Posted by David Trotter on July 26, 1999 at 13:20:47:
In Reply to: Re: Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary posted by J.M. on July 16, 1999 at 07:01:27:
The proposal for a marine sanctuary indicates that the State of Michigan cannot take care of its own bottomlands. While Michigan has been the foremost leader in preservation, this indicates that we are not capable. The people of Alpena voted 70% AGAINST the proposed sanctuary because it provides bureacratic control to Washington politicians. It is always true that the closer the people are to the "seat of power", the more responsive the politicians. For the sanctuary to be approve, we (Michigan residents)have to say we can's manage the bottomland that belong to us. How very unfortunate if we duped into believing more and larger government is good for us.: : Those of you familiar with Lake Huron may know that NOAA is proposing to designate the area in and around Thunder Bay, off Alpena, MI, a National Marine Sanctuary. Thunder Bay would be the first National Marine Sanctuary devoted solely to protecting a large collection of shipwrecks (the Monitor, the country's first National Marine Sanctuary, located off the coast of North Carolina, is the only other such site and protects only one wreck). For more information, please visit our website at:
: : www.glerl.noaa.gov/glsr/thunderbay
: : The website offers some background information on the sanctuary, the designation process, and some of the nationally significant shipwrecks. You can also download the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (FEIS/MP), which was published in June. The website is still in its infancy, but we hope to expand it in the coming months.
: : If you would like to be added to our mailing list or receive a hard copy of the FEIS/MP, please send your name and address to me at pitelka@glerl.noaa.gov or call (734) 741-2228.
: : Thanks!
: : Jessica Pitelka
: This is great news for those of you with statist aspirations and public expansionist goals. This marine sanctuary will further ensure that the Federal Government remains the largest employer in the world. The marine sanctuary will also keep with the government tradition of siphoning the working stiff's tax dollars for services totally unrelated to enforcing contracts, which is really the only legitimate govermental role. It will successfully lay the groundwork for more restriction, control, and public influence over the activities of regular, freedom-loving citizens. The proposal, in many statist minds, has succesfully laid out predictions of prosperity and well-being for those in and around the sanctuary but for those who have eyes to see, it is simply a smoking mirror full of inflated speculation. Three cheers for the statists and NOAA supporters.