News and analysis from The Center for Michigan •
©2015 Bridge Michigan. All Rights Reserved. • Join us online at

Original article URL:

Public sector/Quality of life

DNR’s prominence, legislative bill-paying cause angst in Northern Michigan

Shelly Pinkelman lives in an area that could fairly be described as paradise for an outdoor enthusiast.

She can see the Manistee River from her Grayling home and her property in Crawford County abuts thousands of acres of state land where she can ride horses, hike, cross-country ski or ride all-terrain vehicles anytime she wants, free of charge.

“Crawford County is one of the greatest counties to live,” said Pinkelman, who is a county commissioner. “It would be a little nicer if we could expand our economy.”

Pinkelman said the abundance of state land in Crawford County — the Michigan Department of Natural Resources owns half the land in the county, about 176,000 acres in all — is a mixed blessing.

The Au Sable State Forest and other state lands drive Crawford County’s tourism economy, but Pinkelman said it also limits economic development on private land. And she said the Legislature’s failure to pay all of the property taxes due on DNR-owned land in recent years has fueled animosity toward the agency and public lands in general.

“My constituents feel like the state shouldn’t own so much of the land,” Pinkelman said. “People are always asking me, ‘Why does the DNR need to own so much?’”


The DNR owns 4.59 million acres of land, or 12 percent of all land in Michigan. Eighty-five percent of DNR land, 3.9 million acres, is — like Crawford County — north of Clare.

The DNR and U.S. Forest Service own more than half the land in several Upper Peninsula counties, according to government data. Together, those state and federal agencies own 20 percent of Michigan’s 37 million acres of land.

The Legislature and Gov. Snyder recently approved a land cap law that severely restricted the DNR’s ability to acquire more land for state forests, state parks, game areas, boat launches and recreational trails.

Under the law, the DNR cannot own more than 4.63 million acres of land statewide before 2015 unless the agency submits a land management plan that the Legislature approves. The law also limits DNR ownership of land north of Clare to 3.9 million acres; the agency cannot acquire exceed that limit without the Legislature’s approval.

Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, said he introduced the land cap legislation to rein in an agency — the DNR — that continues to buy more land when it can’t afford to manage all of the property it already owns. He also wants the DNR to ease restrictions on how people use state land.

Casperson has introduced separate legislation that would increase property tax payments on DNR-owned land. Those bills are awaiting action in the Senate.

Legislative pay practices criticized

Jim Moore, a county commissioner in the Upper Peninsula’s Chippewa County, said he questions the logic behind some of the DNR’s land acquisitions. But he said the most pressing issue is the Legislature’s decision in 2004 to cap property tax payments on DNR-owned land, an act that has resulted in the state making only partial property tax payments since then.

“I don’t think it’s the public land that everyone is mad about, it’s the fact that the DNR doesn’t pay full property taxes,” Moore said. “The DNR is buying all of this land, but they’re not paying the taxes owed on the land they already have.”

The DNR fields criticism for the partial property tax payments, but the Legislature decides how much the state pays in property taxes on DNR-owned land, said Sharon Schafer, the DNR’s chief of finance. Since 2008, the Michigan Department of Treasury has handled property tax payments on DNR land.

Tim Kobasic, an avid outdoorsman and writer in Escanaba, said anger over the state’s failure to pay full property taxes on DNR land morphed into what he called a misguided land cap law.

Kobasic disputed claims by Sen. Casperson and others that there is a groundswell of opposition to public lands in the Upper Peninsula.

The influential Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance supported the land cap, but Kobasic said several other hunting and fishing organizations in the U.P. passed resolutions opposing the legislation.

“Sen. Casperson is a nice guy and he means well but I think he is getting some very bad advice,” Kobasic said. “The land cap was arbitrary and capricious … I think it was a way of gaining control and micro-managing the DNR.”

Jeff Alexander is owner of J. Alexander Communications LLC and the author of “Pandora’s Locks: The Opening of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway.” He’s a former staff writer for the Muskegon Chronicle.

6 comments from Bridge readers.Add mine!

  1. John Saari

    The State should not pay any taxes. They should pay for services. Fire and police etc. They should give up most of their property ownership and managment to the Community. Who enjoys public lands the most, the public of course. We at a local level know our needs the best and can provide for our selves more efficiently than the State.
    John Saari X-Wexford County Commissioner

    1. T. W. Donnelly

      I agree that fire and police services are not free and the owners of public land (State of Michigan) needs to either create its own police and fire services or pay its fair share to the jurisdictions who provide police and fire service. There is no free lunch and the State should not get a free ride.
      Some of the funds to pay the piper could come from wind farms or solar farms leased to public utilities. These energy producers could help local jurisdictions give the level of police and fire services that the situation demands. Enough solar farms reduce the need for more coal fired or gas fired or nuclear powered energy plants. Everybody wins !

  2. RM

    Most of the public land in Crawford County is not managed by the DNR, it’s managed by Camp Grayling. Much of the Camp Grayling managed land is open to hunters and for other uses.

    The state should pay the local taxes they owe and maybe increase the rates.

    DNR managed land is well managed, both for recreation and for resources. From my perspective, the more state land, the better.

  3. Dave Smethurst

    The State does have police and fire services. When local fire departments are called, they get paid. The large tracts of State land seldom see local police units, it the DNR Conservation Officers and State Police.

  4. Paul

    State land is not owned by the DNR, it is owned by the people of MI, the DNR simply manages it for the best use using well established scientific management principles. Take up your gripes about unpaid taxes with the politicians whom you elected and hold them responsible. RM and Smethurst are spot on in their comments.

    All this recrimination about state lands and taxes is just a ploy to force the state, which is us, to divest ourselves of our lands for the benefit of private corporations to develop them and keep us out. Casperson is the point man on this corporate land grab which will intensify as time goes on if the Repuglicans remain in power.

  5. william headley

    I totaly agree with Pauls statements

Leave your comment...

Your email address will not be published.

Currently on Bridge

Will we be better off if Proposal 1 passes? Former treasurer says yes

An Earth Day pitch: When you hang up the phone for good, toss it the right way

Michigan’s roads affect everyone, so a 'yes' vote on Proposal 1 makes sense

‘Diplomacy Begins Here’ conference aims to illuminate international relations

What NOT to post on Facebook: Jokes about prison rape, when you’re in charge of preventing prison rape

A program to give young offenders a second chance is sending many to prison

Similar accounts in suit over alleged teen prison rapes pose challenge to state's defense

‘New fish’ ‒ One teen inmate’s account of alleged sexual assault

Early learning summit in June could impact Michigan’s children

Money Smart Week: Be penny wise, and pound savvier

Plan B or no Plan B, here’s what happens if road proposal fails

The political tale behind the selling of Proposal 1

A Bridge primer: Untangling the pothole promise of Proposal 1

Who supports, and opposes, Proposal 1

Let's rebuild Michigan through its greatest asset: its water

Could a public boarding school model work in Detroit?

Coalition supporting Detroit schools a step in the city’s road back

Chasing fads? Today’s schools are struggling too much for that

For one Michigan legislative staffer, an hour or two in the spotlight

A cull is a kill, and it’s an overreaction to deer ‘problem’

Lack of college guidance keeps poor and rural students from applying

Those who can, do – and get their hands ‘dirty’ in the process

For one Detroit mom, a complicated path to employment

Detroit by the numbers – the truth about poverty

Michigan should require dental screening for all children entering kindergarten

Where in the world is the Center for Michigan?

After two years, hard to call ACA anything but a success

Bridge’s Academic State Champs emphasizes all the wrong measurements

A graying population poses challenges for Up North counties

Up North, isolation impedes health care for seniors

Enbridge oil pipes and the Straits of Mackinac: Too risky to ignore

Not bigger government, but better services when Community Health and Human Services merge

Two Michigans gaze across a widening gap

In northern counties, workers and business find each other lacking

Hidden poverty stalks a Pure Michigan setting

Postcard: How a git-’er-done spirit helps one rural school district

Postcard: When elk is for dinner

Postcard: Luxe life at Bay Harbor reflects changing economy

Postcard: A roof and a bed

Invest in non-partisan journalism.

Donate to The Center for Michigan. Find out why.