Sep 29: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 09-1712. The Appeals Court says that an agency is not entitled to deference simply because it is an agency. It is true that agencies are more specialized than courts are. But for courts to defer to them, agencies must do more than announce the fact of their comparative advantage; they must actually use it. And that means, among many other things, that the agency must apply — rather than disregard — the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria.
Kurt Meister, a Michigan attorney appearing pro se [representing himself], argues that the United States Forest Service disregarded the relevant criteria here. Specifically, he claims that the Service failed to comply with several of its own regulations and one federal statute indeveloping its 2006 management plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Northern Michigan. For the most part, we agree with him; and to that extent we reverse the district court’s entry of judgment in the Service’s favor and remand the case so that the Service may comply with those requirements forthwith.
The case concerns the Service’s management of recreational activities in the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Forests occupy about 970,000 acres on each side of the northern one-third of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. In the east, the Huron National Forest ranges between 12 and 30 miles long from north to south, and stretches 60 miles wide from west to east, reaching the shores of LakeHuron. In the west, the Manistee National Forest is about 75 miles long and 40 miles wide, reaching Lake Michigan near Manistee.
The Service issued a management plan for the Forests in 1986. In 2003, the Service published a notice of intent to revise the plan. The Service thereafter held public meetings and solicited public comments as to how to revise the plan. Meister commented on the Plan throughout its development. Those comments reveal fluency with the language of the relevant statutes and regulations; and they explained in considerable detail why Meister thought the Service was not meeting its obligations under the law. His principal comment was that, in developing the Plan, the Service had disregarded certain processes prescribed in its own regulations, so as to favor gun hunters and snowmobile users over other persons—for example, hikers andbirdwatchers — who use the Forests for quiet, solitary activities. He also commented that the Service should close more areas of the Forests to motorized activity than the Service seemed likely to close in the Plan. The Appeals Court said, “It appears that the Service disagreed with allof Meister’s comments.” Following an administrative appeals, Meister filed suit in district court and the district court granted the Service’s motion, holding in general terms that the Service had complied with the applicable regulations. The district court denied Meister’s motion.
The Appeals Court summarize its holdings saying, “First, the Service’s estimates of snowmobile and cross-country visitors to the Forests are arbitrary. . . Second, the Service has not complied with the requirement that it coordinate its recreational planning with that of the State of Michigan with the aim (to the extent feasible) of “reducing duplication in meeting recreation demands” with respect to gun hunting and snowmobiling. . . Third, the Service’s reasons for keeping pre-designation and club trails open to snowmobile use are arbitrary. . .Fourth, the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to consider whether to close Primitive and Semiprimitive Nonmotorized areas to gun hunting and snowmobile use, as Meister has proposed.”
The Appeals Court ruled, “Each of these failures was material to the Plan’s development. To that extent, the Plan’s approval was arbitrary or without observance of procedures required by law. Given that holding, we have authority to ‘set aside’ the Plan. . . We choose not to exercise that authority today, but instead grant the Service a reasonable time to adopt a plan that complies with the law. Ninety days from the date of our mandate seems to us ample time for that compliance. The district court may extend that period upon some showing that the court finds compelling; but in any event the Service shall comply forthwith. The district court’s judgment is reversed with respect to the claims summarized . . . Meister is entitled to judgment on those claims to the extent described . . . and the claims are remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court’s judgment is otherwise affirmed.”
Creativeconflictwisdom's Blog 
Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information.
What a selfish , self centered person . Mr Miester move to Kalifornia …….please!!
@Scott. I guess it is always interesting to see what we project onto others.
Kurt Meister, whom I have know personally for 16 years, grew up a hunter, and has absolutely no problem with large areas of the forest being used for hunting. And he is one of the least selfish people I have ever met.
As I understand his case against the US Forestry Service is that they make provision in their plans entirely for hunters and snow mobilers. They make no provision for those who want to hike in areas safe from hunters, to be quiet, watch wild life and cross country ski safe and away from noisy snow mobilers. His court case was to make sure the Forest Service made balanced provision for all forest users, not to stop hunting or snow mobiling. The Forestry Service, in responding to his case in the lower court, dishonestly pretended he was wanting to end hunting and snow mobiling, when that was never his argument. Pretended your opponent has some extreme demand is a well known way of dismissing their arguments without engaging with them. And in the process the Forest Service produced false statistics on numbers of hunters.
Nationwide the numbers of hunters is declining, while the number of bird watchers and hikers is growing fast. But nevertheless, there is plenty of forest for everyone, though while a hiker does not interfere with hunters, hunters make noise, as do snow mobilers. So all Kurt Meister wants is some % area to be set aside for quiet pursuits without guns shots or ski mobilers. Is that not reasonable? Isn’t one person’s freedom sometimes at someone else’s expense and isn’t there enough room for both freedoms: to be free to hunt in most of the forest and to be free of hunting noise in other parts?
seems reasonable enough perhaps all the folks that you mentioned would like to pay for permits as snowmobilers and hunters and fisherman do and maybe they would like to enter drawings to pursue there activity as is sometimes the case for hunters. Why do they need there own area I can’t believe that they are any less careful or responsible than hunters and snowmobilers
They need their own area because they want quiet away from noisy ORVs and gun shots. Some activities don’t really affect others and some do. They want 7%.
And of course in some areas there are a small but mindless minority of snow mobilers and hunters, who come to drink and make a noise, and probably cause 90% of the hunting accidents. I guess I would probably set aside 5% of forest for reckless drunken, littering, hunters and reckless snow mobilers, so that careful hunters and careful snow mobilers could be rid of them.
As you know, the reason there are drawings is that there is the risk of over-hunting that would spoil the next season’s hunting for all hunters. It’s not done to ration their fun. So far as I know, watching birds or hiking/cross country skiing puts no burden on the wildlife numbers, at least in large scale forests. So no logic to ration it via drawings.
Who needs to be safe from hunters ? What is the threat ? Noisey hunters ? you mean the occasional gunshot ? On a great day hunting Ruffed Grouse I might fire 5 times in 10 hours ! Firearm deer hunters mostly not at all ,and they are only in the woods for two weeks in the cold of November ! Snowmobilers are only out when there is a lot of snow . That leaves the greater part of the year hunter/ snowmobiler free ! Mr Miester needs more than that ? His attitude is selfish , he needs to learn to share and be more tollerent of his fellow man .
@ Scott as you know as a hunter, each year regrettably hunters kill each other by accident quite a lot, which is why hunting from a tree was made legal in Michigan a few years ago: less likely to shoot someone/be shot from a tree. So there is some safety issue, though of course nothing like the overall auto accident numbers or even the deaths through hitting deer on the roads. And we need hunters to keep those deer numbers down.
But the issue is simply one of division of the forest into different purposes. Just as some lakes allow power boats and some not and as a kayaker I appreciate that division. Similarly some private landowners post their land and restrict your hunting. You do not, if you think about it, need every acre of forest to hunt in. When I hike up north around Christmas, there are large numbers of noisy snow mobiles. In Kurt Meister’s view this is just fine: by all means make large hunting areas, maybe 80% or more, and lots of snow mobile trails; but also have significant, but accessible areas for other silent pursuits. Each side respecting the other side’s right to their pursuit, but not their right to monopolize the whole forest. And this is by the way what the law says according to the judge who ruled on this case: our country’s Forestry Service has an obligation to serve different users.
And remember Kurt Meister has hunted all his life. This is not selfishness, but concern for all users and the rule of law. I have met fewer more decent, tolerant men than Kurt Meister, and in a world where we knew each other and lived in the same community, people would know this and not ascribe selfish motives to people they don’t know. And our politics would be more civil too.
But thank you for your informative points above: they contribute to this debate. And healthy, civil debate is what this blog is all about. We try to retain traditional values of courtesy here, just as if we were talking face to face.
Hunters use the woods for the purpose of their sport, but also for the purpose of enjoying nature and solitary recreation, just like other recreational users may. “Quality” recreation may be subjective, however, one persons’ preference to exclude others should not give rise to excluding those “others” from PUBLIC land. Hunting does not and should not interfere with the “quality” experience of other users. Users of public land must have a mutual respect for each other and avoid user conflicts wherever necessary.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act allows the Forest Service to designate areas of public land where no hunting may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration or in compliance with other provisions of law. This authority should still be left to the Forest Service, not one’s own political bias or desire to not share public land with hunters.
@Patrick Carden. I don’t think there is any political bias in this issue so far as I know. Kurt Meister is a hunter, and last time I knew, not remotely political on anything except this issue. His legal case was to ensure that the Forestry Service met their legal obligations to balance users needs, and a Federal appeals court judge presumably agreed with him that they were not doing so.
Personally, I have had no issues with sharing wilderness with hunters, but I can understand those who wish to see some non hunting wilderness, not only for their own personal experience, but so there are some wildlife preserves too. The Forestry Service has an obligation to meet the needs of all users. And you are about to see mass lobbying of their consultation meetings by MUCC and other groups. Presumably you abhor this as you say: ‘This authority should still be left to the Forest Service, not one’s own political bias or desire to not share public land with hunters.’ Historically the Forestry Service has I understand primarily listened to hunters, but I have no specific data on this. And hunters have played a strong role in Michigan in wilderness preservation that I applaud.
One other interesting angle on this, is that hunting nationally is dying out: more and more young people are not following in their parents’ footsteps. The nature of the reaction to the recent court case is interesting in this context. Kurt Meister is getting a significant level of threats against him. This is exactly the sort of image hunting needs to avoid if it is to appeal to the wider population that it is losing. Why would someone who disagrees with you, threaten you? Makes no sense to me: it discredits the cause and suggests it has run out of arguments.
Very few hunters ” Kill each other” go ahead look it up . Hunting from a tree was allowed because there was no reason not to, and it gives deer hunters an advantage . By far the most dangerous part of hunting is driving to your hunting spot . I see no real reason to divide the forest into special interest areas. The Huron-Manistee forest is huge! There’s more than enough room for everyone. Subdivide it for every special interest? Bowhunting only areas, firearm deer only areas, Mountain bike …etc? Maybe at the next Ruffed Grouse Society meeting we can petition for grouse hunting only areas, then we could keep those pesky hikers away from us! Yikes! Where would it end! I kayak as well on local lakes and rivers, that is not even comparable to the forest, lakes are very confined areas. I really rather not listen to the incessant noise of jet skis , but I don’t think my rights are any different than theirs, to each his/her own. And I have heard more than one fisherman complain about kayaks and canoes disrupting their fishing! I guess we/they need their own areas as well ! I think when you look at this issue with and open mind it is easy to see where this could go . It would set a very bad precedent. The more I research Mr Meister and his suit , The more it looks just plain anti hunting , anti snowmobile self promotion . I would have a lot more respect for him if he was just straight forward about his intentions . Just remember when you are out enjoying this wonderful state ,and run in to someone else enjoying it in a different way, say hello and try to take enjoyment ,in their enjoyment .
Good points. I was clear about the relatively low risk from hunters, but just as swimmers down south fear sharks, so some folk would prefer no hunting areas. And no bangs….
Kurt Meister has no covert interest: what you see with him is what you get with him in experience in other fields. He only wants one division: hunting and snow mobiling/quiet. I agree with you that this could get complex, but the Forestry Service can figure this out intelligently, and if we all address this from a problem solving point of view it will work out just fine. I agree with the spirit of tolerance between different users that you advocate and I try to respect in my own use. I don’t think Kurt Meister’s case cuts across this, but I think it is fully consistent with it. And this blog is about dialogue about the concerns you raise and finding ways to address them.
This is an interesting case. There is a very strong need for places people can go to hike or cross country ski in quiet. Between all the various hunting seasons, snowmobiles and off road vehicles, it is hard to find any time to simply enjoy nature.
The hunters call Meister “selfish”, but they have passed laws in most states forbidding snowmobiling and hiking around them during hunting season. They don’t want others scaring away their prey because that hurts their fun, but they don’t care if their noise disturbs other people’s enjoyment. They object to having this very, very small part of the forest set aside for the majority of people who don’t hunt. It is obvious they are making no effort what-so-ever to see this from another person’s perspective.
Hunting is NOT compatible with other uses of the forest. No one I know hikes in the woods during hunting season. People are too afraid of being shot and it is unpleasant for many people to hear guns going off or to see animals killed. People who want a quiet enjoyment of the forest should have as much right to a place in the forest as do hunters.
Having separate places for people to do separate things is a GREAT idea.
If you google this, you’ll find a great website: http://huron-manistee.webs.com/ Anyone who wants to help make sure there are protected areas in which to enjoy quiet and nature sounds, can write to the Forest Service this week.
Thanks Alex for your interesting perspective. Certainly this blog encourages higher level solutions. It seems to me that the issue is very threatening to hunters’ identity and your making it clear that this issue is about respect for hunter’s interests AND other users is helpful. It is absolutely as I understand it, not about ending hunting. Interesting that hunters recognize that other uses interfere with their pleasure but cannot seem to accept that they interfere with other peoples’ pleasure. It is like someone complaining about your noisy party next door but then saying the people on the other side must stop their noise. I would have thought the forests are big enough for some exclusive use by the major users. And of course I would have thought the hunters might want some snow mobile free land too. Thanks for your civility.
once again a single person uses big brother gov. to impose there personal will on the masses. the comments from scott.sum up my feelings pretty well. butt it wouldent end . the same types of people who join the PTA and block orginations. you know the ones who Want to determine what color trash bags u can use and what time you can put your trash on the curb in your naighborhood. Dont laugh its the reason I moved hear from farmington mich 30 years ago. these type of people are migrating north and they intend to bring all! “there rules” with them and impose them on the rest of us. If your truly intrested in Equality the forest service should impose a 17.50 licence fee for all hikers bird watchers should pay a similar fee plus a dollar for watching migratory birds. simlar licence fee’s should be imposed on campers ect. and the federalies should hire more heavily armed black jack boot wearing INFORCEMENT officers to make sure your not bird watching out of season.and impose fines and imprissonment if you are .then mr.miester would be on a more equal basis with the hunters I fear the day when cussing in the woods or a canoe will be a crime???.hmmmmmm. Mr.Miester Dont Tread On Me.! Please.
@kurt lugwig. Your comment seems wholly disproportionate for an attempt to sensibly balance forest use among different users. And to be fair in many states hunters are happy to use state laws to outlaw snow mobile use or hiking near hunters hunting. I am indeed happy and do pay an annual fee for hiking in state parks, and your suggestion to extend this to state forest is a sensible one for balancing different users contributions to the budget.
But really if (as friends of mine have done) you lived in a real police state, you would see your comparison as ludicrous. When you have a tattoo number on your wrist, from a concentration camp, nothing hunters are facing because someone wants some quiet forest over 7% of land area is remotely comparable. You dishonor the opponents of real police states with your comparison.
On a wider note, the lack of a sense of proportion and listening to others, is actually the thing that threatens us with an authoritarian state. When Glenn Beck calls his opponents Nazis, he is actually offing onto others some of his own hatred. The Gospel according to St Matthew is a good antidote for such bile in my experience.
So please have some Christian charity, and hear what the arguments are about forest use and don’t compare them to 1984’s Big Brother: it just doesn’t fit the case. Just answer the argument: why should hunters have use of 100% of forest when their numbers are declining every year as my hunter friends bemoan, and the numbers of hikers and bird watchers is rising fast. Just answer that without needing to demean your opponent or accuse them of ridiculously exaggerated intent.
Oh and by the way, the fact that, as you note, Kurt Meister took this issue on single-handed over ten years, against the massed, organized and NRA funded hunters’ organizations should at least earn your respect for his sturdy individualism. And it is not like he didn’t try dialogue with hunters groups first. He tried repeatedly. Isn’t his right to stand on this issue protected by our Constitution? Isn’t trying to silence him with the cowardly threats that he has received, profoundly Un-American? Isn’t that the real threat to our liberties?
Isn’t the solution for the Forest Service to conduct a REAL survey of what people really want and to divide the forest according to how it actually would be used?
If Meister is the only person who wants this, then perhaps the forest should be 100 percent open to hunting. However, if 10 percent of the people want a place for quiet recreation, shouldn’t the Forest Service then set aside 10 percent of the Forest? If 75 percent want a place for quiet recreation, shouldn’t 75 percent of the Forest then be set aside? Isn’t this the Democratic way to solve the problem?
As I read the court case, the problem is that the Forest Service didn’t conduct any type of survey. That is what Meister sued over. Why can’t the forest service do a real survey by an outside, impartial group and get real data on which to base a real decision. The survey could be re-done every 10 years to make sure it has the right balance.
Right now, there are no organizations who speak for people like me who like hiking and cross country skiing. It is hard for our voices to be heard over all the yelling by the NRA and snowmobiling associations. Those groups have tons of money and they have used that money to buy politicians with campaign contributions. We need a real survey to determine what people really want.
By the way, I looked it up. NO hunting license money is used to support the national forests (Michigan state land yes, federal land no). The forests are taxpayer supported and belong to everyone.
@ Alex, sounds like a valid and helpful suggestion, though one would have to be careful that organized lobbies on either side did not skew the vote. And I would be a bit doubtful about 100% hunting or 100% hunting free. I try to respect minority interests even if the numbers are falling. I hike a lot and rarely encounter any hunters at all and as I mentioned before the younger generation seem to be very off hunting and its image. Thanks for your civility too.
There should be large, separate areas for silent, safe nature-observation, meditation, and spirituality. Follow along as I explain my position. Or skip to my last paragraph. I did not grow up around guns or hunters. I have never touched a gun. However, I do believe very strongly that we should all have the right to own guns. Why? Well, the alternative is for nobody to know how to hunt for their own food! And for government officials to be the only ones with guns. Both of those are indeed a frightening thoughts.
The closest I ever come to seeing guns is during hunting season, when I walk along roads, wearing my orange, instead of walking the forest trails as I would prefer. I always enjoy chatting with hunters as they park their cars along the road. I ask them questions about things I’ve noticed with respect to deer etc. Although I’m sacrificing my autumn in the forest, I think it is important to give hunters their “busy time” in the forest (deer season) without worrying about hikers passing by. I learned this lesson once in MI when I was hiking with a large group. We heard a shot, and then heard a bullet hitting leaves as it flew between myself and the hiker in front of me and off into the forest someplace unknown! We never saw the bullet. We all yelled to alert the hunter that we were nearby. Soon we came upon him putting his riffle away, shaken by the thought that he could have killed someone. He had been practice-shooting into a burm and didn’t know a 3000 mile National Scenic Trail passed behind the burm, a burm which his bullet apparently had missed!
So…. let the hunters hunt occasionally without concern for hikers. Why? 1.) Courtesy 2.) Safety. 3.) Hunters as a group are politically active and have the power to help protect the forest from those who would like to commercialize it, cut it down, and/or to build more “access” roads, biking and snowmobiling trails, oil wells…….and foot bridges over every little once-natural stream. Hunters are generally “conservative” and tend to protect (conserve) our disappearing wild places and their disappearing wild inhabitants.
Over the years I have noticed that both overweight and too-skinny kids are less and less frequently getting outside, away from their computers, Facebook accounts, cell phones, ipods, ipads and TVs. They are no longer told by parents “I don’t care how hot, cold, wet, or dry it is outside, turn that thing off and go outside and run around in the woods”. Fewer and fewer young people are following in their parents’ footsteps. Consequently, wildlife as well as we hiking, nature-watching, non-hunter, non-snowmobiler citizens with quiet pursuits are incrementally being squeezed out of wild places. (Read a book called Last Child In the Forest!) We may not be “organized activists”, but there are many of us out here who feel this way. We deserve some serious consideration. Please do continue hunting, biking, snowmobiling etc. Get OUT there everyone, but remember to reserve and conserve a piece of the pie for us. It’s a matter of courtesy ….. and fairness….. and Vision for the future in an increasingly overpopulated planet. Like it or not, consideration for our neighbors must become more and more paramount if we are all to get along as there are more and more of us and as we live closer and closer together. It will be interesting going forward.
Thanks @Louis for your excellent and very thoughtful piece that is respectful to all the interests in this issue and very consistent with the principles of this blog. And personally I completely agree that we need to work hard to get all our young people out there in nature for whatever activity, hopefully including some silent time in nature without mechanical noise. And I particularly like your timely reminder that the word ‘conservative’ applies to conserve not just our way of life and Constitution, but also the American wilderness that is part of our national heritage. I have sometimes asked myself the question: why is it that conservatives don’t want to conserve?
Silence is a source of great strength. It seems that Kurt Meister is a living testimony of that truth.
@ John M. Your comment on Kurt Meister is well said.
The Law: There is no constitutional law stating a US citizen has a Right to Quiet observance of the outdoors, no more than there is no constitutional law stating the right to hunt.
Therin lies the rule of precedence. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act allows the Forest Service to designate areas of public land where no hunting may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration or in compliance with other provisions of law. Allowance for quiet areas would indeed set quite a precedence for other individualist “rights”.
Under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act all hunters pay excise taxes on their hunting equipment, which gets dispersed to state wildlife agencies for conservation efforts. Unlike most recreational users in the Huron-Manistee National Forest, hunters are directly responsible for the roughly $25 million Michigan receives each year in wildlife conservation funding. Hunters actually fund and protect the very birds and sanctuary Kurt want to observe in his silence …..
Sarcasticly: the trials and pathways that allow anyone to traverse this large area are the ones most traveled. Nature tends to gravitate away from these areas. Now a truly sanctified and rudy character like Kurt should develop his mountaineering skills (and drop some weight ) and perhaps go off the trails 1 -3 miles. He becomes closer to nature, cannot hear snowmobiles, gets some exercise, and once he has to sit for 8 – 10 hours without hearing a shot, he will have enjoyed the EXACT SAME quality of reacreation that me, the hunter enjoys. … and that is – exercise, true sun rises, squirrels playing, fresh air, crunching feet of does, running water, chick-a-dees on my shoulder, a nap, a solitary lunch, blue jays raising cane, fog rolling across a field, fresh rain on my face, birds of prey overhead, peace, the crackling of the plants contracting at the end of the evening (twilight). This is why I hunt …. And this is the calm I gain by hunting …..
Genetics: Unless a hunter is stalk hunting …. The “hunt”is only a trigger pull and 3 hours of hard labor preparing your kill (in the same way humans have existed carnivorously over the last 100,000 years).
Heritage: My son is 11 and will hunt with me next year. I plan to take him to various public Michigan hunting grounds over the next few years. He will learn many towns, walk them, and breathe Michigan in all 6 corners. And never will we ask another person to stop doing what they love….. so that we may do what we love.
Kurt – third person self rightous – you are indeed – selfish. But I do invite you to go with me, 3 miles off any trial, and show you the outdoors.
@ Michael. Not all our laws have to be backed by a constitutional right, so long as they are consistent with the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to be free of trash, but we fine people for dropping it on the highway. There is equally no constitutional right to hunt, just to bear arms (some would recall ‘in a well regulated militia’, but I won’t go into that). If the law is so clear, why is the Michigan House and Senate scrambling to pass a motion on this issue, fearful no doubt of the NRA?
As for the funding issue, I understand that hunting licence fees do not go to these forests, but I stand ready to be corrected. Much of Michigan’s tourist revenue is unrelated to hunting and indeed is linked to nature reserves. This might add a bit to that traffic as it is bird watching and hiking that is growing fast; hunting that is declining. But I applaud all that hunters have done for nature conservation over the years via MUCC and NWF.
And if the law is so clear, why did the judge find as he did. Times change and the regulations we need may need to change. We do not live by hunting any more and our genetic evolution, except in the few remaining hunter gatherer groups in the Amazon, is unaffected by it. Though I guess the deer are affected by being stalked and the more nervous get away.
Nothing that is proposed will stop your hunting, your handing on your heritage to your son, just limit it to 93% of Michigan US Forest areas. So you can still take your son hunting. And it seems that the real issue is a fear for this heritage. If hunter numbers continue to decline this fast, people will be hunting in Michigan in 50 years time only if hunters find a better reputation for fitting in with other users, and this was a chance to move in that direction. Personally, I know many hunters and they are good people, and some of them see the sense in this restriction, just as they see the sense in a hunting season. As one said to me: 93% is perfectly fine with me.
Why, when you have cogently and effectively argued your case do you have to throw in that Kurt Meister is selfish. I assume you don’t know him? If you did, as I do, you would know him to be one of the least selfish people on earth: the sort of person who will come dig you out if your car is stuck in snow in the middle of night.
Stick to the arguments and remember, we usually project onto others our own sins as per Matthew 7 verse 3. I will not do this and suggest you are selfish in your pursuit of hunting at the expense of those who want quiet, as I don’t know your motivation or character. I don’t judge you without data. But what data I have suggests that you are posting here because you are not selfish, but want to support your fellow hunter’s rights. Can you not find it in your heart to see Kurt Meister is equally not selfish, because, despite the threats he has received from some hunters who disrespect the free speech in our Constitution, he is looking after what he sees as the interests of non-hunters who want quiet. He has hiked and skied Michigan woods for nearly 50 years and does not I am sure need your guidance as to how to get away from it all. He is trying to get a 7% set aside to this end for others less knowledgeable.
I courteously suggest you stick to the legal and moral arguments and put your problem solving hat and think: how can we solve this issue in all side’s interests?
From above I wrote: “Heritage: My son is 11 and will hunt with me next year. I plan to take him to various public Michigan hunting grounds over the next few years. He will learn many towns, walk them, and breathe Michigan in all 6 corners. And never will we ask another person to stop doing what they love….. so that we may do what we love”.
Kurt – in the third person you write of yourself … lol – My last sentence is what is inargueable : The Data your have presented over and over is clear – You want to stop someone from doing what they love …. so you can do what you love. This is called “SELFISHNESS”. Dont argue it.
If I may respond to your comment when you write, “handing on your heritage to your son, just limit it to 93%”. JUST LIMIT IT. hmmmm . You are looking to put into law a regulation of precedence. When in 10 yrs – folks can argue that hunting is not as strong, and they can JUST LIMIT IT to 75%, or maybe some newly invented “glide powered snowboarders” are in danger 20 years from now so JUST LIMIT IT to 50%. And finally – like cigarettes, JUST BAN IT. Ask the American Indian how JUST LIMIT IT worked for them …..
Are you letting this sink in Mr. Just Limit It to 93% ? An unselfish person would say deregulate the land so that 100% of the land can be used by 100% of the people for 100% of the things they love.
Be an adventurist. Go off trial. Go deep in the woods and find fields abound and unfettered. Wildlife abound. Everywhere. They are not clearly marked in the National Forest because there is no humans frequenting those areas. This is called adventure. This is called nature. This is called exploration. And you can do all this 100% of the time now because there is currently no limit on you.
Finally, you’d be better off just fighting off the snowmobilers. At least there is a clear distinction there AND there is precedent. There are currently many State and Federal Forests with non-motorized areas. I feel this is your best direction if you seek peace from decible producing humans.
However if you are racist against dumb redneck hunters and drunken snowmobilers and look to amputate your local hangout from them, as I sense this may be the real motive of your efforts, then so long as you can admit it, then we have a totally different dialogue that needs to take place. Let me know. I am truly interested in helping you.
But first, be honest with us, and with yourself.
@ Michael. If you bothered to read this whole blog site, you would realize that I am not Kurt Meister, who did not work in the corporate sector, or with the US Military (all four services), has none of my interests in conflict as a wider topic, and has nothing else in common with me, but the fact we live in Michigan, came from blue collar families, love nature, and know each other. And damn it, I am not an attorney! This is not the first time this conflict pro has been caught in the cross-fire and accused of being one side or the other. Last year they said I was an Irish academic living in Cork, Ireland; so I guess it goes with the territory. Maybe someone will say I am the President of Egypt next, given I posted on that subject. If you want to accuse me of being anyone: Warren Buffet, whom I admire for his financial wisdom and modest life style would be fine. I do drive a car as old as his seven year old Taurus. And I am a fan of 7.62 mm as a preferred rifle caliber if we have to fight wars. I doubt Kurt Meister has a view on that topic or on the best field artillery, how good was the T-34 tank, the risks of anti-ship missiles to our carriers, or other issues that interest me.
Why do you need a 100% of the forest? That is the only thing that I don’t understand from your clear arguments above. Why should this be a prelude to something else? Why do you need to impune the motives of those who disagree with you? They just have different views. You don’t have malign motives for your views; why should your opponents. They simply disagree on this issue. Period.
You will see that this site posts all views with respect on this as on the 200+ other subjects we have covered this year. This blog is about rational debate, pros and cons, and attempting to find higher level solutions that meet everyones’ interests.
And your comments are well put on snow mobiling as much noisier. I understand that no hunting organization was prepared to consider this when they were approached. And yes that might have been my personal target had this been my issue, which it is not. I have much more trouble with snow mobilers than hunters and some have said they have been behind the threats, but I don’t know that.
How do you respond to the fact that this sets no limit on bow hunting because it is silent? Introduce your son to the joys of bow hunting (I used a bow when I was a kid) and don’t affect anyone else at all.
A truly unselfish person would, I suppose, take into account of all others’ interests. One could argue, you are stopping people who want quiet forest areas having them. Plenty of room for debate here, but neither side has the monopoly on virtue. And there is no race or class prejudice here; just the desire for quiet that is one of the reasons hunters hunt…A
I still think those who threaten a man’s family and the Forestry workers who are trying to gather opinions in a cowardly way deserve to feel ashamed, and good people like yourself need to dissociate from them as I think you do. This blog has no tolerance for intolerance and shouting people down.
Oh and I believe there is a map of exactly what areas are affected. As I am not Kurt Meister I don’t know exactly where it is posted but I am sure the US Forest Service could tell you if it was part of the legal case.
And though I find myself emotionally tied to these writings, I do want you to recognize that many intelligent, spiritual, kind, hunters like myself, applaud you for sticking to your guns and your beliefs. I so thoroughly root for the underdog, the guy fighting the good fight, and you are a good man, Noone is claiming different.
But we, as hunters, are already restricted to 4% of the year to rifle hunt, and 2 % to a musket hunt. We are severely taxed, the heaviest contributors to Conservation efforts, and dear God we usually work 50 weeks out of the year just so when hunting comes around, we can “escape” the corporate, restriction based, lawed, banned, posted, limited lives to just get out in the woods to JUST RELAX…. and even sleep! So any further restriction is just an insult Kurt, Im sorry.
Im sorry to take the conversation where its going, but the individuals remove the rights of the masses purturbs me. One extreme (but chilling) thought: IF they cant outlaw guns, then they can tax ammo til its unaffordable and /or remove huntable land and thereby convince the public since you cant hunt any more, then guns would be around only to commit crime … so ban guns finally …. Is this what you want ?
So tell me, you dont just want a survey, what areas do you propose to be off limits to snowmobilers, and what areas off limits to hunting ? Use the Michigan DNR quadrant map so we can locate the areas for reference ? Do you want blocks or corridors ? Let us know.
I know this area better than most. If this guy can’t find a quite area to walk around and watch some birds in the dead of winter he isn’t trying very hard. I am guessing he has some vacation property near this area and is just being selfish, He doesn’t want any hunters or snowmobilers disturbing his morning cup of coffee on his back porch of his cabin.
@Peter Brown. What is it with this issue. The guy wants 6% of Huron-Manistee forest to be set aside for quiet pursuits. That is 1% of total Michigan forest. He doesn’t even want to exclude bow hunting or fishing: just gun hunting and snow mobiling that makes a noise. He has tried for years to talk with hunters and find some solution. Why can’t you simply argue the rights and wrongs of that. Why do you have to bring in that he is being selfish. You have no evidence of that, don’t know the guy. And he doesn’t have a cabin in this forest. He is a life long woodsman and not some recent arrival and he was raised in a hunting family. Stop setting up stereotypes to take pot shots at.
And I have just heard that the police had to be called to the Grand Rapids consultation meeting last night because some hunters got out of order. That does not help your case. What has happened to our society that a presumably decent person like you cannot just debate an issue without calling the other side selfish?? Just tell me why you need 100% of the Huron-Manistee forest? And that you are ashamed of your fellow hunters who cannot hold a civil debate with the US Forest Service. And who make threats of violence against Kurt Meister and his family. Shame on them.
“Nationwide the numbers of hunters is declining, while the number of bird watchers and hikers is growing fast.”
What was wrote by you above is debatable. Its like saying 10 yrs ago there were 750,000 hunters and now there are 675,000 …. or a 10% decline while in the same time period there were 1,000 hikers / birdwatchers 10 yrs ago and now there are 2000 …. or a 100% increase. Really now ?
So if hiking for 2000 ppl (example) were allowed in 100% of the forest for 96% of the year, while rifle hunting for 675,000 ppl (example) is only allowed 4% of the year, that alone seems way off the common sense meter to give the hiking/birdwatchers more while further restricting the hunters ……. Why would you remove 7% of a National forest just so 2000 ppl can hike/bird watch 100% of the time ? Is that 2 weeks a year really going to make a difference ? DO you have to have it all ?
I truly believe we have someone trying to set a precedent. And I believe he is going to be hard pressed to get his way.
@ Michael.
I studied statistics and I understand your point about the base number, not just the % trend being important. I don’t have the detailed numbers on the decline in hunting; just that my hunter friends (non-hunters don’t know or seem to care about this) tell me that for every 100 hunters that die of old age, 25 take their place. They are worried about this, and I understand how they feel, if it is true. I would not like to know that some sport of mine was declining either.
I understand that there are about 15 million people who take our hunting licences in the US each year or about 5% of the population of 300 million, so it is very much a minority activity, even if you take the slightly higher number of the hunting organization’s estimate of about 20 million. I am sure more people hike than hunt, and I have never been anywhere in the US forests where there were more hunters than hikers, but that is just a personal experience and maybe skewed and there are hunters that hike no doubt.
I understand, that according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study, birdwatchers contributed with 36 billion USD to the US economy 2006, and one fifth (20%) of all Americans are identified as birdwatchers. That would be 60 million people. But of course that probably includes some hunters too. But bird watchers are not a very organized political force so you don’t hear much from them. We just watch birds.
But the point is not to stop or restrict hunting. Indeed, Kurt Meister’s plan allows bow hunting everywhere in the forest and gun hunting in 93% of Huron-Manistee and 99% of total Michigan forests. The point is to have some quiet gun shot free and snow mobile free forest year round. As I said above, for me in winter the snow mobile issue is much more significant in terms of noise. But there it is. Kurt Meister suggests 7% but it could be less. There is too much fear of precedent around this issue that I do think reflects partly the decline in hunter numbers and the dying out of heritage.
I tend to agree that this proposal will probably not happen. But to me that is testimony to the power of the NRA on politicians, and government, and the noisy minority who intimidate folk with threats, rather than of decent people like you who argue cogently and civilly, and appreciate people who take an individual stand without organizational support.
Thank you for your contributions.
Y’know- it kinda struck me, the national forest already has two wilderness areas offlimits to hunting, and several areas of non motorized trail ? And 50 weeks of No Rifle Hunting allowed anywhere in the park ? hmmm ?
I guess a potential solution, to offset the economic losses, is in the proposed 7 % area, have hikers/ birdwatcher pay a $15 fee for 2 weeks use of the park ( similar in cost to hunting licenses), parking fee $6 a day (like a boat launch fee). That would offset the immediate government losses. How do you propose the local hotel and restarant industry around that 7 % area ?
I would propose to lock the SEIS results for 30 years so that “the rights of a lawyer wanting solitary” doesnt remove entire rights of many generations in chucks, or every 10 years another “just limit” campaign for another 7% ….. in just one generation.
Finally, The National Forest would take the same rough acreage and add it to a surrounding area for hunting season only, no birdwatching, motor vehicles or hiking. An area undisturbed by humans 50 weeks of the year such that a stealthy hunter may slide in and have an quality hunt.
This seems fair and reasonable ? What do you think ?
I have no idea whether it is fair and reasonable, but it sure beats death threats to Kurt Meister, so bring it on, work it up and show us how there would be any economic losses from the 7% set aside to offset, given 60 million people in the US watch birds but only 20 million hunt.
I already pay $20 bucks to hike in State Parks so fine to pay $20 for the US Forests. And some areas, say 7%, that are free of humans 50 weeks of the year sounds fine to me.
This is what good conflict handling is all about: not standing on absolutes, or attributing false motives, but horse trading a bit and getting a good solution. I don’t know if yours is a good solution but it’s a start. Good on you.
Since it is public land and everyone can use it in it’s current state I think Kurt Meister should consider buying himself some private land and and post no noise signs on it. Snowmobile season is maybe 3 months long and hunting season I believe is even less so for the most part 7-8 months have no hunting and no snowmobiling going on. Is that not good enough for him? And PLEASE….how many bird watchers are there in the dead of winter or even late fall in Michigan? Now remember once the snowmobiles are gone there won’t be any snowmobile trails for the bird watchers to walk on so I wonder how they intend to actually get deep into the woods to actually do their bird watching when there’s 4+ feet of snow? I’m sure if you checked with all the local businesses in the proposed area that you will find most if not all do not support Kurt Meister in his efforts to drive away business from snowmobiling and hunters. There are some areas in Michigan that survive on business from snowmobiling and hunting so maybe Kurt should consider how his actions will further hurt the Michigan economy.
@ Aaron. Good points succinctly and civilly put. Thanks.
I guess there are such things as hiking trails and the Forestry Service is not exclusively at the service of snow mobilers. The whole point about this case is one of balance. For the Forestry Service to come up with a plan for all users’ interests not just the vocal hunters and snow mobilers. That is what the judge ruled.
No business is going to publicly say they favor the restriction of hunting or they would be boycotted, and maybe get threats like Kurt Meister received.
I still haven’t received one cogent argument around why not set aside 7% for non gun hunting, non snow mobiling? 7% bows only? Or heck even 7% rifle only for two weeks of the year? Or some lesser amount or whatever. It is mostly, from the hunters we want 100% for hunting and anyone who opposes this has ulterior motives, is a bad person, should be threatened or whatever.
Personally this issue does not affect me at all as I do not go to Huron-Manistee. But I join any conflict, where it seems that things are a bit one sided, and people are not thinking things through, but engaging in group think. So far as I know there is no group for Kurt Meister to suffer group think with. I like a good civil argument.
The problem with giving Kurt Meister his wishes is it will become a domino effect allowing anyone to make requests for public land to be designated for their private use only. Soon you have people all over the state making requests for only 7% of the national forest by them to be designated as quiet zones and that’s exactly what will happen. I don’t see the problem with how the areas are currently designated since like I said before snowmobile and hunting season are late fall and winter activities when I highly doubt anyone is looking to do bird watching or quiet strolls in the woods when the snow is up to their neck. There are many people in the area close to Kurt Meister that bought their homes in that exact area for the reason of being able to hunt and snowmobile right there at home. So now you’re going to take that ability away from them for one person and whatever backers he has? I’m sorry but that’s just not right.
They are not just his wishes; I am sure others want quiet walking too. I do. Remember 60 million Americans are bird watchers; 20 million hunt. No one who bought a property for hunting or snow mobiling would be denied this by a 7% set aside.
There is certainly no group behind Kurt Meister I can assure you. He is absolutely not a group sort of person, but someone, who quietly does what he thinks is right. No organization would support him because they are afraid of the hunters’/NRA political lobby. And he tried repeatedly to talk to hunters’ organizations to find a way for a silent area in a way that did not upset them. They just did not want to even discuss it. Going to court was a last resort after 10 years of individual effort.
My own solution to meet all side’s interests is to set aside 7% of the land as proposed. But on this 7% to allow all hunting for the two weeks of the core rifle hunting season only; no different times for muzzle loading or any special groups. This protects the principle of hunting. To ban snow mobiling all year in this 7%, so that the gun hunting 2 weeks is uninterrupted by noise. To allow bow hunting on the 7% in season as now, and as it is silent it disturbs no one and would be improved by the absence of snow mobile noise. And then for 50 weeks of the year, the 7% is silent. And this removes the idea that this is some anti-hunting move. It is in fact a pro-silence move, and hunters would gain a little by having 7% of forest free of snowmobiles during the peak 2 week season and during the bow hunting season. Happy to investigate the detail of this. But it seems to be a possible compromise.
By the way, I understand most of the threats to Kurt Meister seem from their content to have come from snow mobile supporters, and some hunters have personally asked me to make clear they utterly dissociate themselves from threats which are a contravention of the Second Amendment of our Constitution: the right to free speech. They disagree with Kurt Meister, but not with his right to speak out. I think that is an excellent point to make.
LANSING — State lawmakers are making a statement against a proposed ban on firearm hunting and snowmobiling on 70,000 acres of Huron-Manistee National Forest after a legal challenge forced the U.S. Forest Service to re-evaluate areas managed for quiet recreation.
Dozens of lawmakers are supporting state House Resolution 17 and Senate Resolution 6, identical measures that “express opposition to the possible ban of firearm hunting and snowmobiling in certain areas of the Huron-Manistee National Forest,” according to the legislation.
“The 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan was available for and received extensive public comment before being implemented. Yet the public’s access to 70,000 acres of public land is being threatened by one individual’s preference,” the resolutions state.
The resolutions are in response to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court decision that directed forest officials to re-examine 13 semi-primitive, non-motorized areas of the Huron-Manistee National Forest.
That court decision was based on a complaint filed by Novi attorney Kurt Meister, who challenged the forest service’s decision to allow hunting and snowmobiling in those areas, which include Wakely, Hoist, Bowman and Reid lakes, Briar Hills and Manistee and White rivers.
HR 17 and SR 6 are not binding decisions or potential laws, but instead convey a unified position of the Michigan legislature against a hunting and snowmobiling ban.
Once finalized, the position will be forwarded to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and the state’s congressional delegation, officials said.
Forest officials had their final public meeting on the land use issue in Lansing last week, about the same time lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to approve the resolutions in committee.
The full House approved the position against a ban last week, and the full Senate is expected to do the same. More than 50 representatives in the state House have signed on to co-sponsor the legislation, officials said.
Sen. Goeff Hansen, R-Hart, chairs the Senate Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Committee and said several groups sent representatives to testify in favor of the Senate resolution, including the National Wild Turkey Federation, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, tourism and snowmobiling groups and others.
There was no testimony given in support of a ban, he said.
“We’re talking about 70,000 acres, many of them in my (district). I’m just concerned that it’s an assault on our hunting rights and snowmobiling rights. If we start reducing the availability of our publicly owned land for use by the
public, we’re not doing anyone any favors,” said Hansen, who sponsored the Senate resolution.
“I think we should use scientific ways of doing things … as opposed to one man’s public opinion. Snowmobiling is a large part of Michigan’s economy, especially in the winter, and several trails go through this area.”
Rep. Peter Pettalia, R-Presque Isle, introduced HR 17 both to maintain public access to the semi-primitive areas of forest, but also to avoid a ban he believes would have a severe negative impact on local communities, said Kent Wood, Pettalia’s legislative director.
Hunting and snowmobiling bring in millions in revenue for hotels, restaurants, gas stations, outdoor outfitters and other local businesses, Wood said.
“Hunting is a multi-million dollar business in this area, as is snowmobiling. Certain communities could be devastated by (a ban) like this,” Wood said.
Meister could not be reached for comment.
Bird Watchers-Hikers and others had their chance to speak up and it looks like they did not.
Just goes to show how frightened the politicians are of the NRA and hunter’s groups. Nothing to do with one individual’s preference. Just one individual who is prepared to stand up against threats, and is not influenced by lobbying funds. Not the slightest shred of understanding in the politicians’ comments that a huge amount of Michigan’s tourist industry has nothing to do with hunting but is about Michigan’s wilderness. I think it makes Michigan more attractive to advertise: we have huge tracts of great hunting and snow mobiling and also some set aside for quiet walking and cross country skiing. Why does it have to be 100% or tourism collapses? Where is the evidence that 93% availability will put off a single bit of business? It is all over the top emotional and no science at all. Where is the evidence for a ‘severe impact on local communities’? No one has posted any on this comment stream or anywhere else. And my compromise suggestion below largely addresses even this risk. No mention of how destructive snow mobiling is to cross country skiing trails?
Bird watchers and others tend to like silence. Snow mobilers like noise; not surprising they make more impact. 🙂
Do you understand that the area he wants designated already has snowmobile trails going through it? These trails have been there for decades and facilities like gas stations, restaurants and more have been built around this area to make it easy for snowmobiles to access them right from the trails. Believe me it’s no easy task to move a trail to a new area due to wet lands or other obstacles. Most of these trails have been built around heavily tree populated sections of the woods so the need to cut trees down for access is kept to a minimum. A new trail around the proposed section may not be possible without some major tree cutting which would get the tree huggers in an uproar causing yet another court battle fighting the rerouting of the trail around the quiet area. If you had any idea of the battles snowmobile groups had to deal with you might understand why they would be upset that one person like Kurt Meister could possibly get his own private forest amongst public land.
Fine, the Forest Service has been tasked by a Federal Judge to come up with a solution that meets diverse users needs. Nothing to stop snow mobilers suggesting a way round this problem, instead of saying: we accept no changes, we want 100% and everyone else can go to hell. That is exactly why the legal case was lost by the Forestry Service, who took the easy, no change or we will upset the hunters and snow mobilers; and exactly why they now have their thinking caps on and I like thought.
And I don’t like it when people who use phrases like tree-huggers, without knowing any, or what they might think. Since when did anyone object to limited replacement logging (not clear cut)? Cutting a new trail to protect a semi-primitive wildlife area would be fine with most people.
And its not Kurt Meister’s private forest: its everyone who likes quiet, its bow hunters, and in my proposal, its hunters in the peak two week season.
And if the particular areas are ideal for snow mobiling, there is nothing to stop you suggesting somewhat different areas is there? Say: this 4% is fine, but we would like a different 3% over here or whatever. That is exactly why Kurt Meister tried for ten years for dialogue with hunters and snow mobilers, and gave up and went to court, because they all said my way or the highway….Rigid positions in my experience of conflict are brittle and unsustainable. Some flexibility of thinking would meet most of your interests as a hunter or snow mobiler, and respect other users’ interests too.
PS Do you know how many visitors US National Parks get each year, none of them for hunting or snow mobiling, which are not allowed? It is 275 million. So if the Michigan tourist industry think that the only business opportunity is catering to hunters and snow mobilers, and not setting aside some areas to attract quiet wilderness hikers and cross country skiers, the sort of folk who go to National Parks, they are missing one big business opportunity. It would be interesting to know how many visitors Michigan gets and how many hunt. Would be great to have more info on this whole issue and not just the data free generalities of running scared politicians. And of course with intelligent discussion, we could get incremental quiet wilderness tourists and not lose a single hunter or snow mobiler. Michigan is not small.
Do you live in Michigan? Have you ever been to our National forests here? Our National forests not Parks as you keep calling them are just that, a forest with dense tree populations and swamps. Not the type of thing tourists are going to travel from California or even closer states to see. We don’t have a Yellow Stone or Grand Teton National Park that has been turned into a tourist attraction. So stop calling them Parks when they’re just National Forests. We have National Parks in some of the forest areas and those don’t allow motorized vehicles other than cars in the parking lots to enter. Kurt Meister wants to walk out his back door and have his own quiet area (boy wouldn’t everyone like that?) which is not going to happen. You can’t please everyone all the time so you try and please the masses and some people will just not be satisfied. You can’t always get what you want but if you try sometimes you get what you need. Hey that could be a song.
Sure I live in Michigan. I hike and bike its trails and wilderness areas in UP and further south; I kayak its rivers and I love the place. I chose to retire here when I could retire many other places and wilderness is one reason. I don’t keep calling Michigan forests, parks. I just cited the huge numbers of people who go to National Parks and yes many of them don’t walk far from the car park; but millions of us each year hike Grand Teton, or the wilder parts of Glacier to get away from the crowds, or whatever; and yes we do leave the beaten path and explore true wilderness where you can hardly move for trees.
Part of the problem in this issue is that you and others may want to stereotype Kurt Meister or anyone who thinks like him, when you don’t have a clue what he is/they are really like. You just have an image of non-hunters/bird watchers/non snow mobilers/liberals/outsiders/. You will notice that in this blog on all subjects, I try not to attribute any malicious motive to those I am arguing with. Or stereotype them. I don’t always succeed because it is hard not to just see an opposing view and block it out and attribute bad motives and instead think: ‘oh there may be something in that. Let me think about it’. It is always easier to say: ‘oh those hunters or those snow mobilers…..’ This blog is all about trying to break that habit. And notice every single comment against Kurt Meister has been posted here in full, though we do hope they are civil and will not post threats, but thankfully I have not received any. I provide a forum for opposing views and respect and listen to them. I like arguing so I respond point by point, but don’t think that I am just on one side. I pushed back when some one suggested much greater restrictions on hunting. And I have suggested some compromises too.
It is likely that more than 7% of Michigan forest users in any given area are not hunters or snow mobilers, and so these non hunting and non snow mobiling masses not only should get some set aside, but I predict that they will get some set aside because the arguments are pretty solid for some set aside. But I will certainly be on your side if anyone tries to stop hunting over a disproportionate area. I support all users needs: for quiet, for access, for trails for different uses etc. I support the needs of hunters who want some snow mobile noise free hunting too as some have told me they would like. It is not beyond the whit of man or woman (some of my hunting friends are women) to come up with creative solutions once one side stops saying no way, not ever, not an acre of set aside.
I guess I don’t understand the problem since snowmobile season is only allowed Dec 1st to April 1st and I’m not sure on hunting season but I think it’s only 1 or 2 months in the fall. So the rest of the year hunters and snowmobiles are banned from the forests. Is that not enough time for Kurt? Those are the warmest months with no hunters or snowmobiles making noise which I would think is the best time to be out in the woods hiking or bird watching. Am I wrong? He gets his quiet time and we get our snowmobile and hunting time. Sounds like we already have a winning solution but I get the impression that Kurt wants to be selfish and not share the woods with hunters and snowmobiles. I would like to see a count of how many bird watchers actually go out in the dead of winter and trek through 4+ feet of snow in 0 degree weather to bird watch. I bet it’s almost none considering most of the birds have all flown south. And how many hikers would go out in the same conditions? I know Both myself and my wife you like to hike wouldn’t go out in the snow to hike.
Excellent points so that not 100% hunting, snow mobiling is already reality. I do have snow shoes and do a bit of the mid winter hiking as do my friends. And of course part of the argument is about cross country skiing, which I don’t do, and snow mobiles apparently mess up trails by zig zagging and churning flat snow which freezes in ruts.
Kurt ain’t selfish: he wants 93% of Huron Manistee to be used by hunters and snow mobilers as now. Doesn’t sound very selfish to me. I think the Fall is the time of problems re hunters because limited hunting takes place Sept-End Nov, and all I would do is compress that on the 7% into two weeks and leave the rest untouched. As for snow mobiling, if someone would actually get with the Forestry Service and a map, it might be possible to figure out the most problematic trails and make some snow mobile only and some skiing only and if this seriously cuts back on the snow mobile trails: create some more away from semi primitive wilderness. I assume there is no particular attraction as you whiz by to what wilderness detail looks like? But I don’t know snow mobilers like I know hunters.
PS Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge the key role that hunters and their organizations and ski mobilers have played in preserving Michigan wilderness. In our differences over the issue of the 7% set aside in Huron-Manistee, it is easy to forget that we all share a love of Michigan and its wilderness. I don’t know if that makes it easier to solve the problem of conflicting user needs; but we share far more than we differ over; great forest in a great state!
Hunters, snow mobilers, hikers, skiers whoever are not being selfish in trying to get their needs met. They are often looking after their fellows’ needs too. The creative part is matching the needs and to do that you have to respect the other different users and not categorize them as selfish.
Well the snowmobiles pay a fee to have the trails groomed along with snowmobile clubs that raise money to purchase trail groomers plus some funding from the state so we don’t share trails with cross country skiers. Some snowmobilers zip along through the woods with not seeing to much scenery but there are a lot of families that go at a slow pace to take in the sites and there are some scenic outlooks in some areas that many will stop at to checkout. You really have no idea how difficult it is to get a new trail established in Michigan. There’s a newly proposed trail in the UP that the state says it may be approved and opened in 5 years. No kidding 5 years, that just shows how quick our government works. So that’s why you may see a bad reaction when someone wants to close some of our trails for their quiet area.
Good information for my readers. Thanks. I should try some snow mobiling so I understand the issues better. I was guilty of a bit of generalizing myself re slow and the scenic fun.
Maybe part of solving this is creating some clear criteria for good snow mobiling trails, and then as part of this recent legal case, the Forestry Service at least should move faster to allow sensible trails. And I do appreciate that snow mobile trails are good hiking trails the rest of the year and use them.
By the way, the legal judgement did not say: just do what Kurt Meister wants; it said: come up with a balanced plan to meet different users needs. Sounds like snow mobilers have some unmet needs too.
Thanks for teaching me some new perspectives on this.
Well it seems pretty balanced at this point considering the length of snowmobile and hunting seasons since they’re pretty short as it is so I’m not sure what they can really do that would really please all parties.
@ Aaron. I think we have got lots of good arguments out here on this column stream. And the makings of a balanced perspective or two.
Well I guess if you took a look at the proposed 7% set aside and see if it actually affects any existing snow mobile trails or is simply to set aside 7% from future trails, that might be a start. I have no idea. If it does affect any existing trails, is there an alternative either way? Are there some good routes that don’t yet exist that would be part of the discussion with the Forestry Service? Or some other set aside that isn’t currently with a trail?
I guess the snow mobile season is a complete overlap with cross country skiing which is also short. And some set aside for silent skiing would be good in some people’s view. All this would have been good for measured discussion when in fact some of the meetings with the Forest Service resulted in the police being called to restore order. Not a great way to find higher level solutions that meet all interests.
Oh and one other thought I have raised before. Don’t end gun hunting altogether on the 7% set aside. Just compress it into the peak two weeks of any weapon time. That way there is some silent Fall walking time to see the colors etc. Currently there are various classes of gun hunting Sept-Dec for muzzle loaders, seniors whatever. These can continue on 93% but the 7% is silent for all but the two weeks. Bow hunting too of course as now. It is pro-silence not anti-hunting.
Read my lips: There is more than a little irony in the current Huron-Manistee National Forest situation; specifically the federal court-directed reassessment of how people use semi-primitive non-motorized areas there.
The process has caused a stir in the hunting and snowmobile community. Forest staffers have received 7,400 e-mails and letters on the topic. Other than nearly 2,000 sent as part of a national write-in campaign by the Wilderness Society, barely a handful came from actual quiet-sport enthusiasts in Michigan.
What’s even more ironic is hunters were largely responsible for the creation of those 13 semi-primitive non-motorized zones, according to national forest officials.
“Hunters and other users were the drivers for creating them,” said Jeff Pullen, a resource officer with the forest. “Some sit in a blind, some like drives or stalking. Others said: ‘We want to go to a place where there aren’t so many roads.’”
Semi-primitive non-motorized areas are zones for quieter, more remote recreation where the chances of running into others are less likely. They don’t guarantee silence, just a more natural area, with fewer roads and fewer people. They are part of the forest service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum or ROS, a zoning system that runs from less restrictive to more restrictive, allowing for different types of activities in different zones.
Restricted motor use in areas has been a part of the forest since the 1970s, according to Pullen. They were called “limited motor use areas” then. Semi-primitive non-motorized zones came in the 1986 forest plan, an extension of adopting the ROS approach nationwide for national forests.
How ironic: Hunters were behind space in first place
Hunters were the largest group pushing for those quieter, less-roaded areas. Skiers, hikers and birdwatchers also wanted them, Pullen said.
So where are the skiers, hikers and birdwatchers today? Perhaps they are not as concerned about hunters and snowmobilers as Novi attorney Kurt Meister, the man who filed the lawsuit looking to ban hunting and snowmobiling on those 13 SPNMAs.
I know as I look back at 20-plus years of using the forest, there were times when the sound of motors got my attention or the sounds of gunshots in the woods. Ironically, even SPNMAs have roads. They may contain county roads where people drive. The forest has no jurisdiction over them.
Pullen said forest visitors hear motor vehicles in most of the forest. Ninety-eight percent of the lands are within a half mile of a road and 95 percent are within a quarter mile.
I will say more than once I have opted not to go to the forest in fall because of hunters, unless I was hunting myself. And I know of others who opt not to hike or paddle or bike during the hunting season. Sometimes that is out of respect for hunters and sometimes out of fear for their safety.
But the truth is that perhaps other than the two weeks of firearm deer season, I have had no trouble finding quiet areas to play. Not in fall. Not in winter. At least not generally.
Even the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness now being discussed is home to one of the most popular campgrounds in the Lower Peninsula, Nordhouse, of course, was a compromise in standards. It was not a pristine wilderness. It was highly trammeled by dune buggies.
But it was the only roadless area in Lower Peninsula that could qualify for wilderness designation in 1987 with passage of the Michigan Wilderness Heritage Act.
And though it isn’t just a place of hushed tones at night; its campground crowds love to stroll the beaches and trails; it is considerably quieter than many areas. And those who go into its interior or hike down its beaches are often pleasantly surprised.
That Nordhouse is federal wilderness means only an act of Congress can change what happens there. Not the courts. Not the state. Not Mr. Meister.
Congress specified that hunting will be one of the designated uses at Nordhouse, “And we don’t have the option to tell Congress they were wrong,” Pullen said.
Disconcerting in the review process is the din raised by some hunters and others who are arguably upset and fearing a loss. Some see spooks where there are none. And there is plenty of confusion about what is taking place.
Forest staffers say they hear and read public talk by concerned citizens about government conspiracies, anti-hunting conspiracies, even Second-Amendment worries about loosing guns.
Forest staffers say none of it is true in this case.
Yet tell that to Mr. Meister, who recently notified forest staffers that he received death threats and threatening phone calls from angry cranks who disagree with what he is doing.
“People come out on this and they are concerned about larger issues,” said Ken Arbogast, the public affairs officer for the forest. “But when I talk to the people about the lands (in question) they say ‘I don’t hunt there. That’s too far from my cabin,’”
On the other hand, that is what forest planners have been a attempting to learn. How many people play in semi-primitive non-motorized areas and what do they do. The court has asked how the forest service justified allowing hunting and snowmobiling there. The numbers in the plan were found to be arbitrary.
Ironic, isn’t it, that they can’t just say: “Hunters asked for it.”
I believe in a earlier post you said 60 million birders in America? If quiet areas were important to them I think they would/should of made their voices heard.
@Speak Up. A great post and great information. Thank you.
I just hope that the uproar can now be replaced by simple problem solving. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, I am very thankful to the hunters who share my love of wilderness and want to support their continued efforts on this issue. Thanks for stating their involvement in creating wilderness so clearly. I have no issue with the 2 weeks peak hunting season, but like you I would like some areas where I can see the Fall foliage silently for the rest of the time on a little bit of set aside. I think this whole issue can be resolved in most folks interests. I know Kurt Meister does not want a rushed solution that meets no one’s needs. He really does want a good solution as I have heard.
Birders tend to not be organized and I guess there is always more resistance to some perceived as negative to the current status than looking for some improvement. But you are right birders should speak out more if they are to be heard.
As for the birders, while there has been some support from them
Curious: Has Mr. Meister benefited at all from the publicity. Perhaps the motives of the “mr.meister-[you]’ve-known-for-16-years-who-is-a-hunter-and-has-no-political-motivations” aren’t as altruistic as your platitudes here would suggest.
@bemused. Actually, as I hear it, he is sickened by the bigotry and death threats over this issue, and the inability of people like you to talk about the issues rather than cast aspersions. I always assume when this is the case, that people are not very sure of their case, but hey maybe you are an expert on this subject of land use?
Perhaps, you should read St. Matthew 7.3 and look in the mirror before commenting further. I did.
“This blog has no tolerance for intolerance”
Intolerance is precisely what Mr. Meister and everyone who supports him stands for.
I would also venture a guess and say that you insult many a true woodsman by calling this man one. If you are unable to find quiet in Michigan’s National Forests, especially the one in his neck of the woods, you are simply a pedestrian, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@Brian. I guess I like doubt. I don’t actually support Kurt Meister in the sense I think he is definitely right. But I do like the idea that our forests should be shared and not monopolized by one user group, and that different users interests are respected. And I do want the deer population culled each year to reduce road deaths on Michigan’s roads.
So one way to put my position is that I think 93% of Michigan forest should be open to hunters in the hunting season. I do think there is a good case that 7% should be reserved for bow hunting, bird watching, hiking and other quiet pursuits without snow mobiles or gun shots. Does that make me intolerant? I don’t think so. And I know quite a few ‘true woodsmen and women’ who support the idea of quiet forest areas. If you define a true woodsman as someone who agrees with you, well then there you are.
Anyway, this blog is all about conflict and handling it better. So let me take the opportunity to suggest you look in the mirror and see if you are in fact intolerant and unable to listen to the other side. You will see this blog publishes all the arguments against Kurt Meister’s position consistent with its views on free speech, short of threats of course. Are you in fact intolerant of the idea that a small (7%) of Michigan forest should be quiet year round. Now personally can I find quiet in Michigan forests: sure I can and do. Kurt Meister’s problem is not mine as no hunter’s shots have ever interrupted my hiking or kayaking, maybe because I go to different areas, and so maybe at least I quality as not ‘simply a pedestrian’.
But I also agree with what I think Abe Lincoln said: ‘I don’t agree with what you say my friend but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.’ That is also in our constitution as the First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ . I would be interested in your views of the intolerance of the hunters who have made death threats to Kurt Meister, and force him to keep his gun at hand in his home. Many hunters have told me they are disgusted by this behavior by their fellow hunters who they think are bringing hunting into disrepute.
I am also concerned about the future of hunting. They say for each two hunters that retires from hunting only one young person takes it up. Hunters in my view are great lovers and conservers of the wilderness. But they need a better image. They need not to be thought of as the sort of people bigoted enough to make death threats to those who disagree with them, but instead have a constructive dialogue and find out if there are good compromises. You could start that process. Thanks for your posting.
All of your points are valid. However, if you cannot tolerate another forest user and strive to exclude them, then you are, by definition, intolerant, justify it with your 7% or 50% or 2%, makes no difference.
This is the irony in excluding certain groups from public lands-those who desire to ban certain users are often times the most socially tolerant people there are. Except when it comes to their own interests. It more accurately could be described as “hypocritical intolerance”.
Truth of the matter is Mr. Meister already has his 7%. He probably has more like 77%.
What I mean by that is if you get a ways (maybe a mile to start?) away from a trailhead in most rural National Forest Areas, I think that the majority of the ground you walk upon will be accompanied by the sights and sounds of nature and wildlife. As for the small percentage of time during the year, or areas you travel through, where you may hear a distant gunshot, I’d wager a five spot (big spender I know) that those sounds make up less than 5% of the time and footsteps you spend there.
As for the threats to Mr. Meister, there is no excuse for them. But seriously, does it surprise you?
Here you have a man that lives downstate, probably 150 miles away from an area that he probably spends a few weeks out of the entire year in. He, by nature of his profession, is allowed to change peoples lives and enjoyment of their own “backyards.” These are people who have seen agencies and governmental departments do nothing but take away trails and areas and exclude them from public lands time and time again. Sportspersons who see the wealthy purchase large tracts of land and construct 10 foot high fences completely around it, shutting off wildlife corridors that game uses to travel to and fro. Do you have any idea how long it can take to get a “new” snowmobile trail/route approved? A decade probably isn’t a stretch. These are parents who spend time outdoors with their kids just like Mr. Meister, difference being that they wouldn’t try to, nor have the ability to prohibit other people from enjoying public lands.
Supporters of causes like Mr. Meister’s use arguments like “no groups should have exclusive rights to usage of public lands” yet they are often the only ones with exclusive rights. Birdwatchers and hikers have more access to public lands than any groups – ATV’ers, horseback riders, hunters, even bicycle riders. When I look in the mirror I’m fine with that fact. What I’m not fine with is with them taking even more away.
@Brian. Excellent points. And for my part, I just wish that hunters had engaged in this sort of debate ten years back when Kurt Meister tried to find a way to get some peace during hunting season. But no hunting organization would even discuss the issue. Hence the legal case. It would be better if you did not make assumptions about Kurt Meister, who is a long term resident and spends more than that odd weekend ‘up north’. Best to let your arguments speak for themselves and not attribute things to your opponent that you don’t know to be the case. Thanks for your reasoned contribution.
Here we go again, nobody should make assumptions about Mr. Meister except those who support him. He’s been referred to by supporters as a “woodsman” or a “hunter”. Let me ask, what kind of a hunter or woodsman, goes for a walk in the woods with his daughters during hunting season and upon hearing a gunshot, instead of comforting his frightened children, and teaching them that those are sounds you hear occasionally in the woods, decides to run back home and file a lawsuit?
I’m sorry, it’s not my intent to judge him, Mr Meister is probably a great guy, but in my opinion, his motives are selfish, intolerant, and inconsiderate.
In regards to the question about the “intolerance of hunters,” I somewhat agree that hunters need a better image, but in my mind, people who make anonymous death threats are simply cowards and criminals who may hunt, not the other way around. Kind of like saying a thief who is a kayaker represents kayakers. No, he/she is just a thief.
@Brian. I agree re threat making cowards. Kurt Meister is the sort of guy who turns out in snowy weather and helps you change your wheel. Doesn’t make him right or wrong but he is a good guy in my experience. All my point is that one should consider the arguments and not need to praise or denigrate folk we disagree with. In all the postings on this blog, almost all from opponents of Kurt Meister, there has never been any comment from the blog questioning the good standing of any posters. That’s all I meant by saying we shouldn’t make assumptions. For the record, he tried for nearly ten years to avoid going to court: talking to hunters’ organizations, the Forestry Service etc. And the legal action was a last resort absent anyone listening. And the Federal judge agreed that the Forestry Service had a legal obligation to come up with a more balanced plan. Instead the Forestry Service moved to shut off primitve areas as a separate category to avoid dealing with the issue of balanced use, and are now I think being pursued by others for contempt of court.
Well, I understand the US Forestry Service has rolled over and waved its legs in the air and come up with a plan that is even more unbalanced towards hunting on its land than the existing situation. I have no dog in this game, but this seems like contempt of court to me, but I am no legal expert, and we’ll see where that leads.
What is more interesting to me, is that there was no attempt at dialogue, no attempt to find a middle ground, just massive resistance to any idea of anything short of 100% hunting rights. In my conflict experience, when one side takes this sort of position (and it is a position unrelated to any thought about real interests), it is a sign of weakness. If you are strong, you can think about compromise, but if you are weak, brittle, then you cannot negotiate, just use whatever comes to hand to win by power alone. And of course in this case, Kurt Meister received death threats: another sign of weakness not to mention cowardice that many hunters have rightly condemned.
And the weakness of the hunting lobby is that its numbers are falling rapidly. The last 10 years has seen a drop in hunter numbers of 1.5 million from 14 million to 12.5 million. This is of great concern to me, as hunters are key supporters of wild life conservation. And as a motorist who doesn’t want to be killed by deer wandering on the road, I have a problem with this too as it makes it harder to keep deer numbers under control.
And change happens, but the hunting lobby doesn’t seem to want to face change: only insist on its 100% right and to hell with any compromise. In the long run, I think this is a big mistake, but in the short run, environmental organizations, politicians and the Forestry Service are scared of the lobby and so we get the result we see now. I am sure hunters are pleased, but the more far sighted of them, realize the bigger problem. Hunting is dying out at the rate of 10% per decade: doesn’t take many decades for it to become a very narrow sport. That would be a great pity.
Out of the many hot-key phrases: the “protected” from hunters is one that stands out in many previous posts, including yours.
Protection is not necessary – it is all in the mind of fearful people who have no acquaintance with hunting or the conservation people involved in wild game. As a youngster I hunted in season with Dad – rare times to be 1:1 when you’re in the dairy farm business. In college, I visited the nearby small Iowa town one day and heard a few firecrackers as I approached. Then I saw a guy strolling downtown with a shotgun at rest and I thought he was on way to gunsmith. Then I saw one on the roof of a building with a shotgun and at the same time saw some pigeons flying by very, very fast. Oh! They’re clearing out the over-population! Meanwhile cars and people went on with their shopping, in this town of about 15,00 at that time.
Point is – you have nothing to fear from hunters just as these small-town folk knew they had nothing to fear. Yes, the city-boy yahoo who wants to shoot at the first thing that moves is a hazard. But that is like staying off the highway because a teenager might be on it.
One other point: you claim “conflict resolution”, but your adjectives and word-choices in your tirade of 30 January @ 9PM clearly shows the only conflict resolution you consider successful is NOT compromise, but YOUR way. You are angry because the attempt to hijack (my word choice) public land for selfish, personal gain has largely failed …. and created a precedent against further inroads by special interest individuals (my word choice).
This conflict was created by an extremely vocal small group, or individual, who loves to make waves. I suggest you talk to the people who are his neighbors and to those of his community. You will find them unified in their opposition to his actions, and probably don’t like him either.
@RJAyers. I don’t do tirades on the subject of hunting. I have no dog in this fight, am not affected by it one way, or another, as I have made clear from the start. I do however admire one person when they take on the mob. My only interest is in civil argument, and if you stop your tirade for a moment, you will see that I have posted over 50 hunters’ comments on the issue, so I have gone out of my way to make sure their voices were heard here, and indeed as I made clear: I agree with many of their comments. I just think the Forest Service have shown contempt for the law. That is not the hunters doing.
I have mainly argued on this subject in the spirit of my father who always took the opposite view on any argument with his brothers and friends. This blog likes to argue. I have many hunter friends, and have no fears about hunting, except as you mention the odd city folk who hunt with no knowledge. And that hunting might decline so deer populations cannot be culled properly. As I said in what you saw as a tirade: ‘Hunting is dying out at the rate of 10% per decade: doesn’t take many decades for it to become a very narrow sport. That would be a great pity.’
If you read the rest of this blog you might see what conflict resolution is all about: meeting both sides’ interests via compromise. Kurt Meister tried for ten years to get some dialogue going with hunting organizations, and only went to law as a last resort, and because he felt the forest service was breaking the law, which says different users interests should be balanced. The Federal Appeal Court agreed with him. There was no balance and a 7% no hunting area was merely one way to try to get some balance. I am sure there were other ways to get balance, like installing some bird watching hides etc but no one was interested in any sort of discussion. And here are you posting Kurt Meister’s address as a way to curtail his Constitutional Right to Free Speech and facilitating threats against him, which he has received many, to the discredit of those who disagree with him. Shame on you for that.
P.S. His address seems to be: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blog Note: The Address posted by commenter RJ Ayers has been deleted from this comment, as Kurt Meister has been the target of threats and I am surprised anyone would think to post it here. I am happy to post anyone’s comments, so long as they meet our civility standards and they don’t include threats or facilitate threats to decent law abiding citizens.
For the record, violating someone’s constitutional rights such as freedom of speech is a federal offense investigated by the FBI and carrying a maximum of ten years in jail.
Here is the relevant citation:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
This guy is but one of a thousand, arrogant and ignorant U of M created “tools” with a law degree.
What a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars. I’m not a bit surprised his neighbors hate him, I’ve seen far too many of his ilk in this area.
@I’ll Hunt you Down. For the record Kurt Meister did not go to U of M.
Are you not capable of reasoned argument? Are you one of your ‘arrogant and ignorant tools‘? Do you have nothing to say but abuse? You discredit your cause and the good name of hunters by your ignorant lack of manners.
Blog Note: Now that the ‘hunt you downs’ have showed up on this comment stream, I am closing it, except to anyone who has a rational argument to make on the matter of hunting on Forest lands; even better a way to meet the different interests in using forest lands. The people who can’t string two words together without abuse will not be posted.