The Truth about Michigan State Park/diving Legislation

[truth squad]

Hi All!

Read the News section at www.michiganpreserves.org about the New Michigan Bottomlands State Park and its affect on the Diving community.........

The Truth Miester

 

[Sledge]

Is your real name Greg MacMaster or Ken Vrana?

 

[sleepdiver]

I doubt it is either one. The MUPC website information is set up to explain the MUPC position opposing the "Great Lakes State Park" and counter some of the outrageous claims made by the legislation proponents. It goes into considerable depth about the motives and the likely bad effect of this legislation.

 

[Sledge]

Every time I hear someone talking about this, it's usually about how much money is supposed to pour in to the Great Lakes area if enacted. Which is, of course, a giant lie.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

I doubt it is either one. The MUPC website information is set up to explain the MUPC position opposing the "Great Lakes State Park" and counter some of the outrageous claims made by the legislation proponents. It goes into considerable depth about the motives and the likely bad effect of this legislation.

How can it be claimed "motives" when it's speculation by one side?

Anyone can lay claim to what they "think" may happen - but no one will know for sure until it either goes through or dies a slow death. Keep in mind that the Park legislation was to "re-dedicate" not "start". I just can't take legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer..... There's just somehting wrong with that idea. There's alot of verboge that just rambles on and on. The "Truth Meister" will change his story when he is corrected...so how "true" is the long-winded statement? I got tired of correcting him! The proof is in the pudding!

The Proponents have facts to back up their claim.... You can shoot it down all you want, but they are facts by other organizations. And the other side has....nothing but "speculation". Bring evidence to the table and prove your case!

By the way, I saw the commercial/advertisment for Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve that will air soon... Damn fine work and should represent them very well! I just wish we could all afford to do this for all of the preserves and not just one area. But when you shoot down an opportunity to drive marketing & promotion - I guess we'll never see anything move forward.

 

[bladephotog]

How can it be claimed "motives" when it's speculation by one side?

Anyone can lay claim to what they "think" may happen - but no one will know for sure until it either goes through or dies a slow death. Keep in mind that the Park legislation was to "re-dedicate" not "start". I just can't take legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer..... There's just somehting wrong with that idea. There's alot of verboge that just rambles on and on. The "Truth Meister" will change his story when he is corrected...so how "true" is the long-winded statement? I got tired of correcting him! The proof is in the pudding!

The Proponents have facts to back up their claim.... You can shoot it down all you want, but they are facts by other organizations. And the other side has....nothing but "speculation". Bring evidence to the table and prove your case!

By the way, I saw the commercial/advertisment for Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve that will air soon... Damn fine work and should represent them very well! I just wish we could all afford to do this for all of the preserves and not just one area. But when you shoot down an opportunity to drive marketing & promotion - I guess we'll never see anything move forward.

What scares me is when you make statements like this -
"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! ..."

It's the political equivalent of putting a gun to the head of the preserves. I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I'm not that smart nor can I predict the future. I do know I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Sledge]

By the way, I saw the commercial/advertisment for Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve that will air soon... Damn fine work and should represent them very well! I just wish we could all afford to do this for all of the preserves and not just one area. But when you shoot down an opportunity to drive marketing & promotion - I guess we'll never see anything move forward.

I'd like to see their balance sheet in a year or two and see what kind of cash flow they're generating.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

What scares me is when you make statements like this -
"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! ..."

It's the political equivalent of putting a gun to the head of the preserves. I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I'm not that smart nor can I predict the future. I do know I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks it's a good idea.

Because no one sat down to look at the pros and cons. They just blasted away and played "follow the blind leader" who lost their license to practice law and they think he is the end all be all in legal representation.

Don't be scared by what I wrote.. we have alot of folks who say one thing and do another. The reason that was posted is that if and when this legislation goes thru...are they (other preserves who are against this) going to be that stubborn that they won't ask for any funds when this takes off and becomes successful? Yup, they probably would. Nobody will be cut off, it'll be the pride of those who thought they were fighting a fight for good reason and then find out that maybe they were wrong. Like mud in the face.

Most or all are upset because they weren't contacted for their input. Since there's no list of all the divers, and some e-mails end up in the spam box - it's hard to reach the vast majority. And there are some divers who I wouldn't want to be on teh same boat because of the extreamly wierd decisions I have observed them make over time. They blame everybody else and make it sound like we are the bad guys and want to 'take over" diving.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

I'd like to see their balance sheet in a year or two and see what kind of cash flow they're generating.

It'll be a heck of alot more than what the balance sheet has now... $0 And it's not cash flow, more like a funding mechanism to bring money into the bottomlands that need it. It doesn't take anything away from the preserves which are protected by law. It simply enhances.

There's alot of funding opportunities out there, in the hundreds of thousands and can be accessed if these bills go thru. So what if some of it goes to marine law enforcement, it's better than what we have for income now. Throw in 75,000 divers at $15 and you have a great start to buoying wrecks, covering cost and moving forward. Sure beats the current law of "No state money will be provided for the preserves". Now we can facilitate intentional sinkings in areas that desperatly need an infusion of money to help bring in tourism. But when someone stands up and pounds their chest and says "this is terrible" and " government is taking over". That will strike a chord in your heart faster than the other. So what do you do? You run with the masses and it just snowballs from there.

Our state has been environmentally driven by agencies who can't make decisions on recreation. We're hoping to put the right department in place to drive the "recreation". It's mearly a seat on a committee. it doesn't mean we need thousands of people from DNR to run around.....

Everyone likes to dive Tobermorry, Florida Marine Sanctuaries and other dive destinations that charge to dive. Here we were "asking for a donation". But that got twisted into "first a donation, then mandatory" by others.

Also part of the problem is that I am very vocal and don't like people who waste my time and I say it like it is. Some don't like that and they will fight anything I propose because they didn't move on it when they had the chance. I was an "unknown" and many felt that I should have just sat back like the rest and complained. Ideas I had were scoffed at as they said "no way", 'you'll never get anywhere". Now they're pissed because I did get somewhere and pretty damn fast. Plus I don't like people with a questionable background who can't pass a background check by the state in a position to accept or handle funds.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

Sleepdiver knows how to reach me if he wishes to honor the request I made.