FEBRUARY, 2008 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) MEETING

I didn’t make the meeting this month because of the snow. However, the folks at the DNR provided me with some of the goings-on.

There was a preliminary assessment of the 2007 bear season. The harvest was slightly lower than 2006 but within the desired level. The reasons for the lower harvest were the weather, of course, and the abundance of mast crops. Bear will feed on mast crops before baits so the bait hits were down. And, baiting is the most productive harvest method.

The revised draft plan for ORV use in Michigan has been released. The draft is a cooperative effort between the DNR and the Off-Road Vehicle Trails Advisory Board. The plan is available on the DNR web page. (The Field and Stream web page has a link to the DNR web page.) You can review the plan and also make comments through the web page.

The Great Lakes Fishery Trust (GLTF) has granted $750,000 to the U. S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center, Michigan State and Cornell for research into Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). The intent is to gain knowledge of the disease so resource managers can better understand, predict and manage the threat. The GLTF was established as a result of the Ludington Pump settlement. I scanned the DNR budget looking for General Fund monies designated for VHS effort and didn’t see anything specific. There must be something there but probably in the same magnitude as the monies allowed for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). An insignificant token effort when compared to the damage potential.

I have been spending some time with the DNR financial folks talking about the budget and spending reporting. I missed the debut of their answer to making sure we don’t have another communications problem. For those interested, you can view the report on the DNR web page under the Natural Resources Commission monthly budget report. It looks like it will keep the public informed of the status of the budget, budget adjustments, spending adjustments and the spending itself. The fact that this information is available to the general public is the best news. I passed on a few comments about the information. First the explanations were not geared to the layperson – too financialized. Second, there needs to be another chart which explains the status of the funds from which the spending is derived. The department cannot over-spend the budget, spend more than the income of the funds or spend a fund below its established minimum. So this second chart would provide information on the spending limitations of the first chart. The suggestion was met favorably. I am still working on the other proposals I mentioned in previous reports. If you have something that you feel the DNR needs to address I’ll be glad to carry it forward – just provide it to me in writing.

I did attend the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board meeting. This is the group that passes out grants for parks and recreation acquisitions and developments, as well as, recreational land purchases, improvements, trails, etc. Grants are given to municipalities and to the DNR based on extensive criteria involving need and impact. There have been over $700 million in grants given since the funds inception in 1975.

The monies come from the royalties on gas and oil extraction and the earnings of the fund balance. The fund was capped at $300 million until the legislature raised it to $500 million. Currently the oil and gas revenues are split with one-third going to the grant program, $10 million to state parks operations and the balance to the fund. The earnings on investing the fund go to the grant program.

Once the fund reaches the $500 million cap the oil and gas revenues will go to state park operations, with 50% being available for spending, and the grant program will get the investment revenues. This is a pretty good deal with no cost to the citizens of Michigan.

There is legislation under way to switch the one-third/two-third split. This will put more money into the grant program and less into the fund thereby extending the time it takes to get to the cap and thereby delaying the increased funding for state park operations. The proposal is being pushed by those who would benefit by greater amounts being available for grants.

There is also a state park funding proposal which adds a fee to all license plates and eliminates the state park permits. This fee would be voluntary but none-the-less will be an added cost on the citizens of this state.

On one hand if I don’t change the split on the oil and gas revenues I should be able to fully fund the state parks in about five or six years. And it won’t cost me a dime. On the other hand there is a continuation of the state park funding problem less whatever comes out of my pocket for the license fee.

Somebody explain to me how these two proposals are better than the current status.

Jim De Clerck