New road ends legislation introduced

[davetclown]

A Michigan House of Representatives Bill introduced Wednesday, Sept. 6, could bring a new twist to the decades-old debate over what activities are permissible at road endings located at an inland lake or stream.

Road ends are places where roadways dead end at the banks of a lake or stream. Most road ends were created more than a century ago to provide public access to lakes, rivers and streams, but where intended only to be used for entering and exiting a body of water.

Under House Bill (HB) 6418, which would amend the state's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, local municipal governments would be allowed to apply to the state for the construction of seasonal docks at road ends where there is public access to an inland lake or stream.

Municipalities would also be able to subcontract out the construction, installation, maintenance, operation, and removal of docks to a neighborhood association or other civic group as long as that association holds the municipality harmless from any liability, the association provides proof of liability insurance totaling at least $1 million and lists the municipality as an insured party.

Rep. Matthew Gillard (D-Alpena), the bill's primary sponsor, said he believes the bill addresses the issue of road ends in as fair a way as possible.

"It would allow local governments to decide what the procedure should be for road ends in their communities, with some certain limits," he said. "Unlimited use, huge docks, and other things like that would not be permitted, but it would basically let the local government to decide what it thinks is appropriate in that municipality."

According to the bill, a local government would have to adopt an ordinance allowing marina use at a road end. The ordinance would specify what type of dock is allowed in that community.

Under the bill's provisions for the ordinance, only one non-exclusive public dock would be allowed where the municipality specifies within the right of way of the road and not encroaching an adjacent riparian's bottomland.

A dock couldn't be installed prior to May 1 or removed later than Sept. 30 of each year; it couldn't exceed 250 feet in length or 4 feet in width, or any greater width required by state or federal law; it would have to be constructed with an inverted "L" or a "T" design at the end of the dock to allow access for law enforcement or emergency personnel; and the length of the dock couldn't unreasonably interfere with the safety and navigability of the waters of the inland lake or stream.

Any violators of the bill would be subject to a $500 fine.

HB 6418 would also specify the provisions for boat hoists at the docks, which would include prohibiting the augering or driving of any boat mooring post, or the placement of any permanent or seasonal boat anchoring device, other than a permitted boat hoist, within the area of any public lateral road as extended into the inland lake or stream.

No boat hoists would be allowed along the lakeward edge of the inverted "L" or "T" at the end of the dock, which could hinder law enforcement or emergency access.

Gillard said it's important for the bill to include ease and ability of use for such purposes.

"I think it makes sense to anyone involved with the issue," he said. "No matter what the access requirements or abilities are, people want to make sure emergency vehicles will be unhindered in their ability to respond to any issue they have to respond to."

According to Gillard, there's no indication the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee, which HB 6418 was referred to after its introduction, will consider the bill prior to the November general election.

White Lake Township Supervisor Mike Kowall, a former state representative who sponsored a road-end bill that current Rep. John Stakoe (R-Highland, White Lake) took over and reintroduced, said he likes the idea of local municipalities having a say in what happens at road ends, but that he isn't completely satisfied with HB 6418.

"When we were dealing with it, we were trying to get a definition as to what a road end could be used for," he said. "As far as local communities having jurisdiction, I think it would be a good idea, but I would take it one step further and have it extend to some of the public sites, as well.

"I do believe if locals could set the criteria, it would clarify it, but right now there's no definitive definition of what is a road end."

Under HB 4576, which Stakoe introduced on March 24, 2005, installing boat hoists and large docks at road ends would be prohibited by law, unless allowed by permit.

That bill, which hasn't been acted on since Sept. 28, 2005 when it was referred from the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee to the House Government Operations Committee, would also make it illegal to dock a boat overnight or obstruct access to a lake at a road end. The bill would allow for a dock smaller than 4-feet-wide and 25-feet-long to be constructed for public access, unless prohibited by a local ordinance.

Local municipalities would have the authority to issue tickets to those found violating the restrictions. A violator would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $500 fine per day.

While Stakoe's bill would provide a means to restrict activities at road ends, HB 4578, introduced by Rep. Dale Sheltrown (D-Gladwin) also on March 24, 2005, would provide greater use of public road ends.

Sheltrown's bill would also restrict the use of boat hoists and docks. But, in cases where a public road end is located within a recorded plat, each property owner within the plat would permitted such activities as sunbathing, lounging, picnicking, seasonal docks and temporary boat hoists at the road end.

HB 4578, which Gillard co-sponsored, hasn't been acted on beyond introduction and its immediate referral to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee.
[signature]

[lonehunter]

O.K. , I will get started on this one wendsday .
Our public launch in Ecorse went this way , then the city couldn't afford the insurance costs , they privatised .

So we went from a free launch site (with a outhouse )to a $3.00 city fee (running water in the outhouse), then to a $7.00 private fee (no outhouse ).
When it closed for the season , it was because it was to cold for fair weather boaters , the kind that like to cover the seats with something in a bekini . We fishermen were locked out of our launch site , we had to go all the way to Gibralter to boat all the way back up river to get some walleys . There's a big ol' sign that says , built from fishermans licensing moneys at that launch , it just pissed me off to no end .
Yea , this is another bad bill .
[signature]

[davetclown]

with out a doubt, this bill could be both good and bad depending on which side of the political fence you are standing, "meaning the rich verces the poor"

if you have a civic minded governing body and not one getting bought off by special intrest, "developers with pay off money" then the law could be a good one,

this was the part that this new guy from white lake was not happy with the wording, It left the people living on the road defencless to the presuits of the whims of developers. which is what happened on my street where I live. In princible it is a good idea, I am a lake property owner, Pay the taxes of a lake property owner, but get no benifits of a lake property owner. Yet because of special intrest, I now live on a road where I have to watch boats bigger than my house run up and down my road to the launch that once was taken care of by my family for more than 50 years..

this is the issue why I want to leave the state. I have seen it all to many times, the financeualy challanged have suffered over and over again in this state.

I saw an entire rual subdivision bulldozed under because some special intest wanted a shopping mall, and now the shopping mall had to be dozed under 30 years after the houses were dozed. the owners of those house were paid half of what was owed on their mortgages. "Court Ordered"

may of those people became homeless, they could no longer stay or leave, their credit shot to hadees.

bankers made out like bandits. the got in on the envestment of the mall and got to forclose on what ever these residents had left.... Deffently one of michigans darker days. Unfortunatly there are still people feed upon the helpless, economicly challanged, and all too often leagly defenceless.

just recently my 5 was put though commerce twp, a man had a bussness on 15 mile road, but the road did not come though his property he did not get bought out by the road commition. He did get shut out because they bult up a ramp that closed down his road frontage. his multy million dollar property became worthless. "Land Locked" A steel for his neighbor to pick up for pennies on the dollar.

so as to weather this is good or bad depends on who is in office.

a better law would be one that gives those who live on the road full access to the lake as it was ment to be in the first place. said and stated simple.

It would at least hold the townships responcible for damage caused by the racing of boats up and down the street. as it stands now townships run illegal development right-a-ways to the lake with no responcibility. If the law passes in either of the two forms the townships are acountable to make sure all things are held by laws set by the townships. In this case the law would be good for residents living there. they would finaly have some one to extract a pound of flesh from when we have to deal with the unwelcomed intrusion of people not living there coming up and down our roads.
[signature]

[lonehunter]

O.K. , lets start picking this bill apart piece by piece .
I'm guessing we may be sitting on two sides of the fence on some of it's issues , but what the heck , we've disagreed and agreed on things before and were still pals .
First , I'll get to the meat and taters of the subject .

[size 1]Road ends are places where roadways dead end at the banks of a lake or stream. Most road ends were created more than a century ago to provide public access to lakes, rivers and streams, but where intended only to be used for entering and exiting a body of water.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]O.K. , on this one , here's where I stand . These road ends were aquired by the D.N.R. I belive from moneys recived from our fishing license fees , or they have been state property since day one . The rest of the land surrounding the lakes , sold off and devided into smaller lots , whatever , the road ends land was and continues to be State Land for use of the citicens of Michigan as an acess to Michigan Waters .[/size]
[size 1]

Under House Bill (HB) 6418, which would amend the state's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, local municipal governments would be allowed to apply to the state for the construction of seasonal docks at road ends where there is public access to an inland lake or stream.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Here's where I have a major problem with it mostley from my personal experiances with citys , townships and associations taking controll of an Public Acess Site .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The D.N.R. gave the "free"public launch site to the City of Ecorse . The first improvement the city made was a 10 foot tall fence with a locking gate around the launch's lot . The second thing that was done , launch fees .[/size]
[size 1]We had to wait untill it opened to use the launch , most fishermen go out at or before dawn , 9 A.M. was when the city employees started there job and when the gate usually opened .[/size]
[size 1]Garbage at the site became a problem as it started to pile up behind the gates . Trash pick-up starts around 6 A.M. , trash couldn't be placed out onto the street before 9 P.M. the day before pick-up ( city ordinance ) the launch was closed , gates locked , no refuse pick-ups could be made .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The city then closed the launch because of the trash and the public rest room at the site , due to city codes , urban blight , no running water , sewer or lights in the building or on the property .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The city recived a grant to put in a modern bathroom , yes , water,sewer and electric . One other thing that was done , a huge sign ," This launch was made possible from fishermans lisence fees" . The launch briefly reopened .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The D.N.R. grant did not cover insurance on the building , manditory for a municiple structure . The launch site was closed AGAIN .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The city then leased the property to a wanna-be business man who did a piss poor job of running it , the city knew he couldn't handle the operation .[/size]
[size 1]The launch only opened when the guy showed up , working a regular job , that wasen't often .[/size]
[size 1]As you can guess , disrepair and deplorible conditions overtook the site , city ordinance , condem the property .[/size]
[size 1]Condemed property sells real cheap , especially to someone who is elected to the citys government .[/size]
[size 1]Reopened , under new management with a new owner , mind you this was public property just a few years earlier . You had to pay to launch , pay to park , and you had to do it within certin hours .[/size]
[size 1]The sign " Built with moneys from fisherman" remains , and we couldn't use it to go fishing . we had to go to Wyndotte to launch or head down to Monroe or Trenton to launch . To this day , I see that sign and I'de like to make someone eat it .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The same thing happened in Belleville . Fishermen had to resort to launching their boats in the swampey end of the lake , push it in ,pull it out .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The same thing happened here in Gladwin in Sugar Springs. Sugar springs has an lake association, The lake is a man made lake , made by digging out the lake where a trout stream once flowed . It had D.N.R. launch , given or sold to the association . We the people of Michigan still stock this lake , we now have to pay to use the launch facility , first with cash , then by having to remove paper stickers from the drivers side of the windsheild that say ," you are not a member ".[/size]
[size 1]However Sugar Springs does have a second D.N.R. launch site , it's on a steep bank on the side of a road that has no parking signs , figure out how to launch a boat there leagily and i'll give you a "atta' boy" and a pat on the back .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Remember a couple years ago while I was at the D.N.R. launch site at Wiggins Lake and an lake association member thru a dead skunk in my jeep , just because I was fishing there ? I parked and fished from shore , nothing more than that .The mentality that because he pays higher taxes for lake front property does not give him any more or less rights than I do to enjoy myself on Michigan waters , he's just paying the taxes for the land that he lives on .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]No , from my expearance I don't think any good can come from "giving or selling away " controll of our public launch sites .[/size]
[size 1]I think since they are public domain , designed for public acess to Michigan Waters for all Michigan residents that they remain State of Michigan Property . [/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Lake association property owners are paying for the land that adjoins the lake , not the lake itself . The lake belongs to the People of the State of Michigan . If they want to pay higher taxes for there land , so be it , pay the high taxes for that land .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Without this our lakes are doomed to become private property affordable only to the wealthy .[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[signature]

[lonehunter]

Sponsors [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Matthew Gillard"]Matthew Gillard[/url] - (primary)
[url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Fred Miller"]Fred Miller[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=George Cushingberry, Jr."]George Cushingberry, Jr.[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Gino Polidori"]Gino Polidori[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Doug Bennett"]Doug Bennett[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Joel Sheltrown"]Joel Sheltrown[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=LaMar Lemmons, Jr."]LaMar Lemmons, Jr.[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Richard Ball"]Richard Ball[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Paul Condino"]Paul Condino[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Jeff Mayes"]Jeff Mayes[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Kathleen Law"]Kathleen Law[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=Roger Kahn"]Roger Kahn[/url], [url "http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1i4zbzr0pd4jcm55iscubf45)/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2005-2006&chamber=House&sponsor=LaMar Lemmons III"]LaMar Lemmons III[/url]


let's see what they have to say .
stay tuned folks !
[signature]

[lonehunter]

The only reply from all of them Dear Mr. Hollobaugh,
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns. I will keep your opinion in mind as I make a voting decision on this bill.[/font][/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3] [/size][/font]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Sincerely,[/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Barb Vander Veen[/font][/size]
[signature]

[davetclown]

newer subdivisions were devided 50-75 years ago, at a time when a man word was his bond, today a mans word isnt worth the paper it is written on.

road ends at that time was ment to be used for the same.

how ever right of ways go back 100 years. you can ask any title company. they charge you to look for them on the property you are seeking to buy.

for a right of way to end every peroson (land owner ajacent to the property, located in the plot map must sighn off in order for it to be closed.)

Then being that it becomes closed, the property must then go up for public auction, how ever local jurisdictions do get first option to obtain the property, but again if they dicide to sell it, it must go up for public auction in order to be sold. That is the law behind transfering public land to privet land. That is the only way public land may become privet land.
[signature]

[davetclown]

Ya know what would be funny, that is if you sent a reply saying thank you for listening to my concerns, and I will take your vote on this bill in to concideration at the election polls when your term come up for renewal...[laugh]

dont, do it, they will think you are a crack pot like me....LOL

but with my post prior to this one you can see why I say that these road ends have been taken over and illegaly privetised.
[signature]

[lonehunter]

Dear Allen ,
[font "Times New Roman"]Thank you for contacting the office of District 29. At this time we are unable to offer support on any bills because there is no State Representative to vote on the issues. All legislative matters are being referred to the office of Sen. Michael Bishop for support and discussion. His phone number is 517-373-2417or 1-877-9-BISHOP. You may also reach him by email at senmbishop@senate.michigan.gov . However, if you have any issues that do not require support for a bill I am able to help you.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][/font]


[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][size 2]If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact the office at 517-373-0475. Thank you[/size].[/size][/font] Dear Mr. Hollobaugh, Thank you for your e-mail. As you may already know, it is important that each legislator have the first opportunity to respond to the issues and concerns of their constituency. In an effort to comply with this legislative courtesy, I am respectfully requesting that you send me your mailing address. Once I receive this information, I will either forward your message to the proper Representative or immediately begin working on a response. You are an important part of the legislative process and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely, Dave Hildenbrand
State Representative
86th District
[signature]

[davetclown]

well how do you feal about running for office? []
looks like now body wants the job...LOL

I emagine the job dosnt pay much, 100-155 thoudsand McApple pies .... per year 2 fer a dollar in my hood, now if I could get them to serve them for breakfast along with coffee... I might get out of bed before 10 am...LOL

any way, how is your hunt going?

I picked up me a new meat grinder. Ground a turkey last week, took me 15 minutes to skin and bone it, then two munutes to grind it, that counting rough and finish grind. Man I dont know how I ever got along with out it....
[signature]

[lonehunter]

I wouldn't make a for a good political person , too many feathers would get ruffeled .
For one , that Wiggins lake deal in my area .
D.N.R. wants the dam and its dike removed or repaired , since the county took posesion of it , it's the countys responsibility , but can't afford it . Get rid of it the D.N.R. says , the county can't afrford that either .
All those hundred thousand dollar houses on the lake would be worthless , cost to the county to remove the dam , a few hundred thousand bucks too .

My solution , go after the original owners , the power company .
seize all there assets or repair the dam .

Besides , with that kind of paycheck I might be tempted to buy store bought fish , LOL !

HUNTING IS GOOD FOR SQUIRLLS , DEER , A LITTLE TOUGH , I'M not baiting , hunting runs with big hoof tracks .

Those grouse are killing me !!!!
A guy can only take so many times of having them jump skyward before you step on them , i don't know what is going to give out first , my heart or my shorts !!!!!
[signature]

[davetclown]

Pat your self on the back, my arm isnt long enough.

looks like the language of the bill will have to be cleaned up before it will be allowed to proceed.

---

Meeting on road ends bill postponed

---

[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Josh%20Jackett&-nothing"]Josh Jackett[/url] October 11, 2006 - A meeting to bring together several parties in favor of and against the possibility of docks being built at road endings located at inland lakes or streams has been postponed for about a month, according to the lakes area sponsor of a road ends bill.

Road ends are places where roadways dead end at the banks of a lake or stream. Most road ends were created more than a century ago to provide public access to lakes, rivers and streams, but were intended only to be used for entering and exiting a body of water. In recent years, some road ends have been increasingly used as places to swim, lounge, fish, install docks and anchor boats.

State Rep. John Stakoe (R-Highland, White Lake) said a Thursday, Oct. 5 meeting to discuss HB 4576 among lobbyists and various lake representatives, has been pushed back from its originally scheduled date to Thursday, Nov. 2.

"One of the other representatives I've been working on the issue with contacted me about (postponing the meeting)," he said.

According to Stakoe, the other representative contacted him to tell him there have been recent discussions between the two sides in what Stakoe said is the most contentious area of the state on the issue: The recent talks were reportedly held between lakefront property owners on Higgins and Houghton lakes in Roscommon County and others who live near the lakes and install seasonal docks at road ends.

"He asked to put the meeting off until December, which I thought wasn't appropriate," Stakoe said. "If we could come to some sort of resolution (in December) and we put a substitute in the bill, we would never be able to get it passed through the lame duck (legislative session). I would then probably have to reintroduce the bill in January."

Stakoe said that at the group's request, he agreed to push back the meeting date because any discussions the Roscommon County parties are having on the issue of road ends could help during the meeting to discuss his bill.

"I didn't want to put it off, but if they're making some movement, which was their indication, I'd just rather wait and see what happens," he said.

HB 4576, which Stakoe introduced March 24, 2005 and has been slightly altered by three substitutes since then, would add a new section to the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act regarding the construction of boat hoists or seasonal docks at public road ends that provide access to inland streams and lakes.

Under HB 4576, installing boat hoists and large docks would be prohibited by law, unless allowed by permit. The bill would also make it illegal to dock a boat overnight and to obstruct access to a lake. The bill would allow for a dock smaller than 4-feet wide and 25-feet long to be constructed for public access, unless prohibited by a local ordinance.

Local municipalities would have the authority to issue tickets to those found violating the law. A violator would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $500 fine per day.

Stakoe said the bill is basically the same as HB 4141, which he introduced during the 2003-04 legislative session. That bill received a hearing before the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee but was not reported by the committee to the full House floor. It was eventually discharged from the committee and a substitute was adopted, but a final vote to pass it was never held.

Stakoe said he reintroduced the proposal in 2005 with its new number. Upon its original introduction, it was referred to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee before a substitute was added in June 2005, after which it was referred to the House Government Operations Committee, where Stakoe said it hasn't moved.

"There hasn't been anywhere to go with the bill up until this point," he said. "Then we decided to have this meeting where we plan to just lock ourselves down to see if we can get it somewhere."

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that the public may use road ends as an access point to and from water, but cannot use them for lounging, sunbathing, picnicking or the building of boat hoists or docks. The decision stemmed from a case involving a road end on Higgins Lake in Gerrish Township.

The court suggested that a legislative solution be used to control road end activity.

While Stakoe's bill would provide a means to restrict activities at road ends, a bill introduced by Rep. Dale Sheltrown (D-Gladwin) would provide greater use of public road ends.

[#ff0000]Sheltrown's bill (HB 4578) would also restrict the use of boat hoists and docks[/#ff0000]. [#0000ff]But, in cases where the public road end is located within a recorded plat, each property owner within the plat would permitted such activities as sunbathing, lounging, picnicking, seasonal docks and temporary boat hoists at the road end.[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[lonehunter]

Once the train started rolling it just kept going .

I am working on another thing that needs to be changed a little bit but getting some resistance from the "Ask the D.N.R. " website .

The "Yellow Gates" are popping up just about everywhere limiting traffic onto statelands , some are needed , some are not .
Either case , placement of the gates are not up to local government nor do the public have a say so in gate placement .
Who decides ?
The local D.N.R. supervisor .

All gates I feel should be left up to the people of the county to decide if they stay or go unless a endangered species resides in that geographical area .

Gates that should be placed because of extreme misuse (illeagle dumping ) should be reopened during the fall hunting seasons .
Why ?
We have the handicaped hunters and the ever increasing numbers of older hunters that can not make the long trecks into the woods like they were once able to . I just can't see a sixtey or seventy year old hunter surviving a two mile long trip back to his vehical draging in his buck or a guy in a wheelchair making his way into and out of the woods .
These guys can purchase hunting licenses , but for what ? Sit in the parking lot and wait for a deer to show up ? It's just not right .

Here is what I sent on the "Ask the D.N.R."

Customer (Allen Hollobaugh) - 10/13/2006 05:40 AM
> I see more and more of the gates going up blocking traffic into state
> lands .
> Under what law was this aproved ? (House bill number and date of
> impliment )
> Who decides which roads are to be blocked ?
> What rights or steps can we hunters and fishermen use to have certin gates
> removed ?
>
>
> Question Reference #061013-000001

The responce ;

Response (Ozzie Bryant) - 10/16/2006 09:55 AM
> If you would like to address your concerns in regards to the law giving
> the Department the right to manage Public Lands, contact your local
> representative and state senator.

I then e-mailed back this reply ;

I am a tax paying Michigan resident , I asked for specific information , not
a smart-ass answer . You are in violation of the Freedom of Information Act
and I will follow up with whatever needs to be done if you persist with
disreguard to furnish the required information .
It is your responsibility to answer the question with the information that I
requested , If you can not provide the answer , ask your supervisor for
assistance in locating the information .


Chugga Chugga Chugga Chugga .........................
[signature]