UP Campground - Whats wrong with the DNR?

[booondocker]

I don't think that this closure stuff is being done by local DNR folks, this is a decision that originates in Lansing.

I doubt that the locals have any say in this whatsoever. But I stand by my statement that rather than putting up a sign that says, "zero amenities at this campsite, potties are limited in use or closed" they simply close the site.


That is an "in your face" response to the tax payers who OWN that property, if not able to over see it by a government agency. How is this in "our best interest" if we can't use it and are bared from entering it even if we only drive thru and back out again.

I would also speculate that those who took the trouble to move the dirt, cut the lock, and mow the frigg'n grass were indeed making a statement, and I'll be danged if I would turn the guy in for using HIS property so long as that was all he did.

You are right there are those who would abuse this, but then there are always folks who do that no matter what. So punish everyone for the mistakes of a few. Over-all, folks are proud of their campgrounds, particularly the ones they are fond of and using. It wouldn't take much to over come the odd group or brain dead flunkies, who throw stuff around.

And what about the merchants that depend upon those sites to get them thru the summer tourist season with a bit more traffic and a bit more profit....or more likely less of a loss?

They have ZERO say in this. Hearing on these topics are a joke. Let them sound off and then do what we THINK is best...even if there are alternatives available.

Naw....I'm not align'n with yah on this one....it is soooooo typical state local, and municipal government to do this stuff and it purely stinks.

Like was pointed out, had the money that was used to close the sites been sparingly spread out to cover the bear essentials been used to keep the places open, most would be responsible, take their trash and other unmentionables back home with them and life would go on, with only a slight discomfort.

 

[jd]

I agree that the decision to close these campgrounds was most likely made in Lansing. It is also my opinion that the decision was probably not a very well thought out one and am glad that it has been reversed for at least this season.

I guess the point I wanted to make is that many times people on this board complain about things and the blame seems to be misdirected. I am not an old timer by any means, but it sure seems like much of our countries ills these days could be fixed simply by the general public being more responsible and more respectful.

-John

 

[booondocker]

Don't sell the public short....they are NOT given a chance on this....and I think that most on here blame the DNR for not at least trying to do something else.

These financial issues are not going away soon. It will be years before things can get back. Just is lame that the DNR, takes a stand that says, "this level of use" or nothing.

That's not being flexable...that is dictatorial. Time to clean house...and I am not talking about mine!

 

[doomsman]

23 posts and no one states the fact that the site was closed.
Closed means keep out, not move the rocks and make your self at home.
We scream about our taxes and demand services in the same breath.
Now I will agree that far to much of the tax money is wasted and we
need to elect reps that a should cut spending across the board.
However until we do that and get out of the mess we are in, closed
means closed.

Get involved beyond posting and work on a campaign staff of someone
with the same values you have.

 

[asmski]

I have a real problem with the statement "closed means closed" when speaking of public property. It is owned by the public for use by the public, i.e. "held in the public trust".

 

[dcsnomo]

I have a real problem with the statement "closed means closed" when speaking of public property. It is owned by the public for use by the public, i.e. "held in the public trust".

OK, I'll run with ya on this one...

Public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use and that the government is required to maintain them for pubic use. I would maintain that the land upon which this campground sits is indeed in the public trust, and while I haven't seen this place, it appears that the DNR closed the campground, not the land.

Access to public land is different than defining usage of public land. The DNR closed the campground and restricted vehicular traffic, but I'm guessing you could still walk on the land, have a picnic, take a nap, etc.

The opening paragraph of the article is:

Michigan Department of Natural Resources law enforcement officials are hoping the public can help them determine who pushed boulders out of the way, removed a dirt berm and forced locked rest rooms open at a closed state forest campground in northeastern Dickinson County.

That's vandalism. The facilities of the campground, not the land, were closed.

Now, for everybody else, please don't tar and feather me about whether or not closing the campground was a good idea, I don't know if it was or not. But this idea of "it's public land, therefore I can vandalize it" is incorrect.

Public trust means access to the land, not uncontrolled use or behavior.

Closed campground means closed campground.

 

[doomsman]

Go to some local groups and form a friends of (such and such)
camp ground and volunteer to clean and mow it to keep it open.
Who knows it might work.

 

[lesledhead]

Hopefully the economy will come back and show the demand to re-open the closed sites. Send emails or whatever you can to Lansing to let it be known that the public needs an affordable way out sometimes.

I grew up in the northern lower and spent many weekends camping at rustic campgrounds. I try at least once a year to return to those campgrounds with my kids so they too have some wonderful childhood memories.

As for moving the rocks, I can tell you that I am a law abiding citizen, but the thought crossed my mind last year. I drove 300+ miles to Avery Lake last summer, arriving around noon on a Thursday so I could be sure to get a campsite. I wanted to camp at Big Oaks, but I knew that it had been closed, so we went to the old campground, only to find out that it was full. My kids started crying, and all I could think was "if I had a big enough rope, I could go down the road 1/2 mile and find 20 open sites..." 300+ miles down the effing drain. As we sat there pondering what to do with our weekend, we noticed a camper was packing up to leave. We lucked out and got a site (worst one there, right at the boat launch), but I couldn't help but believe that the other campground would have been well used if it was open.

Send your emails. Michigan can use the money and needs to reopen the closed sites. Afterall, it costs $15 a night to camp. That's good money for a rustic campground.

Tony

 

[booondocker]

OK, I'll run with ya on this one...

Public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use and that the government is required to maintain them for pubic use. I would maintain that the land upon which this campground sits is indeed in the public trust, and while I haven't seen this place, it appears that the DNR closed the campground, not the land.

Access to public land is different than defining usage of public land. The DNR closed the campground and restricted vehicular traffic, but I'm guessing you could still walk on the land, have a picnic, take a nap, etc.

The opening paragraph of the article is:

Michigan Department of Natural Resources law enforcement officials are hoping the public can help them determine who pushed boulders out of the way, removed a dirt berm and forced locked rest rooms open at a closed state forest campground in northeastern Dickinson County.

That's vandalism. The facilities of the campground, not the land, were closed.

Now, for everybody else, please don't tar and feather me about whether or not closing the campground was a good idea, I don't know if it was or not. But this idea of "it's public land, therefore I can vandalize it" is incorrect.

Public trust means access to the land, not uncontrolled use or behavior.

Closed campground means closed campground.

Here in lies the paradox:

"
You can camp anywhere on State Forest Property as long as:

• the property is not posted "No Camping"
• you are more than one mile from a designated State Forest Campground
• you follow all State Land Rules

You must also post a Camp Registration Card (PR 4134) at your campsite. To obtain a Camp Registration Card, contact your local DNR Office"

So basically since you can get a permit to camp on any state land, you have to move down the road to do your camping, while a perfectly good campground sits closed because someone decided it should be closed?

Last year they shut 9 Yoopie camp grounds down. Every time the DNR runs out of money, they shut camp grounds down.

While I would rather camp off by myself anyway, it is pure lunacy to shut down camp grounds but allow them to camp on any state forest as long as it is a mile away from any other state camp ground.

All they have to do, is say, "Due to budget cuts, we will no longer pickup trash, mow the grounds, pump the toilets, or send a state employee around to make sure you have adhered to camping rules. Please do your part to keep it clean and safe and it will stay open until that does not happen."

But what do I know....???

 

[yamadooed]

Economy is all good now everyone is back werk'n make'n twice as much as before no reason to close anything... Heck I'm even running out of room to put my wheelbarrows of cash... Insert more sarcasm here............

 

[skidont]

Why not put them out for bid . Say a person pays the state $5000 to lease the site for the summer . Everything is kept clean and used , someone has gotten themselves a job and the state made alittle money instead of dooing absolutely nothing

 

[booondocker]

I think that is a great idea. Sort of like outsourcing the camping areas, of course this takes away from the DEPARTMENT but why not? This would also introduce some bonified competition to other sites and you can do as you wish to make YOURS the best place to camp...drawing back those who liked their stay at YOUR site the best.

Wait a minute.....this sort of thing is a process called THINKING OUT OF THE BOX....is that even possible?

 

[bone2969]

Sell the campgrounds to pubic they will sink or swim. Unlike 98% Gov stuff sink only!!!!!

 

[skidont]

Dont make much sense to pay big money to close them but it is government at it's best

 

[shoelessjoe]

All they have to do, is say, "Due to budget cuts, we will no longer pickup trash, mow the grounds, pump the toilets, or send a state employee around to make sure you have adhered to camping rules. Please do your part to keep it clean and safe and it will stay open until that does not happen."

But what do I know....???

Yeah, that would go over well..............

If they just opened up the campgrounds for use with that message posted at the enterance I would give it a month or two before you had trash everywhere, people squatting (living) in the campground, etc etc.

Then there would be a thread on this site saying "I drove 300 miles to go to a rustic campsite and when I got there the place was totally trashed. Why don't they just close this place!!! Stupid DNR!!!!"

It's nice to think that if you put a sign up saying "clean up after yourself and be good while you're here" things would go smoothly but usually that's not reality in todays world. Walk through state land all over Michigan and what do you find? Peoples trash dumped in parking areas, beer cans everywhere, old furniture dumped along two tracks. People go out of their way to trash areas, you think if you opened up a campground for free use with nobody monitoring it that it would be used properly and people would be considerate?


Michigan is broke and they have to cut stuff. The state is in a downward trend in population, revenue, employment, etc etc etc. Everyone complains when things are shut down or closed but nobody (myself included) wants to reach into their pocket and pay more taxes to keep things open.

 

[asmski]

http://www.miningjournal.net/page/c...s-of-newest-DNR-recreation-area.html?nav=5006

So in this case transfer a campground to a different branch of the DNR and it stays open?

Anybody ever camp here? I never knew it existed and I sounds pretty cool.

 

[booondocker]

Shoes.....the glass is half empty.

What does it hurt to try? Perhaps turn the upkeep over to some local merchants who want the tourist trade....or just keep it open until the place gets trashed and then.....THEN close it.

Closing because it can't be staffed is....very narrow minded, at the least and not in the interests of the people who own this land....ME and YOU.

Asmski....this is SO typical of why the DNR gets black and blue grades....they are closing down sites which are readily available, but one that is "accessible by boat only" stay open...requiring signficantly more costs to maintain because everything must be done by boat...including the folks who will travel there to take care of the place.

This is absurd management at it's finest. (Or someone has a bunch of drag....not sure which)

If the DNR could do that with this remote site, they probably could have kept 5 other sites open for the same costs.

 

[shoelessjoe]

Shoes.....the glass is half empty.

What does it hurt to try? Perhaps turn the upkeep over to some local merchants who want the tourist trade....or just keep it open until the place gets trashed and then.....THEN close it.

Closing because it can't be staffed is....very narrow minded, at the least and not in the interests of the people who own this land....ME and YOU.

I wouldn't say I am a glass half empty guy at all. I would love to see the campgrounds stay open and available for use by me, you and everybody else. I just accept the fact that if you left it open with no rules, regulations or supervision it wouldn't take long for it to become a place that not many would want to use anyways.

Then once its trashed and they decide to close it back up they have to deal with the mess that it has become.

If a volunteer group signed a contract with the DNR or gov or whoever to maintain it on their own (cut the grass, clean the bathrooms, pick up trash, etc) than I would be ok with that as well.

I guess I would just rather see it closed for the time being as opposed to have it open and end up seeing it trashed.



If you want to "rustic camp" why not just do as someone else mentioned and get the permit and go out in the woods and camp? That's rustic camping at it's finest. No designated sites, no neighbors camping next to you, no port-a-jon's. Just you, your family and nature.