alpenadiver
Contributor
Here is some interesting proposed legislation I ran across, and should be of interest to all Great Lakes divers.
http://www.gtbup.org/News/
http://www.gtbup.org/News/
Great Lakes State Parks legislation ?
- Thread starter alpenadiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
gtxl1200
Contributor
mlakin:
We already have the Great lakes preserves where all of the diving takes place anyway. They could just have a voluntary 15 donation added to an account For the preserves that already exist. why go and move money around that the state already doesnt have. Sound like a State representive just needs to show that she is actually doing something in Lansing.
OP
alpenadiver
Contributor
Actually, the bill was brought up by Greg McMaster, a meteorologist in Traverse City. I personally might not mind the $15.00, I just don't think there should be any involvement from the gov't. The funny thing about it is I sit on the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Committee, and very few, if any of the preserves were asked for input.
JEScholz
Contributor
I wonder how long the "voluntary" donation will be voluntary? I wouldn't mind paying a yearly fee to dive in the preserves as long as the money went back into the preserves. I dive in the SWM preserve but there is no money to even buy a buoy to mark the wrecks! We have been putting milk jugs on the Havana in order to help people find it. Our club has offered to place and retrieve a mooring but no one wants to fund it. What we DON'T need is more government overhead diverting funds to "adminsitrative expenses".
diver_paula
Contributor
hmmm.... I think the $15 voluntary donation is the least of it. This paragraph concerns me the most...
"It also establishes a broad-based Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Advisory Committee to develop guidelines for shipwreck discovery, criteria for permits and passes for underwater archaeological recovery and salvage, as well as make recommendations on how to best use park funds. "
I thought most of this was already handled by the state government. I'll pass the link to a few friends that are heavily involved in searching for wrecks and are several years into the legalities of an underwater archaeological survey. I'll also hunt for a book by and the notes I took from a presentation by John Halsey. At the time he was (and may still be) the state Historian.
I'm also wondering what is meant by the "Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands". My guess is that it's all of the bottomlands and not just what currently constitutes the state's underwater preserves. That would make a HUGE difference in the breadth of the bill(s).
Paula
"It also establishes a broad-based Great Lakes State Park and Salvage Advisory Committee to develop guidelines for shipwreck discovery, criteria for permits and passes for underwater archaeological recovery and salvage, as well as make recommendations on how to best use park funds. "
I thought most of this was already handled by the state government. I'll pass the link to a few friends that are heavily involved in searching for wrecks and are several years into the legalities of an underwater archaeological survey. I'll also hunt for a book by and the notes I took from a presentation by John Halsey. At the time he was (and may still be) the state Historian.
I'm also wondering what is meant by the "Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands". My guess is that it's all of the bottomlands and not just what currently constitutes the state's underwater preserves. That would make a HUGE difference in the breadth of the bill(s).
Paula
Greg_MacMaster
Guest
Question arose from a Press Release on proposed Great Lakes State Park from Senator Michelle McManus. It should have included "Re-dedicating". You see, the State Parks have always been there, since 1899. Nothing has changed but simply recognizing it for what it is...a State Park. And it's not about the Preserves... this is statewide meaning the entire bottomlands.
Who manages it also hasn't change from 1899.
What has changed (or could change) is the committee that currently oversees the benefits of scuba diving and recreation and tourism. It's overseen by the MDEQ. An agency with no background in recreation and tourism. They're regulatory. Why have an organization run something they have no background in? we're taking control away from a regulartory agency and putting it back into Recreation.
The fee: Yes, it's a donation and nothing more. For those who have complained about the state not having any money - well, they still don't and they probably never will. But that's not going to stop many from donating to the State Park to help buoy a wreck (most are located in a preserve), conduct underwater archaeology surveys, maybe clean a vessel for intentional sinking. The limit of spending will depend on the committee that will represent you -the diver, the charter boat operator, promoting, marketing and so on. It's not just for the preserves, but for the entire bottomlands. You do have a voice in making it known how the spending should go.
Now, believe it or not, the MUPC does not support any of this legislation which is sad - as this will probably cut many preserves out of funding opportunities which they have complined about for years! You can't say "We don't support this legislation" and then "Oh by the way, can we have $5000 to buoy shipwrecks"! C'mon! All because of who's idea it was or because they weren't involved rom the start? Look at the goal, the vision, - It doesn't matetr how you get there as long as you get there.
Aside from people saying they weren't consulted? Well, that's a matter of opinion. I'm direct and to the point - I give people my view and if some like it, they may ask me to join their group - while others shun me ...because I get things done. Everbody knew my views and vision in the MUPC - and they wanted to "Preserve" not "promote" or "recreate"... Fine, that's their decision. But it was all spelled out in a powerpoint presentation I e-miled to them back in the end of 2005.
Now on the subject of Thunder Bay.... Overshadowed by the Federal program, it's hard to gain an identity seperate from the sanctuary because they are so huge in dollars, size and everything else. Other preserves are almost stagnant and a few are functioning fairly well. But nothing consistant across the board. It would be wonderful if TBNMS could work within their own state on resources and tap the educators that are close by. But going out of state is like shopping elsewhere. It's like a slap in the face for Michigan and its people.
The MUPC could be a powerhouse of a public non-profit organization. But bickering and personality clashes keep them from growing. The GTBUP has formed very fast and has a massive community support system and this is the reason for it's growth, drive and success. I sat on the MUPC board for 12-15 months and I just can't fathom to think that there's so little progress but the making of a book. I've seen how they operate and how some think.....I've been told that some hope I would fail in what I'm doing.... It's sad...
I didn't start the bills, but I did offer some suggestions and did query many divers and some in the preserves as we neared the end. I know who is willing to listen and those who don't want any part of me or what I'm doing. So if you felt you were left out... that's probably why. It's certainly not my agenda, but a move for the better for Michigan.
greg@gtbup.org
Who manages it also hasn't change from 1899.
What has changed (or could change) is the committee that currently oversees the benefits of scuba diving and recreation and tourism. It's overseen by the MDEQ. An agency with no background in recreation and tourism. They're regulatory. Why have an organization run something they have no background in? we're taking control away from a regulartory agency and putting it back into Recreation.
The fee: Yes, it's a donation and nothing more. For those who have complained about the state not having any money - well, they still don't and they probably never will. But that's not going to stop many from donating to the State Park to help buoy a wreck (most are located in a preserve), conduct underwater archaeology surveys, maybe clean a vessel for intentional sinking. The limit of spending will depend on the committee that will represent you -the diver, the charter boat operator, promoting, marketing and so on. It's not just for the preserves, but for the entire bottomlands. You do have a voice in making it known how the spending should go.
Now, believe it or not, the MUPC does not support any of this legislation which is sad - as this will probably cut many preserves out of funding opportunities which they have complined about for years! You can't say "We don't support this legislation" and then "Oh by the way, can we have $5000 to buoy shipwrecks"! C'mon! All because of who's idea it was or because they weren't involved rom the start? Look at the goal, the vision, - It doesn't matetr how you get there as long as you get there.
Aside from people saying they weren't consulted? Well, that's a matter of opinion. I'm direct and to the point - I give people my view and if some like it, they may ask me to join their group - while others shun me ...because I get things done. Everbody knew my views and vision in the MUPC - and they wanted to "Preserve" not "promote" or "recreate"... Fine, that's their decision. But it was all spelled out in a powerpoint presentation I e-miled to them back in the end of 2005.
Now on the subject of Thunder Bay.... Overshadowed by the Federal program, it's hard to gain an identity seperate from the sanctuary because they are so huge in dollars, size and everything else. Other preserves are almost stagnant and a few are functioning fairly well. But nothing consistant across the board. It would be wonderful if TBNMS could work within their own state on resources and tap the educators that are close by. But going out of state is like shopping elsewhere. It's like a slap in the face for Michigan and its people.
The MUPC could be a powerhouse of a public non-profit organization. But bickering and personality clashes keep them from growing. The GTBUP has formed very fast and has a massive community support system and this is the reason for it's growth, drive and success. I sat on the MUPC board for 12-15 months and I just can't fathom to think that there's so little progress but the making of a book. I've seen how they operate and how some think.....I've been told that some hope I would fail in what I'm doing.... It's sad...
I didn't start the bills, but I did offer some suggestions and did query many divers and some in the preserves as we neared the end. I know who is willing to listen and those who don't want any part of me or what I'm doing. So if you felt you were left out... that's probably why. It's certainly not my agenda, but a move for the better for Michigan.
greg@gtbup.org
Greg_MacMaster
Guest
While we're on the subject.... a question was posed to me on why Michigan doesn't have a lobbyist that can represent the scuba industry.
What are the "pros" & "Cons" to this question?
Lines are open......... anyone?
What are the "pros" & "Cons" to this question?
Lines are open......... anyone?
Greg_MacMaster:
All it takes is money. For something around twenty thousand dollars a year you can get a lobbyist to represent you.
Greg_MacMaster
Guest
But would it be worth it?
The dive industry, by numbers is pretty small compared to beach walkers, swimmers, boaters and so on. I would think having a lobbyist for those as well as scuba divers would be more advantageous. I thnk lobbyist get about 10% of wat is brought in, but paid to them in a round about way.
To make it work, we would need to start a "Trade Association" that encompasses every business & stakeholder that has an interest in maritime recreational resources. Do you think it's time for this to occur?
The dive industry, by numbers is pretty small compared to beach walkers, swimmers, boaters and so on. I would think having a lobbyist for those as well as scuba divers would be more advantageous. I thnk lobbyist get about 10% of wat is brought in, but paid to them in a round about way.
To make it work, we would need to start a "Trade Association" that encompasses every business & stakeholder that has an interest in maritime recreational resources. Do you think it's time for this to occur?
JEScholz
Contributor
Greg_MacMaster:
I have a number of questions:
1 Who / What is "GTBUP"?
2 What specific reasons have MUPC given for not supporting the legislation?
3 Who would decide who becomes a member of the "committee that will represent you -the diver, the charter boat operator, promoting, marketing and so on."?
4 What role does the MUPC have today, working with the DEQ? (I thought the DNR was responsible for the bottom-lands)
5 Is there a budget for the preserves? If so, who controls the spending and how can I obtain a copy?
6 Who would control the spending of "voluntary fees" and how would they be distributed equally throughout the state?
Similar threads
