Pigeon River lessons

By Mike VanBuren
From the Early August 2013 edition of The North Woods Call

   I returned to school in mid-July, but it wasn’t the typical classroom  setting with textbooks and a course syllabus.
   This was experiential learning and hands-on tutoring in the Pigeon River Country, located near Vanderbilt in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula.
    The “professor” was Gaylord-area resident Doug Mummert, a seasoned woodsman, hunter and fisherman. Doug and his wife Judy had invited me to their home to talk natural resources conservation—a subject about which they are as passionate as anybody I’ve ever known.
     The discussion began as soon as I arrived Thursday afternoon at their secluded home southeast of town.  It continued over dinner and well into the evening, then resumed early the following morning during a hearty breakfast that Judy had prepared.
     There was much to learn about the Pigeon River Country—one of the more remote areas in the Lower Peninsula—and the Mummerts generously shared their knowledge and wisdom until I reluctantly drove away at 4:30 p.m. Friday to return home.
   The highlight of this crash course in all things Pigeon was a day-long tour of the state forest known as “The Big Wild”—nearly 100,000 acres of trees, wetlands, hills, meadows, rivers, streams, lakes, trails, wildlife and solitude set aside for preservation and the public benefit.
    Home to some of author Ernest Hemingway’s favorite Michigan rivers—the Sturgeon, the Black and the Pigeon—the area has been Doug Mummert’s “sandbox” and all-season playground for some 60 years, he said.  Since the early 1950s—when Mummert first visited as a teen-ager—he has hunted, fished, snowshoed, canoed, hiked, ran hound dogs, communed with “Ma Nature,” and generally absorbed the quiet and healthy spirit of the land.
     That’s precisely why he is determined to see it protected from developers, big oil interests, politicians, bureaucrats and others who would exploit the resource for temporary and short-term advantage.
    The threats have been many and varied over the years and Mummert has been among those in the trenches who have fought long and hard against exploitation.
     One of the biggest threats came during the 1970s, when fuel shortages were causing long lines at gas pumps, and oil companies were eager to tap huge reserves of oil and natural gas under the forest.  Opponents claimed that oil drilling activity would harm the Pigeon River Country’s abundant wildlife—particularly the only substantial wild elk herd east of the Mississippi River.
     For nearly 10 years, the two sides engaged in a series of lawsuits, consent orders, legislation and compromises until a 1979 landmark Michigan Supreme Court case offered guidance on the type of harm that would justify relief under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and led to an agreement between the state government, oil industry and environmental groups. The ruling allowed tightly regulated drilling in the southern one-third of the forest under the watchful eye of the Pigeon River Advisory Council and set standards for future oil drilling in Michigan.
     Today, the forest is a special management unit in parts of four counties that is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) under a unique “Concept of Management” that carefully outlines what is allowed and what is not.  Given that, the Pigeon River Country should be a model for resource conservation.
     But there are still many threats, Mummert said, including conflicts among user groups, ongoing pressure to commercialize state natural resources and the continued deterioration of Michigan’s once-vaunted “conservation system” in favor of political interests.
     “We’re losing our conservation system,” Mummert said.  “It seems like the legislature wants to run it, rather than the DNR, and they’re catering to special and commercial interests.”
     Pure water will soon be our most precious natural resource, Mummert said, if it isn’t already.  Northern Michigan and the Pigeon River Country are great examples of that, he said, and act as somewhat of a “sponge” to collect and filter fresh water.
     “Everyone should agree that it’s proper to have pure water,” Mummert said, and no activities should be allowed that threaten that—including the quest for more oil and gas resources.
     In addition, wildlife is an indicator of a healthy environment.  “If we manage for the most sensitive creatures out there, everything else will benefit, too,” Mummert said.
     That means you can’t be all things to all people, he said.  Some user activities—dirt bikes, four-wheelers, snowmobiles and other “fast movers”—have much greater impact on the resource than others.  They need to be carefully managed—even prohibited—because smaller  individual footprints mean better and more long-term resource protection.
   Viewing the forest panorama from Inspiration Point above the old Civilian Conservation Corps camp in the Pigeon River Country, Mummert quietly reflected on past efforts to save the forest.
    “What we’re looking at now is here because of what we did before,” he said.
    A DNR official once told Mummert that he had destroyed his credibility by saying “no to everything.”  Yet, Mummert doesn’t consider himself to be a “preservationist,” and even chaffs at the label “environmentalist.”
   “I’m a traditionalist,” he said, “and a conservationist. You have to believe in something and center your life around it.  Otherwise, you won’t do it.”
    That’s a good lesson for us all.

A learning opportunity

An observation from the Early June 2013 North Woods Call

    Everyone seems to have an opinion these days and, naturally, most people think their own ideas are correct.  Unfortunately, modern notions blow like tumbleweeds in the political winds and few people can hear other voices above the atmospheric roar.
     As a result, we tend to make life-changing decisions based on misinformation spewed by self-serving demagogues—skilled at manipulating the masses—rather than on our own knowledge of the facts.  And, too often, we filter everything through whatever political philosophy captures our personal fancy, thumbing our noses at alternative ideas and philosophies.
     Because few of us have ever been—or ever will be—politicians, we think it would be useful if Americans stopped viewing every discussion as “political”—worthy of attention if it comes from “our side” and contemptible if it comes from the other.  Why not begin looking at the thoughts of our fellow citizens as simply ideas worth considering?  After all, we supposedly all love liberty and justice, and want to hand the best nation possible down to our children and grandchildren.
     Most of us would probably agree that understanding our collective history and having accurate information on which to base our civic debate is vital to a free society.  Without it, we can’t make the best decisions going forward.
     Hillsdale College in southern Michigan is attempting to address this need by offering free online courses in American history and the U.S. Constitution.  We currently are participating in some of these courses, and are impressed by the thoroughness and relative objectivity with which the information is  presented.
      There are video lectures, supplemental readings, question-and-answer sessions and quizzes to test your knowledge.  And it’s all free of charge.
     College officials say they want to help citizens understand the differences between the constitutional republic bequeathed to us by our founders and the now-dominant administrative bureaucracy that has come from 100-plus years of so-called “progressive” thought and policy.
     “We’re living right now in one of the key moments of American history—one of the pivots,” said Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn.  “We’re going to go one way, or the other.  [Abraham] Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  We’ve got a house that can’t continue being organized in two different ways.  It won’t stand.”
     The key to good decision-making, he said, is knowing what’s true, as well as the consequences and alternatives to our actions.
     “How are you going to figure out what the right way is?” Arnn asked.  “The answer is, learn the story of the country, and learn the principles and institutions that have guided that story, and emerge from it.  That’s a critical thing for people in America to be doing right now, because, if they’re going to exercise choice over what becomes of them, they’re going to need to know.”
     We couldn’t agree more and encourage others to explore this wonderful learning opportunity from one of the premier private liberal arts colleges in the country.  All it takes is an open mind, a desire to learn and a little time.
     Each of us has a duty to be an informed citizen and these Hillsdale College courses are well worth the minimal investment required. (For information: www.online.hillsdale.edu)..

Dune protection

An editorial from the Early June 2013 North Woods Call

    With recent changes to Michigan’s 1989 Sand Dune Protection and Management Act that has many developers salivating for more lakeshore construction, the state’s fragile dune ecology is under attack.
     It’s imperative that conservation-minded citizens insist that these important natural areas be protected.
      Dune habitats feature highly specialized plants and animals, including numerous rare species, and some that are endangered.
       In addition to the general beauty of the dune landscape, these areas also play an important role in protecting the land against potential ravages by storm waves from the Great Lakes.
     While they may seem barren to the casual observer, dunes support a vibrant ecosystem, where plants interact with blowing sand to create sand formations and to stabilize them.  Sometimes the stabilization is only temporary, as the dunes often shift, migrate and re-form over time.
     The widespread expansion of human population has resulted in dune destruction through land development and recreational uses, as well as from alteration to prevent the encroachment of sand onto inhabited areas.
     If you’ve spent any time in the dunes along the coast of west Michigan, or walked over the amazing formations at the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the northern Lower Peninsula, you can appreciate the value that these geographic land forms represent.
   We need to stand behind the citizens and communities currently fighting against the plans of developers who threaten their dunes.

"Expert" rule vs. the people

An editorial from the Early June 2013 North Woods Call

    We’ve mentioned this before and don’t want to beat a dead wolf over it, but we’re still uncomfortable with a state government that doesn’t think voters are smart enough to make informed choices over  policy issues.
     Michigan’s Public Act 21 of 2013—which empowers bureacrats to designate game species regardless of whether a majority of voters were to oppose such a designation in a proposed statewide referendum—is just the latest example of this.
     We respect state wildlife managers and believe they have the expertise to make sound judgements about wolf hunts and other such activities, but we don’t like to see intentional end-runs around Michigan citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights to place an issue on the general election ballot.
     It’s true that few of us are expert wildlife biologists, or schooled in other disciplines affecting the scientific stewardship of our natural resources.  We should always consult such experts when these decisions are to be made.  However, in a representative republic, the people’s voice is sacrosanct and should be heard.
     After all, do the “experts” always make the right decisions?
    Just  ask  the “anti-fracking” opponents of ongoing oil & gas lease sales—particularly in state parks, recreation areas and other publicly owned natural areas—for an answer to that one.

National Rifle Association

An editorial from the Late June 2013 North Woods Call

     We continue to scratch our heads over the antipathy we hear from some readers toward the National Rifle Association (NRA).
     Although we are not and have never been members of that organization—and are naturally wary of the money fueled power exercised by these types of lobbying groups—it seems to us that the NRA is legitimately representing the interests of hundreds of thousands of its members—and perhaps the general interests of a free society, as well.
     If not for the battle being waged by the NRA, there would likely be many more restraints on gun ownership than we have already seen—liberty suppressing regulations that do not honor the Second Amendment, or the U.S. Constitution.
     Argue if you must about the “craziness” of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of average citizens.  Our predecessor, Glen Sheppard, reportedly had little use for the NRA himself and would probably agree that prohibitions are necessary.
     But we believe the issue runs much deeper than that.  If we only could trust dishonest politicians and the cynical intentions of those agenda-driven special interests that are lobbying every bit as vehemently against gun ownership, we might have more sympathy for such arguments.
     As it is, we’re glad to see somebody standing up for these basic rights, however contentious they may be.
      Most gun owners—no matter what kind of weapons they possess—have never so much as entertained the idea of using them for ill-intent.  And we don’t believe that removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens will keep them, or some other equally effective killing device, out of the hands of those who wish to damage lives and create mayhem.
     The underlying moral conditions and mental health issues surrounding such actions are the real culprits, along with a general spiritual breakdown that didn’t plague earlier generations.
     Demonizing the NRA, or myriad other responsible gun owners who handle their weapons with care, will not lead us out of the dark and frightening place into which society has descended.

Population & immigration

An editorial from the Late June 2013 North Woods Call

    Here’s a conundrum—for us, at least.
    Why do so many of our staunch “environmentalist” friends seem to support decidedly liberal immigration policies?  These same people are quick to say that they’re concerned with the pressures that too many human beings put on our natural resources.  In fact, they often want to block the use of these resources when such population pressures demand more of the earth’s bounty.
    Yet they seem curiously unconcerned about porous borders and political maneuverings aimed at loosening immigration restrictions.  Why is that?
    Now, this is not an anti-immigration rant.  Indeed, hard-working immigrants have long been a major strength of our nation.  But don’t we need sensible policies that welcome those who believe in our founding principles, and want to support the laws and institutions that have made the nation what it is?  And shouldn’t we factor in the impact on natural resources when considering how many people to let into our country each year?
    Anything less than that seems foolhardy.
    Those of us who have been around a while have seen the dramatic changes brought to our communities and the natural world by increasing numbers of people—heavy traffic, urban sprawl and pressure on natural areas among them.
     Some of these changes are inevitable, of course, given the exponentially increasing population all over the world.  But does that mean we shouldn’t better manage these impacts?
     It’s getting harder to find places we can go to shut out the din of modern civilization.  Many of the places we remember from childhood have long since been swallowed by the ever-advancing tide of development.  We grieve the loss of these places, yet mostly seem powerless to prevent it—despite the good work being done by land conservancies, environmental groups and assorted conservation-minded citizens.
     Almost everywhere we look, the battle is being lost.  Yet the nation is poised to extend the welcome mat to millions more individuals who didn’t see fit—for whatever reason—to abide by existing immigration laws and help us better manage our nation’s resources.
     One can’t necessarily blame this problem on those who are seeking better opportunities for themselves and their families.  We would probably do the same.  But we still need to protect this nation’s resources through thoughtful policies and enforcement.
     Maybe if their own governments weren’t so corrupt, this flood of immigrants—both legal and illegal—could find greater opportunity at home and not feel the need to search for it here.

Fighting the good fight

An editorial from the Early July 2013 North Woods Call

     We got a slightly uncomfortable feeling in our gut a few weeks ago while driving from Mackinaw City to Glen Sheppard’s former home near Charlevoix.

     As we passed through Petoskey and saw all the relatively new development along U.S. 31 south of town, we recalled Shep’s many efforts to protect the Lake Michigan shoreline from such landscape-gulping activities.
     Yet, there it was, despite numerous angry news stories and pointed editorials.  As usual, the money interests and pressures of modern civilization seem to have won out.
     Shep had successes, of course, and we know we must keep fighting the good fight—as he did with his North Woods Call—but from time-to-time it can be a bit discouraging just the same.

Tilting at windmills

An editorial from the Early July 2013 North Woods Call

     Passing through Mackinaw City recently, we noticed a couple of new windmills that we hadn’t seen before towering above the trees on the outskirts of town.
     We’re all for clean energy, but we don’t think these rotating behemoths do anything to beautify the landscape—in the Straits area or elsewhere—and we’re beginning to wonder just who really benefits from these investments.
     We know a lot of the windmills we see sprouting up around the countryside are the result of crony capitalism, where tax dollars are used to subsidize the activities of politically chosen investors.  There’s probably good money in constructing them if you can get the state and federal grants.  But has anyone found that their electricity bills have gone down as a result of theoretically free wind energy?
      Ours haven’t—yet, at least.
       We’re just guessing here, but it seems like the billions of dollars spent on windmill farms and other “energy smart” alternatives to fossil fuels might better be spent retrofitting individual homes and businesses with wind and solar devices so that actual taxpaying citizens could directly benefit from cheap energy and not be billed monthly for it by some utility company.
     Call us impractical—and maybe we are—but an awful lot of money is being tossed into the wind under the guise of energy independence—even while many government-subsidized green energy companies go belly up due to poor management and lack of sustainable markets.
     Despite all this activity, few people that we know feel any more energy independent now than they did a few years ago.  In fact, it’s just the opposite.
     If only we did more careful thinking about such schemes before implementing them, we might all be better off.

Born to be ... loud?

An editorial from the Early July 2013 North Woods Call

     As summer kicks into high gear and outdoor temperatures escalate—along with gasoline prices—garage doors roll open and increasing numbers of would-be wild ones emerge on their two-wheeled cruising machines.
     They clutch the chrome handlebars, twist the throttle and roar off down the open road in search of freedom and camaraderie.  There’s nothing quite like the joy of acceleration and the feel of a warm wind in your face.  We get that.
     What we don’t understand, is why so many motorcycles—particularly, it seems, Harley Davidsons—have to be so doggone noisy.  After all, aren’t there ordinances in most communities that prevent any person or group of people from disturbing the peace?
     Yet, we’ve often been walking along a quiet roadway contemplating pleasant thoughts when one or more of these vibrating vehicles come sailing by, breathing fire from their lungs and bellowing like medieval dragons on steroids.
     What’s that all about?  We’d likely get a ticket from some irritated neighborhood constable if we did something similar with our automobile.
     Don’t get us wrong.  We like the whole idea of motorcycles—their “stick it in the man’s eye” independence, fuel efficiency and most everything else they represent.  In the often spirit-crushing culture in which we live, we need something to help us get in touch with our rebel souls.
     So go to it easy riders.  Feel free to get your motors running, head out on the highway and look for adventure—whatever comes your way.  Some days we wish we could throw on a brightly colored bandanna, tight leather jacket and pair of stout boots, and climb aboard for the ride.
     But is it too much to ask that you add an effective muffler to your list of essential gear?

Powering up sans fossil fuels

An editorial from the Early August 2013 North Woods Call

    As the world debates climate change and contemplates ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels, President Obama says he wants to spend $7 billion to bring electrical power to rural Africa.
     The president, of course, is not talking about coal-fired power plants, but rather developing new sources of clean energy to benefit those who currently live off the power grid.
     This is a worthy goal, although one wonders if we yet have the technology—or money—to accomplish it without fossil fuels.
     Energy use has jumped exponentially around the world as people everywhere plug in, turn on, and demand even more of the electronic devices and 21st Century conveniences that eat energy like hungry wolves.  The world’s population has grown by leaps and bounds.  Air and automobile travel are at record levels. And consumer goods and agricultural projects are being shipped to even more distant markets.
     One idea that has been floated by the president’s team is a soccer ball that generates electricity when kids kick it around, storing up energy for later uses, such as powering home light bulbs, or charging phones.  Ideas like this may be a testament to mankind’s ingenuity, but are we really going to electrify the world and meet our growing energy needs with such inventions?
     Excuse our skepticism, but maybe this is just one more way to launder U.S. tax dollars for other purposes—such as special-interest payoffs and perpetual political campaigns.
     Whatever the motivation—noble or otherwise—we probably have a long way to go before we solve the fossil fuel problem.

Of people and climate change

An editorial from the Early August 2013 North Woods Call

     Here’s something sure to irritate those who swoon over carbon taxes and plead for ever more U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations.  But it has to be said.
     The President of the United States recently declared war on climate change—especially coal-fired power plants—and signaled that he would prosecute that war with executive orders and bureaucratic decrees.  To heck with Congress, or anyone else who belongs to the “Flat Earth Society” and isn’t smart enough to know that human activity is the primary cause of this “crisis.”
     The simple fact that many politicians, scientists and environmentalists know this “inconvenient truth” is apparently enough for them to force even the most draconian and costly actions on society to correct the problem.
     Never mind that some other scientists disagree with these conclusions, and that a large portion of the population isn’t yet “enlightened” enough to understand that fossil fuels and industrial activities will soon render the earth uninhabitable.
     And never mind that the nation is broke, or that many of its hard-working citizens are unemployed and financially stressed.
     More taxes, more spending and more government mandates are the remedies for all our woes, they seem to believe.
     We’ve said before that we don’t know how to sort through all the conflicting testimony in this matter.  If the climate is indeed changing—and there’s some short-term evidence, at least, that suggests it may be—what is the real cause?
     The president and Al Gore, among others, tell us unequivocally that it’s our fault.  We drive too much, manufacture too much and generally live beyond what a finite earth can sustain.  Maybe so.
      But why should we believe THEM?  After all, they’re politicians and they’ve demonstrated repeatedly that they routinely lie about almost everything.
     If this is such an urgent matter that requires the emergency subversion of our representative republic to correct, why does the president seem to be in the air more than he is on the ground—burning  hundreds of thousands of gallons of high-octane jet fuel during never-ending campaign and vacation trips?  Why doesn’t he and other advocates of global warming and climate change model the behavior they demand that we adopt?
     The same question might be posed to members of often left-leaning and self-righteous environmental groups, who seem to drive, fly and consume fossil fuels as much as anyone else.
     We don’t claim to be Nobel Prize-winning climatologists.  Nor do we claim—as so many others do—to know the absolute truth about this contentious issue.  But we think it deserves a more honest, serious and much less politically influenced conversation.
     The way forward, in our opinion, is for those who embrace the notion of man-made climate change to offer clear and easily understandable arguments—backed by verifiable science—that will convince the naysayers of the validity of their position.
      As it is today, there’s way too much mocking and demonizing of those who prefer a more careful examination of such evidence—pro and con—before agreeing to further line the pockets of politicians, crony capitalists and bureaucrats who seem to be much more interested in themselves than in saving the world.