Kelly Dardzinski, Environmental Advocate
March 16, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. My name is Kelly Dardzinski, and I am an advocate for the Public Interest Research Group In Michigan. PIRGIM is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization with nearly 10,000 members statewide that has been working for consumer and environmental protection for over thirty years.

Our organization’s purpose is to ensure that the public interest is represented when important policy decisions are being made. The public has a tremendous interest in our state forests: they give us places to hike, places to hunt, and places to take our kids camping. They are also a vital economic engine, not just because they provide timber to harvest, but also because they serve as the backbone of our twelve billion-dollar tourist economy. PIRGIM opposes HB5453 because it mandates that our state forests be managed in a way that serves the single interest of the timber industry, rather than the multiple interests of the public.

The Department of Natural Resources is charged by statute to do more than just make sure that logging in state forests is done sustainably and in accordance with existing law. When making its management decisions, the DNR must also ensure that our forests support a diverse range of plant and animal life; protect the forests from wildfire, pests, and diseases; recognize that some areas have special ecologic, geologic, cultural, or historic significance; and maintain or enhance forests that have high conservation value.

To satisfy these multiple criteria, the DNR must have the discretion to consider and implement a complete range of management possibilities for each area of state forest, with input not just from foresters, but also from botanists, fish and game managers, soil scientists, and other specialists. This bill, in its current form, would hamper the DNR from fulfilling its mission by imposing a time-consuming and costly rulemaking process to justify the DNR’s management decisions – a process that it would be forced to repeat every five years. Our state’s scarce financial resources would be ill spent forcing the DNR to jump through an onerous and expensive new set of administrative hoops.

In sum, our state’s forests are capable of serving the needs of the timber industry and the needs of the public. Unfortunately, HB5453 stacks the deck in favor of one purpose only, and we ask that you oppose it for that reason.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your consideration of our concerns. I will be glad to answer any questions.