Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Forest Service hunting ban-Huron Manistee National Forest MI.

  1. #1
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Exclamation Forest Service hunting ban-Huron Manistee National Forest MI.

    For the second week in a row I have read about,in my sunday Macomb Daily,about the tree-huggers trying to ban hunting here in MI ,because hunting may prevent people from wanting to birdwatch,hike etc. etc..! And we know how hunting has destroted all outdoor activity in MI don't we!(sarcasm button off*) This is info from last weeks article by Tom Watts. "Sportsmen should submit comments to the Forest Service supporting the "NO-Action" alternative that would continue to allow hunting with firearms on areas designated as semi-primative. Sportsmen can mail comments to: Lee Evison, Forrest Planer, Huron-Manistee National Forests, 1755 S. Mitchell Steet, Cadillac,MI 49601.
    Or FAX to Lee Evison at (231)775-5551.
    OR email to comments-eastern-huron-manistee@fs.fed.us .Please put " Forest Plan SEIS" in the subject line!
    Last week I tried the email address in the paper but it kept getting sent back.This week I used the address above,which worked perfectly,I recieved notice of delivery of my email,by email.
    I simply asked Lee Emison to take the "NO ACTION" alternative and leave and not change the rules that allow hunting on OUR LAND! God Bless! CARRY ON MICHIGANDERS!
    PS. All comments must be recieved by FEB 11,11.Thats Friday!
    Last edited by hamaneggs; 02-06-2011 at 07:13 PM.
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quite honestly it doesn't mean much to me, because unless I was unbelievably lucky enough to get a bear tag, I would probably never bother going there to hunt. The lower peninsulas national forests are private property infested trash, not ever really worthy of the title "national forest". The entire lower peninsula was almost entirely raped and sold off before preserving nature got popular in the early 1900's. (may the loggers rot in hell)

    For my time and money, for hunting small game or deer, I'll stay south of Saginaw. At least in the southern lower peninsula you can fairly easily tell which land is which without a damn plat book.

    I suppose from a pro gun stance it's good to prevent incremental rights erosion, but to me it's more of a misguided conservation issue than a gun rights one.
    Last edited by Michigander; 02-06-2011 at 11:31 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    You can get a good look at a bird through a scope, and if you want to continue watching it, have it stuffed. You can further your enjoyment of such a critter at the table. Stick a feather in your cap old school, and you can get even more use out of it. If you're not into birds, you can stuff a coyote, sneak it into the front room and just enjoy the show as your wife, kids, the dog and cat each take notice! lol, this could make for a very entertaining evening.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Wait. Isn't hunting limited to certain seasons? Meaning, the rest of the year is open to bird-watchers?

    (Note that I said the rest of the years is open to bird watchers not open for bird watchers. )

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait. Isn't hunting limited to certain seasons? Meaning, the rest of the year is open to bird-watchers?

    (Note that I said the rest of the years is open to bird watchers not open for bird watchers. )
    Rabbit season runs from September 15-March 31 in Michigan; squirrel season runs from September 15- March 1. Even deer season runs on specific dates from September 16 until January 1, for various licenses. In addition to the species considered 'game', feral swine, opossum, porcupine, weasel, red squirrel, skunk, ground squirrel, woodchuck, starling and house sparrows may be taken year-round with a valid hunting license. So in theory, a hunter could be in the woods at any time of the year.

    Remember too that hunting in Michigan is a big business... I think in the top 3 states for hunting licenses. Also, many people use the off-season time to do target shooting which is allowed in public land during this time. I would say that, from my unscientific observation, more people use public land for target shooting than they do a range.

    From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
    Is it legal to take feral swine?
    Yes, if you are legally hunting game during an open season (of any type) and see a feral swine you may pursue that animal if you wish, following all the regulations of the open season which you are hunting. (Please note: There is an open season of some species 365 days of the year.) For open seasons and regulations, please view the most current Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide.


    Note: This also applies to CPL holders
    Last edited by DrTodd; 02-07-2011 at 09:13 AM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Quite honestly it doesn't mean much to me, because unless I was unbelievably lucky enough to get a bear tag, I would probably never bother going there to hunt. The lower peninsulas national forests are private property infested trash, not ever really worthy of the title "national forest". The entire lower peninsula was almost entirely raped and sold off before preserving nature got popular in the early 1900's. (may the loggers rot in hell)

    For my time and money, for hunting small game or deer, I'll stay south of Saginaw. At least in the southern lower peninsula you can fairly easily tell which land is which without a damn plat book.

    I suppose from a pro gun stance it's good to prevent incremental rights erosion, but to me it's more of a misguided conservation issue than a gun rights one.
    My opinion.
    There shouldn't even be such a thing as a "national forest". All land within the state not privately held should be under the jurisdiction of that particular state. I don't have a problem with the Feds having an office building somewhere, that's all they need.

    When the state was logged off most everything was made of wood.(formerly a logger, but I won't take your comment personally)(try to find something to replace toilet paper)

    Not so much a conservation or gun rights issue than it is a Rights issue. Look and see if the person or persons behind this quiet area are not progressive-elitists trying to keep the peasants at bay.springerdave.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Go to the Michigan Snowmobile Association to find the letter on the issue. The MSA is even supporting gun rights. Huron-Manistee National Forests Sample letter.
    comments-eastern-huron-manistee@fs.fed.usThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
    springerdave.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wayne County, MI.
    Posts
    271
    Do like the anti hunters have done for years, go to wal-mart and get those air horn in a can things and while they are bird watching, show them how excited you are that they see a bird, by sounding the horn every few minutes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    My opinion.
    There shouldn't even be such a thing as a "national forest". All land within the state not privately held should be under the jurisdiction of that particular state. I don't have a problem with the Feds having an office building somewhere, that's all they need.

    When the state was logged off most everything was made of wood.(formerly a logger, but I won't take your comment personally)(try to find something to replace toilet paper)

    Not so much a conservation or gun rights issue than it is a Rights issue. Look and see if the person or persons behind this quiet area are not progressive-elitists trying to keep the peasants at bay.springerdave.
    No offense meant towards loggers specifically, just for the short sightedness of the ones who managed to destroy every section of woods in the lower peninsula other than the tiny spec of land known as Hartwick Pines, which happened pretty well before the time of anyone left alive today. Going to Hartwick Pines is as awe inspiring as it is gut wrenching and nauseating for me. Same really goes for any virgin forest I've ever been lucky enough to see. I am a wood worker, and I am all for responsible use of wood. I am however not for destroying nature which will minimally be irreplaceable in our life times, or even those of my great grand kids (if I ever have any).

    Anyway, in the context of the mid west, I agree heavily with your assessment of national forests. For these areas, it was way too little way too late. In some other states, having millions of solidly public acres to enjoy and camp on for free, this is to me what a national forest is all about. No silly touristy crap, no special fees or permission slips to camp, just wide open land to go use as nature left it for us. And in these well selected spots of land, I don't so much mind that it belongs to every citizen of the US. In Michigan, it almost seems like it ends up being a hinderance to pretend it's a "national forest". It complicates the jurisdictions of who is in charge of the land, it makes tourists think Michigan has more to offer than it really does, and it breeds unfriendliness from locals who resent outsiders. If these areas were more accurately represented as spotted public acres of state owned scab forest, I do think it would be better for everyone.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  10. #10

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    No offense meant towards loggers specifically, just for the short sightedness of the ones who managed to destroy every section of woods in the lower peninsula other than the tiny spec of land known as Hartwick Pines, which happened pretty well before the time of anyone left alive today. Going to Hartwick Pines is as awe inspiring as it is gut wrenching and nauseating for me. Same really goes for any virgin forest I've ever been lucky enough to see. I am a wood worker, and I am all for responsible use of wood. I am however not for destroying nature which will minimally be irreplaceable in our life times, or even those of my great grand kids (if I ever have any).

    Anyway, in the context of the mid west, I agree heavily with your assessment of national forests. For these areas, it was way too little way too late. In some other states, having millions of solidly public acres to enjoy and camp on for free, this is to me what a national forest is all about. No silly touristy crap, no special fees or permission slips to camp, just wide open land to go use as nature left it for us. And in these well selected spots of land, I don't so much mind that it belongs to every citizen of the US. In Michigan, it almost seems like it ends up being a hinderance to pretend it's a "national forest". It complicates the jurisdictions of who is in charge of the land, it makes tourists think Michigan has more to offer than it really does, and it breeds unfriendliness from locals who resent outsiders. If these areas were more accurately represented as spotted public acres of state owned scab forest, I do think it would be better for everyone.
    Would you support striking Section 3 of Article 4 and an amendment that would return all land within a state to the state?springerdave.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Please quote Section 3 of article 4?

    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    Would you support striking Section 3 of Article 4 and an amendment that would return all land within a state to the state?springerdave.
    Hello springerdave,

    I am assuming that this clause is from the Michigan state Constitution and that it grants blanket jurisidiction for federally owned property within Michigan. Under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the legislatures are supposed to regrant their police powers back to the federal government for property owned by the federal goverment within a state.

    Yosemite National Park is a good example. It is a federal reservation just like Gaum, American Samoa, or the US Virgin Islands. Below is the page with regrant and recession legislation for Yosemite. Yosemite has its own jail and California law does not apply.

    http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/enabling_leg.htm

    16 USC, Section 480 codifies state's rights on Forest Service "owned" land. The states have civil and criminal jurisdiction over Forest Service lands.

    The Forest Service Manual (FSM) states that the sherriff has jurisdiction ( 5360.31 )

    The FSM also states that a Sherriff may deputize FS LEO. (FSM 5360.33 )

    Here is what the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore website says about jurisdiction:
    (proprietary means "ownership" interest)
    "Most areas of the Lakeshore are managed under proprietary jurisdiction. This means that the Michigan State Police, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alger County Sheriff's Department, and the Munising City Police Department share jurisdiction on park lands and waters. Officers of these non-Federal agencies actively enforce their rules and regulations within the park in addition to Federal officers (including National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

    http://www.nps.gov/piro/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

    I have searched for legislation that regranted Pictured Rocks, and I have not found it.

    I have found no legislation that has regranted state control to any Forest Service property (it may exist, I just have not found it!)

    My point with all of this is that to fight this decision, Michiganders must first request proof that the Forest Supervisor has the authority to overide Michigan jurisdiction. Your legislature, your Board of Supervisors, your Sherriff, and your MDNR have proprietary jurisdictional rights to "sit at the table and to have veto power over the Forest Service."

    If your state has given blanket jurisdiction to federal beaurocrats, than you need to recind that section of your Constitution.

    markm
    Last edited by MarkBofRAdvocate; 02-09-2011 at 12:52 PM. Reason: fix typos. fix typos 2.0.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Hello springerdave,

    I am assuming that this clause is from the Michigan state Constitution and that it grants blanket jurisidiction for federally owned property within Michigan. Under Section 8 of the US Constitution, the legislatures are supposed to regrant their police powers back to the federal government for property owned by the federal goverment within a state.

    Yosemite National Park is a good example. It is a federal reservation just like Gaum, American Samoa, or the US Virgin Islands. Below is the page with regrant and recession legislation for Yosemite. Yosemite has its own jail and California law does not apply.

    http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/enabling_leg.htm

    16 USC, Section 480 codifies state's rights on Forest Service "owned" land. The states have civil and criminal jurisdiction over Forest Service lands.

    The Forest Service Manual (FSM) states that the sherriff has jurisdiction ( 5360.31 )

    The FSM also states that a Sherriff may deputize FS LEO. (FSM 5360.33 )

    Here is what the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore website says about jurisdiction:
    (proprietary means "ownership" interest)
    "Most areas of the Lakeshore are managed under proprietary jurisdiction. This means that the Michigan State Police, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alger County Sheriff's Department, and the Munising City Police Department share jurisdiction on park lands and waters. Officers of these non-Federal agencies actively enforce their rules and regulations within the park in addition to Federal officers (including National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

    http://www.nps.gov/piro/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

    I have searched for legislation that regranted Pictured Rocks, and I have not found it.

    I have found no legislation that has regranted state control to any Forest Service property (it may exist, I just have not found it!)

    My point with all of this is that to fight this decision, Michiganders must first request proof that the Forest Supervisor has the authority to overide Michigan jurisdiction. Your legislature, your Board of Supervisors, your Sherriff, and your MDNR have proprietary jurisdictional rights to "sit at the table and to have veto power over the Forest Service."

    If your state has given blanket jurisdiction to federal beaurocrats, than you need to recind that section of your Constitution.

    markm
    No, actually I was referring to Section 3, Article 4 of the U.S Constitution. I do appreciate your study on this though.springerdave.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    I don't understand your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    No, actually I was referring to Section 3, Article 4 of the U.S Constitution. I do appreciate your study on this though.springerdave.
    Hey springerdave,

    Didn't the federal government dispose of the property now known as Michigan already? It is a done deal, that part of the Constitution is now null and void regarding Michigan; that horse left the barn more than a century ago!

    Here is the distinction, Michigan was granted statehood with clearly defined boarders. Police power was transferred to Michigan's legislature and governor at statehood.

    For Forest Service land, 16 USC 480 codifies this fact as a federal statute. In order for the federal government to get police power back, the legislature must regrant and congress must accept the reccession.

    Article 1, section 8, US Constitution states, in part:
    "...and to excercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Governement of the United States , or in any Department or Officer thereof." (emphasis added by me, capitalization from US Constitution. This last clause states that once land is regranted, the federal government has total police power over that parcel or tract.)

    This clause of our Constitution has precedent. Yosemite National Park is an example of this clause in action.

    Once a state becomes a state, it has soverignty. In order for the federal government to regain soverienty, it must get permission from the state's legislature.

    Forest Service "owned" land has not been regranted. If I am wrong, please post the regrant legislation.

    markm

  15. #15
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by springerdave View Post
    Would you support striking Section 3 of Article 4 and an amendment that would return all land within a state to the state?springerdave.
    Only those portions of federal land which had little to no business being protected. If it's solid enough that there isn't much private property checkered through it, or if it's an important region for wildlife, I enjoy knowing that it's protected by the feds. I also enjoy knowing good spots of land are protected at the state level. I'm all for both in order to continue protecting the wilderness, or at least what still exists of it.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Hi Markm. When I questioned Michigander, I was referring to the US Constitution, not the state constitution. I asked if he would consider striking Section 3, Article 4 so that all land within the state would belong to 'we the people' of the state of Michigan. I hadn't considered any of the "re-granting" issues. Sounds as though you have researched this quite well and and apparently it goes further than Sec 3, Art 4. What you said about the Federal Government passing sovereignty to the state as it was separated from the Northwest Territories , I have no arguments against that. That was/is my point. It seems that we are in the same hunt. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.springerdave.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Only those portions of federal land which had little to no business being protected. If it's solid enough that there isn't much private property checkered through it, or if it's an important region for wildlife, I enjoy knowing that it's protected by the feds. I also enjoy knowing good spots of land are protected at the state level. I'm all for both in order to continue protecting the wilderness, or at least what still exists of it.
    There we part ways, as I would prefer that ALL land within the border of Michigan was under control of the people of the state with exception of the necessary federal offices, post roads and post offices.springerdave.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •