Comments on: Huron Manistee: Comments Due Dec 21

By: Amy Trotter

Amy Trotter — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:21:00 +0000

I think you mean Mr. Meister ?

By: Amy Trotter

Amy Trotter — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:19:00 +0000

Make sure you email this to the above address if you haven’t already! Thanks for your support!

By: Rork

Rork — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:14:00 +0000

The members should change that policy.
We should be pro-wilderness.

By: Rork

Rork — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Clear reason might be 1) no harm to the land, 2) greater economic benefit (if that is so is an open question I think; Dan Burgess’s “devastating” is highly dubious). The second sentences stuff about safety is a straw man if ever there were one. I’m asking what is bad about trying to have some bow hunting Meccas on a tiny fraction of the land, and I think you’ve got nothing for that. Don’t think I’m staunchly in favor of that, but I think it is an interesting question.

By: Donald McChristian Jr.

Donald McChristian Jr. — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:10:00 +0000

Sent my email out…thanks I dont want to see any public land.lost to hunters or snowmobilers!

By: Amy Trotter

Amy Trotter — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:25:00 +0000

MUCC would never favor eliminating legal firearm hunting on public land where it is currently unless there was a clear scientific-based reason to do so. We already have plenty of safety regulations in place to address most concerns, except those of people who dislike firearms and hunting altogether. Clearly there is a place for snowmobile trails, but their impact is very small in these areas under review–there is no reason to ban them from the existing trails.

By: Dan Burgess

Dan Burgess — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:20:00 +0000

I SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE 3. The areas in question should be redefined as Semi-Primitive Motorized areas and all areas should remain open to existing snowmobile use and firearm hunting. I have been hunting, fishing and hiking in Manistee National Forest for twenty-years and would like to continue to do so. The economic impact would be devastating to the local economies affected by this ban.

Thank You
Daniel Burgess
211 Minnetonka
Oxford, MI 48371

By: Amy Trotter

Amy Trotter — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:00:00 +0000

#3 does not add roads, but it will basically maintain the trails and access already available rather than closing roads as has been the case. Our members approved a policy at our 2010 Annual Convention that said we should oppose road closures on federal land where practicable and instead work toward solutions that maintain existing road and trail access.

By: Rork

Rork — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:52:00 +0000

“Clearly MUCC opposes this one.” It wasn’t made clear for me actually.

Two insolent questions. 1) Is it because MUCC is in favor of snowmobiles allowed everywhere? I doubt that. 2) If some parcels were “bow only” would that be opposed, and if so why is that different than flies only regs for some fishing areas? Such regs might actually increase use of the area by hunters, as well as non-hunters.

I think it’s tricky, and like the fishing regs, depends on dose: what percent of the land would have the special regs. It may be clear that we wouldn’t want such regs everywhere, but that does not imply wanting them nowhere, ever.

By: Rork

Rork — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:39:00 +0000

4 is better for me. The snow machines don’t need every last acre, and we don’t need roads making easy access everywhere. I don’t think MUCC or hunters should be pro-road. Our young people who want to do something difficult should have places where they can get away from the lazy people. We are talking about a tiny percent of the land.
The state recreation areas near me have closed a few two-tracks formerly used by people mostly up to no good, and it has made the hunting areas feel much bigger. Most of the land is still within half a mile of the road ofcourse, but a few places are now a mile to get to.