Replies

No, what I'm saying is don't screw up the area. I didn't say I was against this, and I didn't say it was a good decision by the judge (although it was a great one IF the property owner had the conveyance conditionings in when he left it to the state). I haven't read the actual decision, only two news accounts from the AP and Traverse City Record Eagle (wretched eagle), hardly a credible source. If it was a conveyance case, then it's a property/contract case. As far as the Kirkland's Warbler goes, that is based on the Endangered Species Act and the statutes there, and judge is bound by that. The warbler is endangered thanks to its very limited habitat (Certain Jack Pine forests near Grayling and Roscommon) and the parasitic cowbird. The cowbird kills the eggs of the warbler and replaces it with a cowbird egg. I have no idea of the impact of this on the warbler, but I am skeptical there.

Based on a purely economic stance, if the drilling can be done without screwing the area up, I'm for it. If it kills the fishing and tourism due to the fishing, than I'm against it. Now about 20 miles north of there is one of my hunting areas. There's lots of gas wells there. It doesn't screw up the hunting. The difference is that it's not over the Au Sable River. My concern is strictly with the river, its character, and the trout fishing that goes with the river, which needs to stay around 60 degrees.

If it kills the fishing and tourism due to the fishing, than I'm against it.

The current price of gas is quite effectively killing tourism in Michigan. Northern lower and UP are going to be particularly hard hit. Us "downstaters" (as my Traverse City-based sister et al sneeringly refer to anyone living south of the 45th Parallel) are skipping our usual summer sojourns northward because of gas. We're finding fun in our own backyards, in our own or neighboring counties. We're keeping our tourist dollars local. That accounts for a great big chunk of "upstate" tourist dollars.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.