Let the DNR Close Sparsely Used Campgrounds

Free Press outdoors writer Eric Sharp thinks that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources should keep open 23 out of the way state forest campgrounds. The $250,000 dollars saved are a drop in the bucket of government spending, and Mr. Sharp thinks it ought to be spent almost on that ground alone. He ignores many significant questions while harboring that attitude.

To begin with, if every minor aspect of the State budget were to be made immune from cuts simply because in light of the budget as a whole they were small expenditures, how large would such a projected budget loom? For aren't there thousands of tiny bits of spending in any given budget, whether governmental, corporate, or even personal? What Mr. Sharp is saying essentially is that if something is small enough we shouldn't concern ourselves with it. But with that attitude, how might a budget be pared at all?

Yet more is at issue here than an, ahem, mere quarter million dollar expenditure in Lansing's budget. The campgrounds at hand are ones which do not see as much public use as the larger state park campgrounds. Well, we must ask, then who uses them? People such as Eric Sharp, who 'roams the state with a tent and sleeping bag', in his own words, seeking quieter campgrounds. Otherwise, these camps tend to be full during hunting season. That's about it.

What he is saying is that a special interest, notably himself and folks who think like him, and another special interest, hunters, ought to have their activities underwritten by Lansing. Those of us who do not share his or the hunters' interest ought to subsidize his camping and their shooting at game.

People who like to camp and hunt should have to pay for the costs of their hobby, not the taxpaying public. To be sure, they will argue that what they do helps the areas where they camp and hunt. Store owners, restaurant owners, and so forth, would benefit from having hunters and campers around. But if the campground must be state subsidized due to lack of use, what significant benefit is the locality getting anyway? The places in question apparently are not generating a decent amount of revenue. Maintaining them at State cost only drains the state budget that much more, ultimately dipping further into the pockets of the tax paying store owners and so forth who are supposed to benefit.

If you want to camp and hunt, then camp and hunt. But don't do it on our dime. We do not make you participate in or fund our recreational activities. Don't presume you have the right to make us pay for yours.