The Pigeon River Country:
A Very Special Place

Background: The Pigeon River County, which repeatedly drew author Ernest Hemingway on hunting and trout fishing expeditions along the banks of the three rivers, the Sturgeon, the Pigeon, and the Black, whose combined watersheds form the major part of the area, remains a haven of peace and wildness in the midst of northern part of Michigan's lower peninsula. After years of sustained efforts to restore the area to its pristine condition after the ravages of the great pine logging era of the late 1800s and intensive cutting of hardwoods in the early 1900s, the area was again threatened by the expansion of oil and gas exploration and production in the 1970s. Long the home of the largest woodland elk herd east of the Mississippi, conservation-minded persons banded together with outdoor sports enthusiasts to form the Pigeon River County Association which consequently spearheaded the effort to save the area and led to its present status as a special management area within the Michigan State Forest system. This article, written in behalf of the Pigeon River Country Association, appeared in three parts in successive issues of The NorthWoods Call in the spring of 1998. This paper, a biweekly paper dedicated to conservation issues, is published in Charlevoix, Michigan.

Part I -- The Past

Almost a quarter of a century ago, in October of 1973, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) at the recommendation of the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), created the special management unit to be known as the Pigeon River Country. It was formed out of state lands (now consisting of some 200 square miles) lying in four adjacent counties -- Otsego, Cheboygan, Presque Isle, and Montmorency and that had been formerly managed by four separate state forest administrations.

At the same time, the DNR Director also issued a document titled "A Concept of Management for the Pigeon River Country" as the official statement of policies and guidelines to be followed by the Forestry Division of the DNR in administering this new administrative unit. In doing this, the directive also announced the formation of an officially appointed Pigeon River Country Advisory Council whose task it would be to insure that the kind of citizen input that had done so much in the past would continue in years to come to protect this very special place.

And it is very special, in fact, up to now, entirely unique is several ways. For one, as the document notes, it is unique in being the largest undeveloped tract of land in Michigan's lower peninsula. Second, as the document goes on, it is "even more unique" it is at the center of the range of the only large, wild elk herd east of the Mississippi River. Finally, in the decade that followed, there was developed the "Pigeon River Country Hydrocarbon Development Plan" which set new higher standards for the oil and gas industry which even today remain unique in the United States and while now on the books, still remain to be fully implemented in the rest of the state of Michigan.

Finally, in order to protect this uniqueness, the Concept of Management clearly stated that:

"It will be the policy of the Department of Natural Resources to manage the Pigeon River Country to protect and maintain the natural beauty of its forests and waters, and to sustain a healthy elk herd and wildlife populations.

"The Department's objectives therefore, are to manage and control activities so that those activities which are permitted are in keeping with the unique and wild character of the Pigeon River Country: and to protect the area from overuse and overdevelopment."

The official document then went on to list seven means by which these objectives were to be realized. They were:

1. To improve and increase favorable habitat for elk;

2. To provide needed food, cover and seclusion for such wildlife as bears, bobcats and eagles, for such habitat is rapidly diminishing;

3. To provide recreational opportunities for people in keeping with the wild character of the area and to provide peace and quiet through control of disruptive activities;

4. To manage game species such as woodcock, grouse, deer and others for hunting and viewing opportunities:

5. To protect water quality and to manage the streams for a natural trout fishery and the lakes for trout or warm water game fish;

6. To manage, harvest, and use the timber and mineral resources of the area for the good of man;

7. To protect the Pigeon River Country from over-use and over- development which would destroy its wild character.

There are some, of course, who feel that the sixth item in the above list of management policies (besides not being stated in what is now politically-correct language) is at fundamental odds with the rest, or at least should be restated in a way that favors habitat improvement, particularly in view of the fact that the plan itself, when it comes to the section on forest cover management states that: "the primary objective of forest management will not be to produce a specific product, or products, such as sawlogs or pulpwood, but to achieve the forest conditions most suited to the stated objectives of the area." Five of those seven stated objectives have more to do with the protection of wildlife and most of all, the forest itself.

This was the plan. It was given full approval by the State of Michigan and its administrators, from the Governor on down, and became official policy. Yet, despite all this, the Pigeon River Country remains in jeopardy.

Part II -- The Present

We saw how the Pigeon River Country was set aside and formally dedicated as a special forest management unit with its own special set of rules designed to keep it as a unique and special place. So how is it that the Pigeon River Country, despite a long-standing and officially-approved "Concept of Management" with its explicitly stated policies and detailed guidelines, is still in jeopardy?

One answer to this question could be simply public ignorance -- that there are those who simply do not know of all the planning that went into the formation of the Pigeon as a special administrative unit years back.

But of course, there is the possibility that there are other persons who are quite aware of what happened and who still resent it. Either way, however, there seems to be at least four sources of or types of threats to the Pigeon remaining the special place that it has become and was meant to be.

First, there is the threat from business interests (not just oil and gas industry but other commercial interests as well) both from the private sector as well as within the state government whose philosophy seems to be that if any exploitable natural resources are present that they should be there for the taking. In their view, any claims to this forest being special or unique mean next to nothing compared to the profits to be made.

Second, there is the threat from particular (mostly outsider) interest groups, primarily recreational in nature, who would like to see the Pigeon River Country become their special playground -- even if it means excluding others from enjoyment of other sports.

Third, if not exactly a threat, there remains the problem of an interested local public that still seems split between wanting to keep this place more or less secret (for their own enjoyment) and those who so in love with the place that in their enthusiasm to tell the world about it, they would run the danger of "loving it to death."

Finally, there is the usual problem posed by the apathy or ignorance of those who have never heard that the Pigeon was meant to be a special place.

Yet, almost prophetically, all these conflicts were foreseen in the official Concept of Management and for the most part dealt with, first by clear statements of overall policy, and second, by a series of practical guidelines.

As far as overall policies were concerned, the plan recognized that "neither the Pigeon River Country nor any other local area of state lands can satisfy all the needs and wants of the public to whom it belongs." Thus the plan went on to state that "while the Pigeon River Country may be well-suited to satisfy many different objectives and needs, but to do so it is necessary to deny or restrict certain activities or uses which conflict with or seriously affect the uses planned." (Concept of Management, p. 39)

Among the uses the official plan mentions as being incompatible with the Pigeon River Country are any "heavy demands" for use of the upper reaches of the Pigeon or Black as canoeing rivers, and "off-road vehicle use of all kinds." While no explicit rules were then set to prevent canoe access, the Concept of Management did, however, explicitly rule out the use of ORVs, ATVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles on all but the many county roads passing through the forest as governed by state or county law.

Thus, recent efforts to restrict snowmobiles to the county roads within the Pigeon River Country, similar to the DNR order that closed all service roads and trails (except those as marked as open) to vehicles back in 1991 were simply decisions to finally implement policies that were set by the official management plan back in 1973.

Of course, one could always attempt to argue that conditions have changed since 1973. But in which direction? If the people who drew up the plan for the management of the forest saw a problem with ATVs, ORVs, and snowmobiles back then, could we say there is any less of a problem now? If the intent was to ban them as incompatible with the purposes of the forest back then when they were a relatively new phenomenon, can they be said to be any less of a problem now that the numbers have increased almost exponentially?

A somewhat different kind of situation exists regarding some other types of recreational use. While the Concept of Management recognized the potential for greater horse-back riding usage and even authorized the construction of a new campground just for that use, no one anticipated the tremendous increase in the numbers of people bringing horses into the Pigeon -- now to the point where complaints about the horses and riders taking over are now among the most commonly heard, especially during the fall, during the elk "bugling season" when large numbers of riders flock to the forest with their vans and horse trailers, and motorists are cruising the forest roads to view the colors, and hunters are trying to find undisturbed areas for their sport -- all this at once.

To alleviate the congestion, two more special campgrounds for horseback-riders and their mounts were built outside the original forest boundaries, in hopes that traffic could be more spread out. But building more facilities seems to have only so far exacerbated the problem rather than relieved it. Would not provisions for special snowmobile routes, or for mountain-bike trails not also have the same result? So what is to be done?

Nevertheless, despite these present problems, what has taken place in the Pigeon (as well as what has not been allowed to take place) continues to make it very special -- an exemplar as to how public lands need to be managed not just for the good of the public, but most of all for the good of the land and its forests and wildlife itself.

Part III -- The Future

In the previous two parts of this article, we considered the question as to just how the Pigeon River Country came to be and how detailed management plans were drawn up by through the cooperation of many interested people working with the DNR, resulting in the issuance, by the NRC and the DNR back in 1973, of the official "Concept of Managagement for the Pigeon River Country" that was to be used as a blueprint for the future administration of the Pigeon.

While no plan or document is perfect, credit must be given to those farsighted people, both within the Department of Natural Resources, as well as those members of the public, especially those who banded together as members of organizations like the Pigeon River Country Association and others who had a special interest in preserving the wildness of the Pigeon and the quality of its habitat, without whom what we now have in the Pigeon would have been long-gone.

The final paragraphs of the Concept of Management for the Pigeon River Country saw the challenge yet to be faced very clearly:

Of great concern to people of the area is the possibility that any development or improvement will lead to great additional numbers of people using it. Increases have already occurred and more can be expected no matter what is done. This plan is intended to encourage only compatible and least damaging uses. To whatever extent it is possible to do so, development of similar potentials on other state lands at an early date will reduce this concentration of public attention on the Pigeon River Country.

A separate plan will be prepared dealing with development of oil; and gas... Every possible effort is being made to minimize the effects where oil and gas development may take place.

All this was written -- dare we say, "prophesied"? -- back in 1973. And practically all of it, including the special "Hydrocarbon Development Plan", has come to pass. Thanks largely to royalties from oil and gas development, which was confined largely to the south- eastern third of the forest, the actual management area has been increased from the original 82,785 acres to nearly 128,000. Nor has every restriction that was on the books as far as the plan goes been implemented on all this additional acreage -- the Green Timbers tract being the only notable exception. So in light of further demands being placed on the forest, much still has to be done.

But no plan, no matter how well-thought out, is perfect, or could be expected to foresee all the difficult decisions that would have to be made for the future protection of the forest. For that reason, one other special facet of these guidelines was the formation of an official Advisory Council that meets regularly with the forest administrator. This Council is made up of eighteen members, fifteen selected to represent various public interests, plus three ex-officio DNR members, representing the forest, fisheries, and wildlife divisions. Their job is to help make sure that the administrator will be kept in touch with the public and its needs and to help serve as a conduit to the public for the benefit of the forest. Perhaps it has done a better job at the first part of the task than the second. Nevertheless they have tried hard to do both and we must give special credit to all those who have spent many long hours over the years in what must have seemed interminable meetings, discussing, debating, advising, and not infrequently pleading with the DNR administrators (especially those behind desks downstate) to live up to the plan that their predecessors committed the government to carry out.

While there were necessarily some gaps which the drafters of the original plan could not possibly have foreseen, on a whole, the degree of foresight and the spirit with which permeates the document is nothing short of remarkable. And it must be this "spirit", and not just a the letter of the law that guides the advisory council and the forest administrator in their interpretation of the policies and guidelines.

But again, just what is that spirit? It is, as I hoped to make clear from the onset, and as the Concept of Management made clear right to begin with, that the Pigeon was to be kept as a very special and unique place. But again, why should this be so?

Here one can only render an opinion, so I'll try to make mine clear. I believe a matter of philosophy -- or perhaps even of "theology" in the broadest sense of that word that has to do with the ultimate values we place on things. As I see it, what makes this quarter- century-long experiment in the Pigeon River Country so critical is that it is a matter of trying to reconcile or find a balance between two often conflicting points of view.

One view, which has for a long time dominated Western civilization, holds that this earth was given to the human race for exploitation or solely for our own benefit, that is, that "Man is the measure of all things". It is a view that has lead to technological mastery, but at the same time, to increased environmental disaster.

The other, and quite opposite view, one that has gained great popularity among contemporary environmentalists, is that humans are always to be considered (largely because so many of them hold the opposite view expressed above) as intruders upon nature, and must be kept apart from the places like the Pigeon lest its integrity be violated.

Is it possible, that instead of a heightened conflict between these two views that a third, a more integral view of ourselves in relationship to the rest of nature might be achieved? Instead of seeing ourselves as opposed to nature, either as exploiters or violators, might we not be able to see ourselves as part of nature, as part of an ecosystem that depends on a delicate balance between all species, between nature in the raw and human skillfulness, between soil and water and plants and animals who must follow their instincts, and humans who not only know about these things, but who must bear even greater responsibility in knowing that they know -- or at least can know better than to upset these balances if they are willing to look forward far enough?

This is what I believe, above all, that makes the Pigeon River Country such a special place. It is not because it is an untouched wilderness -- which it is certainly not. It is rather because, in a state where 20 million people, most of them within a few hours driving time, the Pigeon River Country remains a haven of wildness where those who wish to conduct themselves as a very responsible part of nature, can share -- but only so much as possible without destroying what they have come to experience -- what it means to be, even if for only a day or two, a part of an ecosystem where all things, all kinds of living creatures, from the tiniest shrew to the majestic elk, can find a home.

Richard W. Kropf
(past President, PRCA)

To see an indexed text of A Concept of Management for the Pigeon River Country

Back to the Pigeon River Country Association Index page

File:Prcspec.htm 11/27/2001