# Michigan Senate Passes Scientific Fish and Wildlife Act!



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sourdough44 said:


> That's half the reason they are trying to stop the MI wolf hunt, they feel they have/had a better chance of success. What's next, clear cutting timber, bear baiting??
> .


There is much they can and will target.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> .......... and turned in close to 1000 signatures.


Thank you.

L & O


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

FREEPOP said:


> It was specifically the wolf hunt that started this mess though it contains no specific wording in the legislation. The tree huggers came out, when the wolf hunt was announced.
> 
> BTW, I'm fairly educated on what this is all about, I made sure of it before I went and gathered and turned in close to 1000 signatures.


Ya, got me. I only turned in 213 signatures. And, yes, I agree it was the wolf hunt that started all of this, but the bill does not specifically guarantee a wolf hunt, just that it can be allowed if justified by "sound scientific management".

Steve


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> Thank you.
> 
> L & O


The boss lady helped me. I know trapping is on their short list, so I had extra motivation.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

hitechman said:


> First of all, let me state, I am in favor, and hope the house confirms the bill to make it law to manage ALL species via sound scientific management (no where in the law does it mention wolves specifically). I am also in favor of APRs, and I manage my property in the NW 13 to that end.
> 
> APRs was a citizen initiated action to manage the deer herd (are you happy?....spelled it correctly this time) for a better balance of doe/buck ratios. This IS managing the herd, but no sound scientific principles were used (or even existed) to "make this the rule" (DNR states it is biologically neutral).
> 
> ...


Thank you Finally someone that's looking at how it's worded it's not just for wolves but all game animals. Some people want to pick and chose what animals this is going to affect when it should apply to them ALL.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

miruss said:


> Thank you Finally someone that's looking at how it's worded it's not just for wolves but all game animals. Some people want to pick and chose what animals this is going to affect when it should apply to them ALL.


No Kidding Jackwagon..........

Dave


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

Midalake said:


> No Kidding Jackwagon..........
> 
> Dave


Ah did i hurt your feelings? Still waiting for the answer when this passes what happens to all the regulations that the DNR put in place because some special group wanted them and there is no scientific reason for the regulation ??


----------



## kdogger (Jan 10, 2005)

Does this initiative exempt doves from scientific management?


----------



## localyahoo (May 28, 2009)

I don't know if this has been stated earlier,but can we get a petition going to pass a law that makes sure we pass laws that are common sense?? Pretty sad we have to go about it this way, but it's a step in the right direction. Still skeptical that it will be based on actual science instead of $cience.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## griz01 (Jun 11, 2012)

Who decides what "sound scientific principles" are? The global warming people? HSUS? Peta? My guess, every time the government gets involved it is those with the most cash!


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

Not sure if this was posted but. 
..









Sent from my SPH-L720T using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

griz01 said:


> Who decides what "sound scientific principles" are? The global warming people? HSUS? Peta? My guess, every time the government gets involved it is those with the most cash!



I think Bio and Qman are the guys in charge of that.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I think Bio and Qman are the guys in charge of that.


Good one !!! Like a lot of things people jump on the band wagon thinking they are doing good and don't have all the answers. All people seen was that HSUS was for something and they went nuts. The devil will be in the details of this act!! I've read it and haven't seen anything about fixing past regs that were passed without scientific reason just a feel good reason because they got people bitching about something.


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

So what do Michigan Democrats have against sportsmen?


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

Jager Pro said:


> So what do Michigan Democrats have against sportsmen?


They own guns!

Steve


----------



## quack head (Oct 23, 2007)

jatc said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Once again here is the link.
> 
> ...


Copied, and sent in to my Rep.

Thanks, I would never be able to articulate a letter as well as the one I poached from you. :lol:


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

miruss said:


> Good one !!! Like a lot of things people jump on the band wagon thinking they are doing good and don't have all the answers. All people seen was that HSUS was for something and they went nuts. The devil will be in the details of this act!! I've read it and haven't seen anything about fixing past regs that were passed without scientific reason just a feel good reason because they got people bitching about something.


So we lie down and take it from HSUS or we let it go to a vote and lose?

What other options are there besides doing nothing?


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

miruss said:


> Ah did i hurt your feelings? Still waiting for the answer when this passes what happens to all the regulations that the DNR put in place because some special group wanted them and there is no scientific reason for the regulation ??





miruss said:


> Good one !!! Like a lot of things people jump on the band wagon thinking they are doing good and don't have all the answers. All people seen was that HSUS was for something and they went nuts. The devil will be in the details of this act!! I've read it and haven't seen anything about fixing past regs that were passed without scientific reason just a feel good reason because they got people bitching about something.


miruss 

Your answers are bordering on dummy. 

Who are you working for??? HSUS?

Your questions about "past regs" are just that past tense. 

I for one plan on hunting Sandhill Cranes in the Fall of 2015. Rather than having no less then 50 or so in range fly over me every Goose season.

Your ATTEMPT to cloud this issue is CLEAR. 

The ONLY thing this law does is ALLOW our game managers AND lawmakers to do their jobs!!!!!!!!

Dave

PS I only get mad at stupid...............


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

Midalake said:


> miruss
> 
> Your answers are bordering on dummy.
> 
> ...


WORKING for HSUS that's a good one . NO i just don't trust the people at the DNR any farther then i can throw them! We voted in proposal G yrs ago and the dnr was suppose to start to using Scientific data back then some how it got changed to Social data do you have a clue on how this happened? I Actually think it shouldn't be up to a vote including hunters and the DNR should be in charge of making the rules BUT they have proven that they can't be trusted ! I can remember back to the dove vote and when we had a vote on Sunday hunting here in Lenawee county brother worked at a sporting goods store you would be surprised on how many hunters voted against both they didn't want more hunters in the woods spooking the deer.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Exactly we have approved sound scientific management a couple times now. Instead we got management by special interests....which this initiative brought by special interest's preserves.

If you are going to manage this way, you can't pick and choose which groups to allow. HSUS only has to change their approach


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> Exactly we have approved sound scientific management a couple times now. Instead we got management by special interests....which this initiative brought by special interest's preserves.
> 
> If you are going to manage this way, you can't pick and choose which groups to allow. HSUS only has to change their approach


But don't worry swampbuck THIS time it'll be different they promise!!!


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

miruss said:


> But don't worry swampbuck THIS time it'll be different they promise!!!


Ask yourself WHY the other two states have not had challenges? It is about MI law, or the ability to challenge it. 

This is about getting rid of outside threats. Of course if you want to hunt and fish in another state then sit and do nothing.

Dave


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

The issue I have with this is it is no different than Prop g or the law passed a year or two ago. They didn't work then, why now.

And supposing it does work this time, it does not exclude social initiatives by special interest group's, like we have been seeing lately, how are you going to stop the anti's from that, and I am talking resident anti's, 
How long do you think you can exclude them from social management.

Of course I guess we shouldn't expect the special interest groups involved in this effort, to exclude themselves from future action...can we.

I hope it passes and works, but my expectations are pretty low.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> The issue I have with this is it is no different than Prop g or the law passed a year or two ago. They didn't work then, why now.
> 
> And supposing it does work this time, it does not exclude social initiatives by special interest group's, like we have been seeing lately, how are you going to stop the anti's from that, and I am talking resident anti's,
> How long do you think you can exclude them from social management.
> ...


Swampbuck your never going to get a straight answer from them. They only see one special interest out there the others don't count until ALL SPECIAL interests are kept out of the process it's all smoke and mirrors.



Midalake said:


> Ask yourself WHY the other two states have not had challenges? It is about MI law, or the ability to challenge it.
> 
> This is about getting rid of outside threats. Of course if you want to hunt and fish in another state then sit and do nothing.
> 
> Dave


Midlake you seem to think ONLY HSUS is the only ones trying to stop ways of hunting. They are not until the DNR stops using SOCIAL science to set up the regs.this is smoke and mirrors. How can you say one SOCIAL science is bad and the other is good is it just because you don't agree with the one. It's the same with a lot of people on here they were all FOR SOCIAL science when it suits their need but suddenly when it effects them they are against it especially when they know they WILL lose.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)




----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


>


Who ate the first slice???? :evil:


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

"Midlake you seem to think ONLY HSUS is the only ones trying to stop ways of hunting. They are not until the DNR stops using SOCIAL science to set up the regs.this is smoke and mirrors. How can you say one SOCIAL science is bad and the other is good is it just because you don't agree with the one. It's the same with a lot of people on here they were all FOR SOCIAL science when it suits their need but suddenly when it effects them they are against it especially when they know they WILL lose"


Boy you got some ISSUES!!! 

Good luck to you. When you decide to take off the tin-foil hat and come out of the bunker your in please let us know!!!!!!!!

Dave


----------



## MichiganGoneWild (Jul 16, 2014)

This could be really good, or really bad.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

A perspective offered in this morning's (8/22) Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...f-hunt-michigan-edit-0822-20140821-story.html


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> A perspective offered in this morning's (8/22) Tribune:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...f-hunt-michigan-edit-0822-20140821-story.html


Are you selling subscriptions ?

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> Are you selling subscriptions ?
> 
> L & O


I thought the same thing :lol:


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

I realize #70 & 71 are just funnin'.........nonetheless, and seriously, do the Op-Ed writers of the Tribune have any traction in their opinion?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I looked twice and couldn't find it.
After that I pondered if I really gave a squat what a Chicago paper thinks about a Michigan wolf hunt  
So, without reading it, I can say without reservation, that they should break out the ice creepers.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> I looked twice and couldn't find it.
> After that I pondered if I really gave a squat what a Chicago paper thinks about a Michigan wolf hunt


It's there, but you you have to subscribe to read it. 
fairfax, so what's their opinion ?

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

.....and the horse they rode in on !!!!!


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Really, the link doesn't work? It works everytime for me when I open it....but then, I do subscribe to the Trib.
.....................................................................

Here is what they stated in their OP-Ed piece:


*Does Michigan need to kill wolves?*

The Michigan state Senate voted the other day to allow hunting of wolves. The vote is a direct threat to these wild creatures, of course. But also in the crosshairs are the voters of Michigan.
The bill is a response to a pair of ballot initiatives sponsored by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected that attracted some 400,000 signatures. The measures would end the wolf hunt authorized last year by the state and block a state commission from designating wolves a game species.
But this exercise in citizen participation and direct democracy may not amount to much. The bill approved by the Senate and pending a vote this month in the House would neutralize them by giving power over wolf hunting to the commission  and attaching funding to it, thus rendering it exempt from being overruled by a citizen vote.

The issue stirs strong feelings in our neighbor state. Gray wolves once numbered 2 million in North America, ranging across most of the continent. But they were nearly wiped out everywhere a generation ago, not least in Michigan. By the time the gray wolf was listed as endangered under federal law in 1974, there were only six left there.
With that protection, the species has managed a steady comeback, reaching a current population of more than 600 in the Upper Pensinsula. Wolves were removed from the endangered species list in this region of the country in 2012, after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded they were "in the best position they've been in for the past 100 years."
From that recovery, some people in Michigan drew the conclusion that protecting wolves from hunting is a good thing. Others thought it proved that wolves are too numerous and need culling. The latter prevailed on the legislature and the Natural Resource Commission to allow a hunt, and over 46 days last November and December, hunters killed 23.
A couple of dozen trophies are not going to put the wolf back on a path to extinction. But it's hard to see the need to reduce numbers that are a tiny fraction of what they used to be. The goal of Americans who value wildlife is not to allow it a small, confined space in which to survive. It's to assure it a broad expanse of habitat in which to flourish. We'd love to see wolves re-establish packs throughout the Midwest, including Illinois.
Some people regard these beasts as a danger to life and property. But contrary to myth, notes Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, "there has never been a recorded wolf attack on a human in Michigan."
Wolves kill an average of 11 cows per year in the state  out of a state cattle population of 1.1 million. Livestock owners are allowed to kill problem wolves, and they are entitled to financial compensation for animals lost to predation. Wolves are valuable, though, in keeping deer in check, which is a boon to moose.
Michiganders may disagree on these matters. But that's all the more reason to let them decide at the polls how best to treat wolves. Senate Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer upbraided her colleagues for intervening where they were not needed. "It's not as if we don't have serious work we could be doing here today," she said. "But on the one day you bother to show up for work this month, you ignore all that and come here to take away the rights of the people to vote again."
Wolves may survive if the legislature refuses to let the voters have a say. What could go on the endangered list are democracy and citizens' faith in government.
........................................

I posted it not for getting a squat out of anyone....but simply to inform on the perspective about our situation that is held by folks outside the borders of Michigan. 

As much as we may hold onto the belief that the issue is only a Michigan issue...it ain't. It has attracted attention outside of our borders. As such it can and will motivate parties to contribute to efforts to sway opinon....to one side or the other. That is the way such things work. We all know that.

Knowing more how others think ain't a bad thing.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> Really, the link doesn't work?........b.
> .....................................................................


Correct. Need to be a digital member to read. Thanks for posting. Maybe you could find him a different side to this story and email that to the writer.

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

The primary effort and virtually all the money to protect the wolves is coming from outside the state.

I believe that there was an error in the hunting count. 22 killed hunting and one hit by a car, which was half of the 43 allotted for the hunt. The extremely conservative number that was the decision after much consideration by our managers and I have no doubt that they knew that the entire country was interested.


----------



## dankoustas (Sep 18, 2007)

I hope everyone has called their state representative and told them to vote yes on the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Act. The house is suppose to vote on it this Wednesday the 27th.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

What is the chances if this passes considering the lack of kills last year they allow trapping? Or you think the powers that be will have it as is to let stuff settle down..


----------

