# Wolf Hunting Proposals



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

garyb said:


> i look at yellowstone national park and see all the damage done without the wolves, look at the facts, i dont eat them why do i want to kill them.there is an important check and balance here. so vote ''no''


Everyone is entitled to their vote. No matter what HSUS or the politicians do, there will be a wolf season. The people who have to live with them in their backyards can tolerate them only so much. It is not a big deal as more nuisance wolves were killed in 2013 than the hunters killed.


----------



## mhawk21912 (Jun 9, 2008)

there are 5 lines in this proposal and only one deals specifically to the wolf hunt.

PROPOSAL 14-2
A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 21 OF 2013, GRANTING THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION THE POWER TO DESIGNATE WOLVES AND CERTAIN OTHER ANIMALS AS GAME WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Public Act 21 of 2013 would:

· Allow the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to designate certain animals as game for hunting purposes and establish the first hunting season for game animals without legislative action.

· Continue the NRC's designation of wolves as game and allow the NRC to set a wolf hunting season.

· Grant the Legislature sole authority to remove a species from the list of designated game animals.

· Eliminate the $1.00 hunting and fishing licensing fee for members of the military, whether stationed inside or outside of Michigan, subject to any lottery.

· Give the NRC sole authority to regulate fishing.


I have 2 concerns about this proposal.#1 the wording is confusing to me about the $1 fee for members of the military, I looked this up and currently there are no fees for military except the ones subject to lottery ( so this is probably a good thing). #2 It's gives the NRC sole Authority to regulate fishing. Is that not the Case currently?
I hate it when they lump things together like that.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I am very concerned about giving an unqualified and unelected NRC full authority over anything. Look what they have done so far.


----------



## mhawk21912 (Jun 9, 2008)

PROPOSAL 14-1
A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS

Public Act 520 of 2012 would:

· Designate wolf as game for hunting purposes and authorize the first wolf hunting season.

· Allow the Natural Resources Commission to schedule annual wolf hunting seasons.

· Provide criminal penalties for the unlawful possession or taking of wolves, but shield a person who lawfully captures or destroys a wolf from prosecution.

· Require a person who wishes to hunt wolves to obtain a wolf hunting license.

· Create a Wolf Management Advisory Council for the purpose of making nonbinding recommendations to the legislature regarding the proper management of wolves.

Should this law be approved?


I am thinking of voting YES on 14-1 and NO on 14-2.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

U of M Fan said:


> I seen a vote no sign on somebody's lawn in my neighborhood. I wanted to drive up on their lawn and mow that sign down!!! Lol
> 
> A HUGE YES for me.


I am voting that the DNR should take truckloads of wolves to southern Michigan so that the huggers can see first hand what a problem these nuisance animals can be. I guess if they live 300 miles from a wolf and it is not in their backyard it is not their problem. In the UP you have to carry a weapon every time you leave your vehicle if you are in or near wolf territory. But it is not their problem so they don't care. In part it is the DNR's fault that we are in this mess because they misinformed the public about wolves for the past 30 years.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

mhawk21912 said:


> PROPOSAL 14-1
> A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS
> 
> Public Act 520 of 2012 would:
> ...



That is what I intend to do.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

garyb said:


> i look at yellowstone national park and see all the damage done without the wolves, look at the facts, i dont eat them why do i want to kill them.there is an important check and balance here. so vote ''no''


 
Says the guy from Fowlerville who will never have to worry about children or pets playing in the backyard!

Ganzer


----------



## buck37 (Aug 8, 2002)

I don't live in the U.P., I may or maynot ever hunt wolves, but I will not vote against Hunters, period. We are the minority, we need to stick together. I'm obsessed with Whitetails and voting against any form of hunting may take someone elses obsession away from them. Vote yes. I have saw what wolves have done to the hunting in the U.P. I used to see plenty of deer.


----------



## No Deer (Nov 24, 2005)

Check out these links. They have the proposals, analysis, and organizations/people supporting each view (who supports "YES" vote, who supports "NO" vote). Best analysis of each prop I have found. I will be voting YES on both.

Prop 14-1
http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Wolf_Hunting_Referendum,_Proposal_1_(2014)

Prop 14-2
http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Natural_Resources_Commission_Referendum,_Proposal_2_(2014)


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

No Deer said:


> Ok, just saw a commercial on tv concerning these props. Was sponsored by the antis telling us to vote no. Guess it is one I should vote yes on.


Same here in the Grand Rapids TV area. One last night on CBS (3) and Fox (17) this AM.


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

The anti - hunting ads are flying now, I saw 3 no ads in the past 20 minutes. Please vote yes and encourage all those you know to do the same.


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

Vote Yes, a no vote on either of these basically means you are anti-hunter siding with the HSUS.


----------



## Anish (Mar 6, 2009)

swampbuck said:


> that is what i intend to do.


 
x 2


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I am voting Yes and Yes. Suppose the proposals do pass that does not mean HSUS is going to back down and the issue will die right then and there. Michigan is a pretty liberal state and I think that HSUS is going to use whatever happens here to do the same in other states. Expect HSUS to take it to court for a long drawn out battle. I would assume that while this in in court there will not be a season on wolves. 
Regardless how this turns out I am happy that the results will be public before November 15.


----------



## packmaster (Mar 1, 2010)

Hasn`t this state got anything else to worry about than some flea infested,worm infested.disease carrying nuisance animal? apparantly not.


----------



## superposed20ga (Dec 14, 2005)

Since this is still important, I'm concerned that MUCC and many of the conservation/hunting groups in Michigan have apparently given up pushing for people to vote on the pro-wolf hunting proposals this fall. I know they've said in the end it does not matter because of the passage of the Scientific Management Act, but I'm with everyone else here. It still seems important to vote.


----------



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

I intend to vote YES and YES. However, the anti's are spending BIG money to advertise their point of view. Again, like with the Dove Bill, we see nothing from MUCC, The NRA, or Safari Club explaining our view. Which BTW how many of you support these groups and get nothing in return for your money? The anti's while delusional are not stupid. They have a plan, even after the vote to continue this fight in court. If we loose these proposals, while it might not be immediate, it WILL strengthen their argument in court as *"the will of the people"*. This is why they are spending the money on these commercials. 

So since we are on our own, again, make sure everyone you talk to understands how important this vote is and to vote YES. FRANK


----------



## mattawanhunter (Oct 30, 2011)

J-Lee said:


> The anti - hunting ads are flying now, I saw 3 no ads in the past 20 minutes. Please vote yes and encourage all those you know to do the same.



OK so there are 2 proposals and we vote yes on both if were in favor of wolf hunting in Michigan? correct? Sorry, no patience to read through bureaucratic political BS proposals to sort our what they mean!


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

> OK so there are 2 proposals and we vote yes on both if were in favor of wolf hunting in Michigan? correct?


Yes that is a correct. Although both proposals will be void in 2015 due the CPWM law, it is still important to vote yes and send HSUS and other out of state anti-hunters from the east and left coast a strong message to get out of Michigan. Voting no is siding with HSUS and the anti-hunters.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Getting in late but, I thought a bill passed earlier they year made these votes mute?


----------



## No Deer (Nov 24, 2005)

*According to the links I posted earlier, this is what could happen.
*



*Following pro-hunt initiative's approval*

Approximately $816,768 was spent to get the two anti-wolf hunting veto referendums on the general election ballot in Michigan. 
_Keep Michigan Wolves Protected_ (KMWP), the campaign group sponsoring the measures, is planning to initiate litigation against the pro-hunt Natural Resources Commission Initiative, arguing the initiative's content was too broad. The organization still wants people to turn out and vote "no" on November 4, just in case the pro-hunt initiative is overturned by a court in the future. As Jill Fritz, director of _KMWP_, said, "If those referendums are overturned in November, and the initiative is overturned in court, wolves could not be hunted for trophies."[12] _KMWP_ cannot initiate a third veto referendum, however, as the pro-hunt initiative contained appropriations for the DNR to battle invasive Asian Carp, a matter unrelated to wolf hunting. In 2001, the Michigan Supreme Court determined the state constitution protected all laws making appropriations from veto referendums.[13] 
Opponents of the wolf hunt, realizing they can still send a message of disapproval to lawmakers, are continuing their campaign.[14] Also, the two measures, if passed, would block the wolf hunt until the pro-hunt initiative goes into effect in late-March or April 2015.[15] Since the veto referendums are on the table, and the pro-hunt law isn't in effect yet, the state did not schedule a wolf hunt for 2014.[


----------



## Clarkfish (Mar 3, 2007)

Robert Holmes said:


> I am voting that the DNR should take truckloads of wolves to southern Michigan so that the huggers can see first hand what a problem these nuisance animals can be. I guess if they live 300 miles from a wolf and it is not in their backyard it is not their problem. In the UP you have to carry a weapon every time you leave your vehicle if you are in or near wolf territory. But it is not their problem so they don't care. In part it is the DNR's fault that we are in this mess because they misinformed the public about wolves for the past 30 years.


 

Amen to that they made Wolves all cute and fuzzy. Turn loose a few packs in the lower. And there tune will change.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

mhawk21912 said:


> I have 2 concerns about this proposal.#1 the wording is confusing to me about the $1 fee for members of the military, I looked this up and currently there are no fees for military except the ones subject to lottery ( so this is probably a good thing). #2 It's gives the NRC sole Authority to regulate fishing. Is that not the Case currently?
> I hate it when they lump things together like that.


What you looked up is correct and there is no fee for the military currently, but that is a direct result of the legislation HMWP is trying to repeal. If you vote no on 14-1, you are essentially saying that you want to put in place the $1 again. 

As far as the NRC having the sole authority to regulate and name a game fish. No, prior to the legislation that passed which HSUS trying to appeal with proposal 14 - 2 , a fish species could have been taken off the list of those which can be taken just because the antis think it's pretty. Don't think that will happen? Just go look at California, it's happening.

Vote YES for conservation!


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

MERGANZER said:


> Says the guy from Fowlerville who will never have to worry about children or pets playing in the backyard!
> 
> Ganzer


One that doesn't hunt and only fishes and probably wants to be able to watercolor paint pretty, harmless wolf puppies that remind him of his dog in his spare time.

Vote YES for conservation!


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

u


No Deer said:


> What am I missing? This part of Prop 14-1 is not something that sounds good to me:
> "Create a Wolf Management Advisory Council for the purpose of making nonbinding recommendations to the *legislature *regarding the proper management of wolves." (emphasis added)
> 
> And this part is from Prop 14-2:
> ...


The legislature currently does not hear from any group on the sound science designated towards management of wolves. This advisory committee was being created in order to give a forum for sound science. This is a good thing. Currently, all you have to do if you're an anti- organization is produce enough voter enthusiasm by signature and there is no forum in the House and Senate where legislators are forced to look at an advisory committee of state experts. Legislators don't have to look at the NRC and DNR meetings. Instead, they can just go to work and rely upon the Bologna of John Lutevich, noted anti and H$U$ supporter that doesn't believe in just reporting facts as a scientist. 

So, by directing them to take a recorded look at what an advisory panel has to say and holding them solely responsible to remove a game species rather than letting a bunch of uninformed citizens who have lost touch with the outdoors make the decisions, you are holding them directly responsible for their actions.

Otherwise, by voting no on 14-2, you're saying that it's okay for the 8 million people in the tri-county area of Detroit to decide what is sound science based on emotion and fuzzy wolf puppy commercials.

This really isn't all that confusing.

Vote YES for conservation!


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

As far as I am concerned as uneducated as the pro wolf people are this vote might just as well take place in another state. A controlled and well managed hunt is better for wolf protection than the alternative. The alternative is shooting every wolf that you see in the woods. I honestly think that the pro wolf people are so stupid as to think that people won't get trigger happy. Just my view, if you want the wolves protected vote yes. If you want the wolves killed off then vote no.
I do find it rather ironic that 80 percent of the people voting on the issue live 250 or more miles from the nearest wolf. It is like asking residents of Marquette to vote on a pay raise for the Detroit Police department. The whole thing is pretty stupid and a big waste of money. 
If HSUS wants to spend their money in Michigan why didn't they just build a big dog shelter?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Wisconsin hunters are doing a fine job on killing wolves. Nine days into their season they have killed 106 out of their 150 wolf quota. Congrats to those guys.


----------



## Jeff Young (Feb 26, 2013)

Vote YES on Proposals 1 and 2
This November, youll be asked to vote on two proposals on the statewide ballot. You may even be filling out your absentee ballot right now. Both of these proposals are referendums of two bills that were enacted to support hunting rights and guarantee scientific management of our wildlife. For that reason, all hunters and anglers in Michigan should vote yes to affirm these laws. 
Proposal 1 asks whether to affirm the original law that named wolves as a game species. Naming an animal as a game species doesnt mean that there will be a hunting season, but opens the possibility to the Natural Resources Commission if state biologists recommend it. A yes vote would affirm this law, and a no vote, which is what out-of-state anti-hunting special interests are advocating, would repeal it. 
Proposal 2 would affirm a law that allows the Natural Resources Commission to name game species, issue fisheries orders, and provide free hunting and fishing licenses to active military members. By making these decisions scientifically at the NRC, hunting and fishing rights are protected from anti-hunting special interests. Once again, a yes vote would keep this important law. 
Due to the passage by the Legislature of the citizen-initiated Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in August, hunting rights will be protected and the Natural Resources Commission will regain the ability to scientifically determine game species and fisheries orders in March. But a yes vote on Proposals 1 and 2 will send a clear message to out-of-state anti-hunting special interests that they cant buy our votes in Michigan just by spending a lot of money on misleading political commercials.


----------



## spartylou1 (Mar 13, 2013)

Does the Natural Resources Commission exist today? Who is it? DNR? Or does these proposals create this commission which I'm afraid will be filled by politicians who won't know much about managing natural resources.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

spartylou1 said:


> Does the Natural Resources Commission exist today? Who is it? DNR? Or does these proposals create this commission which I'm afraid will be filled by politicians who won't know much about managing natural resources.


It is a *CLEAR *choice......You can have the HSUS run this state.

OR

The people we already pay for with our tax dollars..........[and live here]

Dave


----------



## Chappy410 (Sep 20, 2014)

spartylou1 said:


> Does the Natural Resources Commission exist today? Who is it? DNR? Or does these proposals create this commission which I'm afraid will be filled by politicians who won't know much about managing natural resources.


Yes, there already is a Natural Resources Commission. Here is a link that explains:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-65134_65145---,00.html


----------



## Jeff Young (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks for the response Chappy410, We do and have had Natural Resource Commission. The NRC is knowledgeable don't let the HSUS false TV commercials fool you.


----------



## fishingmonster (Jan 17, 2011)

Gnarf said:


> These proposals don't really mean anything. Once the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act kicks in next year it would overrule these proposals if they didn't pass. There will be no wolf hunt this year either way and the NRC hasn't said if there will be one yet for 2015.


Thes props Do mean something show HSUS the door and vote YES on these if we loose they have bait to take us to court!


----------

