Lakeland Times Pier Rules Editorial

New pier rules show why DNR can’t be trusted

...So with me the issue is not how wide a pier can be but about who is telling me how wide my pier can be: the lawmakers or the bureaucrats. After all, if we don’t like the laws, we can fire our legislators in the next elections. Try firing the bureaucrats at the DNR.

But not all the fault lies with lawmakers. Having been given an inch, the DNR has taken a mile with administrative rules, and the pier package is a perfect example. Let’s take a look.

...The new rules will be enforced almost solely on complaints from neighbors or other lake users, the newspaper paraphrased Mr. Todd Ambs as saying. There is no plan for wardens or other DNR officials to actively seek out piers that don’t comply with the new rules, the newspaper attributed to Mr. Ambs.

The goal of such a policy is to pit neighbor against neighbor, to encourage divisiveness in communities, and to turn state rules into weapons by which embittered souls can seek to inflict injury on those they dislike, whether or not their motivation has anything to do with the public’s rights in navigable waters.

Rest assured, however, Mr. Ambs statement is not at all accurate: the DNR has no intention of enforcing the new pier rules solely on the basis of complaints.

We have written extensively about the DNR’s pursuit of pier violations against Manitowish Waters resident Tom Baer, and as Mr. Ambs was speaking to the Sentinel, the DNR’s appeal on that matter was sitting in the Court of Appeals.

Again, as we have reported before and as the DNR has admitted, there was no complaint against Mr. Baer’s piers. So why would they have pursued him in the first place – why did a DNR agent actively seek out his piers – and why would they continue to pursue him if Mr. Ambs were telling the truth?

Indeed, in its briefs in the case, the DNR has specifically argued that its broad statutory enforcement powers trump a specific provision in the current pier rules preventing the DNR from pursuing a pier violation unless there is a complaint or unless the pier owner seeks information from the agency.

“If DNR learns of a possible violation of the statutes relating to navigable waters or a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters, and DNR determines that the public interest may not be adequately served by a penalty or forfeiture, the DNR may proceed…” the agency quotes state statutes in its brief in the Baer case.

In other words, right now the DNR is in court to preserve their right to take action against piers whenever they decide to do so, whether a complaint exists or not, and they are in the process of pursing a non-complaint driven action against a pier owner even when the current rules demand a complaint for such action.