[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Timber Mandate on Senate Floor
- Subject: E-M:/ Timber Mandate on Senate Floor
- From: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:56:13 -0400
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Forwarded bounced message...
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:11:39 -0700
Subject: Timber Mandate lives on on Senate floor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Amendment to Remove Mandate Dies on Voice Vote --
ASK YOUR SENATOR HOW HE/SHE VOTED, and let us know!!
By a Voice Vote, the 38 members of the Michigan Senate blocked an
amendment offered by Senator Gary Peters and supported by Senator Ken
DeBeaussaert to remove the DNR Budget language mandating an unsustainable
level of timber harvest off Michigan's State Forests. The vote, taken on
General Orders, is the second to last stop in the Senate before final
passage (third reading), however it is unclear whether any additional
opportunities for a vote will be offered on third reading. A second
amendment, offered by Senator Alma Wheeler Smith, modified the language
slightly (switched location of sentences) to clarify that impact on
wildlife habitat and recreation need to be considered by the DNR. That
Senator Peters presented his amendment to entirely strike the boilerplate
language on the timber mandate. He argued that the Senate has previously
said that the DNR should be using the best science in managing resources and
that this timber mandate works against best science.
Senator George McManus called for turning the amendment down, effectively
saying this shouldn't even be discussed. He claimed, as his letters have
previously stated, that the source of the acreage figures was the DNR, and
claimed this mandate was "reasonable" and would give the DNR some
flexibility. He said there should be a balance between the sale of timber
off state lands and private lands and that this mandate was reasonable and
necessary to do.
Senator Don Koivisto noted that the issue has been discussed for a number
of years, and suggested it was discussed and resolved in the House. He
said the mandate sets "targets" for the DNR, simply putting the timber up
for bids not requiring it be cut. Then he asserted that the National
Forests are not selling wood, or are moving toward no logging, and began
to talk about the fire in Los Alamos, NM. He said money from timber sales
goes to fire prevention statewide, and if they can't sell timber, they
might have problems paying for fire fighting. Koivisto claims that the
only ones who opposed the mandate are the environmental groups who oppose
harvest of timber on National Forest lands, and in effect he said it is
because of them the fires in Los Alamos occurred. He also said that for
each tree cut, three more are planted, and said this is a good policy.
Senator DeBeaussaert rose to counter the arguments presented by McManus
and Koivisto. He noted that in committee they had received a large amount
of testimony opposing the mandate, including from foresters. He said that
each year the boilerplate language gets more specific, and as was pointed
out in committee by one person who testified there is just as much chance
that a future legislature can move the mandated cut to zero. He suggested
the legislature should not be in the business of micromanaging the DNR,
and strongly urged that this issue be finally resolved within the next
By voice vote, the "no"s edged out the "yea"s, however there were clearly
a substantial number of yeas. Because a voice vote does not tell how an
individual legislator voted, those who have contacted your Senator asking
him/her to oppose this mandate are well within reason calling to ask how
he or she voted. Because the tally of a voice vote is a judgment call, it
would be interesting to compile the full list of how the Senators voted
(some were excused so would not have voted at all) to see what it actually
was. Chances are, because the vote wasn't recorded, if you speak to an
aid in the Senator's office you will be told they don't know, but if the
aid puts a simple question to the Senator with a call back to you, that
will allow you to find out! Perhaps we can get a running tally here on
Enviro-Mich and find out who voted how!
Third reading on this bill could happen any time this week, possibly as
soon as tomorrow.
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"