Mich Bear Politics
Question:
the Michigan SB 1033 wildlife bill states the following: Decisions regarding the taking of game shall be make following a public hearing after an oppertunity for public input. The Department of Natural Resources Director will be mandated exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game. This decision will not be that of the Natural Resources Commission or any public or state official. In Michigan the sportsmens groups have been intrumental in supplying input and direct contact with the regulation structure as far as taking of game for a few years now. This bill will keep this structure in tack. Al
Response:
Tim, From what I understand about SB1033 there are amendments to the bill that are real close to what has been happening the past few years. This bill would give the Director the exclusive authority to make the final decision or regulate the taking of game. The amendment to this bill states that the Director,NRC, or any state agency cannot act on any regulation without the involvement of public meetings that involve input from the people of the state. This covers all wildlife management in Michigan. This is something that has been done for the past few years as far as sportsmens involvement and public hearings, There is a possiblility that this may be passed as an amendment to the states constitution, or in referendum form. With the above attachments an addition to the constitution would be nice. I think Minnesota was looking at a similar bill or may already have it. I can’t remember for sure. AL
Response:
>The Michigan Sentate on Thursday, approved a ballot initiative that would give >Michigan DNR exclusive authority to regulate hunting in Michigan.
<snip> >I’m am not a big fan of wildlife management by the ballot box, and I’m not a >hunter, though I recognize what implications this has for my choice of baiting >deer AND fish (it’s the same thing, right?). >Please let me know if this is a "novel" way to fight CUB, and if so, if it has >succeeded.
We here in Oregon are trying to get this same type of thing on the ballot one year to late. The measure that is being passed around now for signatures will turn all wildlife management over to the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and it will take measure 18 (our law that stops bear and cougar hunting with dogs and bear baiting) off the books. My feeling is that we would stand alot better chance of getting the signatures and having this measure passed if it would not repeal the existing law. Voters will see this as a direct threat to the inititive (sp?) process here in Oregon since measure 18 was passed the (uninformed) voters last year. Also, giving complete control of wildlife to the F&G Dept. sounds great, but, what if this power falls into the wrong hands? If the F&G head mucky-mucks were to suddenly become anit hunting, where would that put us? Already some states are requiring that the F&G commissions will be represented by 50% hunting and 50% non-hunting board members. I like the tactic but only wish here in OR that we would of been one year sooner. Good luck to Mich in their war against the anti’s. Tim M/OR
Response:
The Michigan Sentate on Thursday, approved a ballot initiative that would give the Michigan DNR exclusive authority to regulate hunting in Michigan. This is in response to the Citizen’s United for Bears initiative that would, if approved, prohibit the use of bait and dogs to hunt black bear. On the same day, CUB turned in more than the needed number of petitions to get the issue on the ballot. It is possible that both could pass, but the one with the most votes would become law. My question to the group is this: Have any of you heard of this in other states? How has it fared? I’m am not a big fan of wildlife management by the ballot box, and I’m not a bear hunter, though I recognize what implications this has for my choice of baiting for deer AND fish (it’s the same thing, right?). Please let me know if this is a "novel" way to fight CUB, and if so, if it has succeeded. Thanks. Tim
