the senate, we believe some change will be made to the name because of objections from property owners on lakeshore lands.

• June 22, 2007
• If this legislation is changed to create a “park” outside the State Park System, What is it?
• THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION......THE BILLS DO NOT EXPLAIN THIS AND LEAVE IT OPEN TO DISPUTE...... No one knows...... Nothing like it exists now...... It specifically says it is not in the “State Park System”...... Yet it will exist on paper and the DNR will be in charge of it...... The newly revised “Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Committee” will advise the DNR about it, instead of the similar parks committee in the “State Parks System”...... Jurisdiction over the “park” and the preserves is confused...... The DNR, DEQ and HAL may all have some control over preserves...... But nothing is certain...... Oddly, the park boundaries will remain in the “Hunting” part of the law.

• June 22, 2007
• What was response to asking people to write papers?
• THAT IT IS NOT "HELPFUL"....... A curious thing occurred when the Straits committee sent a message to regular users of the Straits preserve asking divers to write to their papers....... It was told by Sen McManus’s office that such actions are not “helpful”....... That committee still encourages any one with an opinion pro or con to exercise their first amendment right of free speech.

• June 22, 2007
• Is there any another way to look into the need for a “Great Lakes State Park”?
• YES, IT CAN BE REFFERRED TO THE EXISTING BOTTOMLAND PRESERVES AND SALVAGE COMMITTEE FOR STUDY......All of these issues can be referred to the Bottomland Preserves and Salvage Committee for review and recommendation...... This will avoid the illogical result that will happen here where a paper “park” will exist, the state will spend money it does not have for the DNR to "study" it and maybe someday implement it...... As an observation, if the plan is finished in 2010 and never funded until 2020, won’t the plan need to be redone?

• June 22, 2007
• How can I help stop these laws?
• CONTACT SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND WRITE, CALL AND EMAIL THEM...... YOU CAN CONTACT LEGISLATORS THAT REPRESENT YOU, THAT REPRESENT THE PRESERVE(S) WHERE YOU DIVE AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEESS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES DEALING WITH THESE BILLS...... WRITE TO NEWSPAPERS...... The best and easiest thing to do is call your representative and senator...... Ask to speak with the aide because that person is usually more available..... Explain how you feel about this....... Some legislators, especially in Sen McManus’s office will whitewash all this and blame divers for confusing the issues...... It is not confused...... For some reason, Sen McManus is very committed to this “park”...... The legislators need to know that the dive community never saw this before it was introduced....... It was written in apparent haste by just a few people - perhaps with their own motivations....... This whole matter needs to be carefully examined and these laws never have been....... You can ask to see your senator and representative...... They usually keep regular hours in the district, often on Thursday or Friday to talk to people with a concern...... Senators and representatives of special interest are those with preserves in their districts...... They will also see you in Lansing with an appointment...... You can also email your concerns to them but send a letter too...... We are not sure they have time to pay as much attention to emails...... The more people that send letters, emails, make calls and see the legislator, the higher “profile” this will have...... If no one sees any controversy, it is easy to get things passed...... Another thing you can do is write to your local paper...... A lot of people do not know about this...... Letters to the editor, if well informed, do a lot to get attention plus politicians read them...... You can draw on things from this site to use in your letters...... We are trying our best to make sure that anything appearing here is factual or, if opinion, it is labeled that way.

• June 22, 2007
• What is the reaction of the proponents to anyone who opposes this legislation in good faith?
• THEY ARE UNFAIRLY CRITICIZED BY PROPONENTS AS DAMAGING DIVING...... The usual technique is to avoid discussing the merits and simply make personal attacks on opponents.....Opponents are criticized as “bashing” divers or dive shops...... The actual issues are not addressed except in generalities and personal attack....... No recent studies, statistics or any other evidence is offered to support the claims of the proponents...... These criticized divers are experienced divers who honestly do not agree with the proponents of these laws....... Unfortunately, these criticisms are sometimes personal and do not address the real issues....... Those issues need to be discussed in an informed way free of emotion...... That is what the MUPC seeks to do.

• July 28, 2007
• Is there a problem with the boundaries of the "bottomlands"
• YES.....A VERY SERIOUS ONE....A problem arises when the law from 1899 is applied to laws today....As observed before, the 1899 legislature had no idea what the laws are today.....Any "park" has to have a boundary where it starts and ends.....In the 1899 law, the waterside goes to the state boundary.....On the shoreside, a big, big problem arises....In 1963, the new Michigan constitution enshrined the "public trust doctrine" (implied before)....This doctrine means that the public retains a right to use the bottom of the state's waters.....A major problem arose in the 1990's when conflict arose between beachfront owners and persons walking or using the shoreline.....This dispute went to the Michigan Supreme Court that applied the "public trust doctrine".....A watershed opinion was issued 2 years ago holding that the "shoreline" extends to the highest level the water reaches.....So, is that also the shoreside boundary of the "bottomlands"?....Who knows?....No one involved, property owners, sportsmen, beach walkers or others can agree....The property owners fear divers will suit up in front of their houses (or enter the water there).....If you know anyone in SOS (Save Our Shoreline) or the MUCC (Michigan United Consvervation Clubs) or others affected by this, please contact them.....You can also tell your legislator this....This issue just goes to show confused this legislation is....and why it should never be adopted.

YOUR AD HERE!!
Download cost and specs
For more details:
Email jan@jrunderhill.com