[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Greg to Joe
Category: Shipwreck Research
Date: 09 May 2007
Time: 16:32:54
Remote Name: 12.150.40.98
Where did my support of GTBUP come into this?
(( It never did come in - as I never brought it in, but others felt there was an agenda and you have mentioned that there needed to be a "Team offort of support on items that the GTBUP was doing"))
I never mentioned your proposed preserve. And who is "my Thunder Bay Organization"? Not one person on the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve supported your current effort and what "rewards" might we reap?
(( I didn't say "from the current effort" - but community support "Yes". and to justify what benefits may be recieved to the Thunder Bay State Preserve will only be accomplishged after you [and others] drop your defenses and learn what can happen by the proposed legislation, instead of bashing those who helped put it together.))
The State is already a partner with NOAA in the management of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and has provided the first State funding since the 1982 creation of Thunder Bay Underwater preserve and the State Underwater Preserve system. Jealousy seems to be on your table not mine.
(( Yup, I love the thought of seeing a Federal organization go out of state to find educational resources that are just as well documented IN the state of Michigan. ))
Don't say that your proposed legislation does not change anything. From your own bill (SB 429) Sec. 41508. introduced into the Senate "(2) THE GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS PART OF THE GREAT LAKES STATE PARK CREATED IN SECTION 74127." Has this been in place since 1899? If so what is the need to re-state it?
(( Oh, I don't know - maybe to say "Happy Anniversary"? No different than celebrating any other event of importance.))
Another of your bills goes on to restructure the Underwater Salvage Committee on which you sit. Why are you just repeating your belief that this bill only restates 108 year old legislation when it obviously changes it.
(( The committee wasn't established back that far, but the representation within that body has chaned which has changed the course of events that has slowly deprived the very businesses that rely on recreation and tourism in order to live. So, we're hoping to change that committee back to what it should have been years ago - recreation and tourism with a solid representation of MDEQ and public.)) By the way, this committee wasn't even active nor called upon when certain legislation was inacted to bring a certain organization into the State of Michigan. I'll let you figure ou which one.
When you go about changing Laws which will affect every citizen teamwork, co-operation, consensus should be sought.
(( Okay... Bring it on Joe... What's your comment? Everybody complains that they didn't have any option to comment and once they are give chance to speak again "in an official capacity" they don't really say too much except to ask to be considered in any future legislation. Remember, everone on the MUPC was given a profile of what I thought would be the best couse of action for teh state and the MUPC would be the leader in this cause. Instead, they voted someone else in.... No big yank for me... But the agenda is still the same. Changes needed to be made or Michigan will lose out on a wonderful recreational and tourism opportunity.))