# State wide vote on the wolves



## Jager Pro

Watching the news this morning and they claimed that it looked like this would be the first and last season. An organization is pushing for a statewide vote. The person in charge claims that she's trying to show the wolves in a positive light.


----------



## GuppyII

I hope it doesn't come to a vote... kill em all.


----------



## AntiHuntersLoveMe

GuppyII said:


> I hope it doesn't come to a vote... kill em all.


Exactly! The decision to hunt them should come from state biologists/NRC and not based off people's emotions. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## triplelunger

GuppyII said:


> I hope it doesn't come to a vote... kill em all.


And this is why we look like a bunch of backwoods ******* idiots to the people trying to take our hunting privileges. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Jager Pro

triplelunger said:


> And this is why we look like a bunch of backwoods ******* idiots to the people trying to take our hunting privileges.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Agreed. It's supposed to be wolf management not wolf extermination.


----------



## Big Skip

It will become extermination if they do away with the season. You think thats gonna stop people from blasting them in the remote u.p.?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## thisusernamevalid

The organization behind this is the Humane Society of US. People think they help cats and dogs. Wrong. They are activitists, and even terrorists when it comes to conservation and wild animals. Some of their practices are worse than PETA. 

They are the reason for some of our hunting bans. They do not want the wolf hunt and fought long and hard to stop it. They are now trying to get this taken to vote of the people. 

The HSUS comes into the state, lies outright and brainwashes the GP. 

When the state legislation passed the wolf hunt they missed the mark. Had they included a certain amount of funding like the DNR wanted it would've been referendum proof. Because they didn't, the door was left open for this nonsense.

CALL AND WRITE your state legislators. Send them an email. Tell them you want scientific management of game, and that Michigan's hunting heritage is not up for grabs by out of state special interest groups. Tell them if they do NOT support this you will work long and hard to ensure they pay at the polls. 

EVERY DISCTRICT IN THIS STATE is populated by a LOT of hunters. We can hurt those in Lansing, and they know it.


----------



## Jager Pro

thisusernamevalid said:


> The organization behind this is the Humane Society of US. People think they help cats and dogs. Wrong. They are activitists, and even terrorists when it comes to conservation and wild animals. Some of their practices are worse than PETA.
> 
> They are the reason for some of our hunting bans. They do not want the wolf hunt and fought long and hard to stop it. They are now trying to get this taken to vote of the people.
> 
> The HSUS comes into the state, lies outright and brainwashes the GP.
> 
> When the state legislation passed the wolf hunt they missed the mark. Had they included a certain amount of funding like the DNR wanted it would've been referendum proof. Because they didn't, the door was left open for this nonsense.
> 
> CALL AND WRITE your state legislators. Send them an email. Tell them you want scientific management of game, and that Michigan's hunting heritage is not up for grabs by out of state special interest groups. Tell them if they do NOT support this you will work long and hard to ensure they pay at the polls.
> 
> EVERY DISCTRICT IN THIS STATE is populated by a LOT of hunters. We can hurt those in Lansing, and they know it.



^^^this, me like!


----------



## mbirdsley

Seems like it didn't take this long last time to get all of their signatures

Sent from my C811 4G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## triplelunger

Big Skip said:


> It will become extermination if they do away with the season. You think thats gonna stop people from blasting them in the remote u.p.?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app


This is exactly the reason I feel we will lose this fight!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Seaarkshooter

mbirdsley said:


> Seems like it didn't take this long last time to get all of their signatures
> 
> Sent from my C811 4G using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Last time they paid 2000 signature gatherers 2 to $3 apiece to get them. Now its a hundred percent volunteer. 

2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


----------



## Seaarkshooter

thisusernamevalid said:


> When the state legislation passed the wolf hunt they missed the mark. Had they included a certain amount of funding like the DNR wanted it would've been referendum proof.


I am not sure the DNR had any input as to what appropriations were in the bills. An appropriation selling point is usually based on popularity and not on anyone's biggest need.

There was a lot of behind the scenes consensus that the bill would not have been passed had it been left in. Senators and House reps were leary that a citizen support mandate could be determined with so little polling being done. Afterall, we are talking about a proccess by which you then excude voter veto capabilities. Appropriated bills are serious business where the political ramificatons transends past one or two elections. To tread slowly here was a wise decision. 

Voter mandate opinion on appropriated bills are mandatory in today's world.

2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


----------



## Robert Holmes

Are these people so uninformed to not know that when there is a wolf problem in Michigan that the DNR has to go out and eliminate the problem with lethal means. This means that they are not live trapped and fed milk bones, they are fed the lead pill 30-06 style. The "managed hunt" (what a joke it is) is a step in the right direction. If the pro wolf people eliminate this it will really cause the people who live and hunt in the UP to be upset. If this ever does come to a vote leave the LP out of it for the reason that the residents of the UP will deal with the wolves one way or another. The pro wolf lovers in the LP do not have an ax to grind in this battle. Like mentioned before this signature/vote thing has nothing to do with wolves or Michigan. It is all about people from other states sticking their nose where it does not belong. When they can step up to the plate and show that they have bought hunting/fishing licenses for 25+ years and financially supported the non game wildlife fund they might get a voice in the matter


----------



## Robert Holmes

triplelunger said:


> This is exactly the reason I feel we will lose this fight!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


 There is no fight, let it go to a vote if HSUS wins I know lots of hunters in the UP that will be buying $1.28 wolf licenses.


----------



## Valerie Nixon

thisusernamevalid said:


> When the state legislation passed the wolf hunt they missed the mark. Had they included a certain amount of funding like the DNR wanted it would've been referendum proof. Because they didn't, the door was left open for this nonsense.


I'm not sure, but I think that adding appropriating to the law would mean it had to go back for more votes, and more than a majority would be needed to approve it in the state legislature and senate. Does anyone else know if that is true?


----------



## jatc

Valerie Nixon said:


> I'm not sure, but I think that adding appropriating to the law would mean it had to go back for more votes, and more than a majority would be needed to approve it in the state legislature and senate. Does anyone else know if that is true?


No. That's not how it works.

In a nutshell, adding an "appropriation" to a bill earmarks money from the general fund to pay for something that would be associated with the new law. The State's money is controlled by Congress, and is NOT open to challenge by a voter "ballot initiative". In other words the voters themselves cannot vote on how the State spends money. Once the "appropriations" are passed with the bill, the voters can not put the new law on a ballot simply by attaining signatures anymore. The ONLY way an such a bill can be overturned is with a 66% super majority in each of the prospective chambers. The voters have nothing to do with that process.

In this case, the wolf hunt was made possible by a bill that allowed the NRC to rule on a species' game status. This was a change from Congress being the party that made this decision. Most of Congress had no problem voting "Yes" and letting the experts make this determination, BUT some of the wealthier constituents (primarily Dem backers from Southern Mich) put a pile of heat on their Reps to strip out the appropriation so that they could run ballot initiatives on each species as they knew wolves would become a game species under this new process. At the National level, HSUS and PETA played an active role in lobbying and rallying support to get the appropriations stripped.

The Reps caved and only voted in part of what they should have when they passed the Bill in its current form.


----------



## Robert Holmes

So just what does the future hold? Can the idiots from Illinois, New York, and California get the wolf hunt placed on the 2014 ballot or not?


----------



## jatc

Robert Holmes said:


> So just what does the future hold? Can the idiots from Illinois, New York, and California get the wolf hunt placed on the 2014 ballot or not?



Yes, unfortunately they can and will.


----------



## Robert Holmes

_It is looking good that I will have a wolf license next year then._


----------



## thisusernamevalid

jatc said:


> No. That's not how it works.
> 
> In a nutshell, adding an "appropriation" to a bill earmarks money from the general fund to pay for something that would be associated with the new law. The State's money is controlled by Congress, and is NOT open to challenge by a voter "ballot initiative". In other words the voters themselves cannot vote on how the State spends money. Once the "appropriations" are passed with the bill, the voters can not put the new law on a ballot simply by attaining signatures anymore. The ONLY way an such a bill can be overturned is with a 66% super majority in each of the prospective chambers. The voters have nothing to do with that process.
> 
> In this case, the wolf hunt was made possible by a bill that allowed the NRC to rule on a species' game status. This was a change from Congress being the party that made this decision. Most of Congress had no problem voting "Yes" and letting the experts make this determination, BUT some of the wealthier constituents (primarily Dem backers from Southern Mich) put a pile of heat on their Reps to strip out the appropriation so that they could run ballot initiatives on each species as they knew wolves would become a game species under this new process. At the National level, HSUS and PETA played an active role in lobbying and rallying support to get the appropriations stripped.
> 
> The Reps caved and only voted in part of what they should have when they passed the Bill in its current form.


Yeah, that ^

Thanks, very well stated.


----------



## thisusernamevalid

Seaarkshooter said:


> I am not sure the DNR had any input as to what appropriations were in the bills. An appropriation selling point is usually based on popularity and not on anyone's biggest need.
> 
> There was a lot of behind the scenes consensus that the bill would not have been passed had it been left in. Senators and House reps were leary that a citizen support mandate could be determined with so little polling being done. Afterall, we are talking about a proccess by which you then excude voter veto capabilities. Appropriated bills are serious business where the political ramificatons transends past one or two elections. To tread slowly here was a wise decision.
> 
> Voter mandate opinion on appropriated bills are mandatory in today's world.
> 
> 2014: Vote Yes For Conservation


The DNR and MUCC both lobbied to have the appropriation included, for the same reason already stated. Don't forget the DNR is the main proponent of the wolf hunt to begin with. Once the feds took took wolves off the endangered species list, the DNR had the right to manage the population. They need money for that. Also, had they obtained the desired funding it would've cut HSUS and PETA off at the knees. Their (DNR) position was documented. 

Representatives who stripped the funding weren't worried so much about 'popularity' as much as how bad they might look to their liberal constituents once the HSUS and PETA started their public campaign. As stated elsewhere in this thread, SE MI reps were the main problem. 

Except for covering their own collective butts, it was not wise to tread slowly in this case. I don't care one whit about a politician's longevity. Do your job or leave. It would've been far better for the State of Michigan to pass the bill with the appropriation included than to revisit this at a later date. We will again need to step up and tell our senators and representatives what we want, along with the ever-present threats. It would seem that's the only thing that gets their attention these days.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Many residents of the UP are laid off in the winter and rely on putting a couple of deer, some small game animals, and fish in the freezer. If they can cut their grocery bill in half they are pretty happy and it means a lot to them. This is something that HSUS, Wolf Huggers Unlimited, PETA, and politicians know nothing about. If you have a group of uninformed idiots who know little if anything about wolves voting on a proposal that has an adverse effect on how the UP population lives, yeah we will be upset. If you are a wolf hugger you have to ask yourself, "Wolf Hugger do you really think that the residents of the UP really care that there is a wolf season"? Take it from this Yooper go get your petitions signed, get it on the ballot, get all of your wolves protected. I guess that what you don't know won't hurt you but keep a close eye on the declining wolf population estimates.


----------



## Jager Pro

Robert Holmes said:


> Many residents of the UP are laid off in the winter and rely on putting a couple of deer, some small game animals, and fish in the freezer. If they can cut their grocery bill in half they are pretty happy and it means a lot to them. This is something that HSUS, Wolf Huggers Unlimited, PETA, and politicians know nothing about. If you have a group of uninformed idiots who know little if anything about wolves voting on a proposal that has an adverse effect on how the UP population lives, yeah we will be upset. If you are a wolf hugger you have to ask yourself, "Wolf Hugger do you really think that the residents of the UP really care that there is a wolf season"? Take it from this Yooper go get your petitions signed, get it on the ballot, get all of your wolves protected. I guess that what you don't know won't hurt you but keep a close eye on the declining wolf population estimates.


Screw their petitions, we need our own. We need to let the representatives know that we have a presence as well and that we won't let the antis control what we do.


----------



## thundrst

for your Michigan House Representative:
http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/ 
and just enter your address & hit search

for your Michigan Senator
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/FindYourSenator/byaddress.htm
and just enter your address and hit search

letter I sent to both:

Senator ________,

Just wanted to express my concern over the potential of putting the Michigan Wolf Hunt up to statewide vote for 2014. Though the opponents of the hunt have good intentions, they are not experienced in wildlife management. Many are unaware of simple science & facts of life that in order for them to live, other forms of life must die even vegetarians need to consume plant life that would otherwise feed other wildlife and also occupies (farm) land that would otherwise be wildlife habitat. Unfortunately most members of our society have become so far removed from where their food comes from, they are completely unaware of the source and it's environmental impact.
The Michigan voters will be inundated with HSUS propaganda and will mostly vote against the wolf hunt even though most of them (SE LP Michigan) will have never even have any knowledge or experience with wolves. Though I live in SE MI, I have spent a lot of time in the UP and am aware of the problems that exist. What I was surprised at lately, however, is how widespread and consistent the pro-wolf hunt viewpoint is across the UP. Almost everyone north of the bridge I talked to wanted the numbers reduced. I think it is completely unfair to have the fate of the UP residents decided by SE LP residents.

Please do what you can to keep wildlife management in the hands of biologists using good science and not in the hands of uninformed or worse, misinformed voters. Thank You.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

You can call or write your Congressmen/woman or Senator but it ain't gonna help. It's done, it's going to a vote on the 2nd Tuesday of November 2014. They got the 166k or whatever votes to have it put on the ballet. The only way to defeat this is for everyone here and ALL outdoorsmen/women vote to keep the wolf as a game animal. But you already have proclaimed o called "hunters" saying they will vote against the wolf hunt. You know the kind, the ignorant ones that say you can't eat a wolf and my Daddy said to never kill an animal that you didn't intend to eat. You know, your neighbor is one of these so called hunters.


----------



## sullyxlh

WAUB-MUKWA said:


> ...But you already have proclaimed o called "hunters" saying they will vote against the wolf hunt. You know the kind, the ignorant ones that say you can't eat a wolf and my Daddy said to never kill an animal that you didn't intend to eat. You know, your neighbor is one of these so called hunters.


Yep same thing happened when the Dove vote went down, those same people voted...


----------



## Robert Holmes

The areas selected for the wolf hunt are areas where there are significant wolf problems. The reduction in wolf numbers through hunting would take place if there was a season or not. There are significant wolf problems throughout the UP and as the population grows so do these problems. When wolves attack pets, livestock, or reside too close to residences the DNR has to kill them. Recently a friend had his dogs attacked by a wolf when he called the DNR their response was go ahead and shoot it. This happened in his backyard. What the pro wolf people don't understand is that our children and pets are no longer safe in the UP. These animals kill for the pure joy of killing. Don't think for a moment that they won't attack humans recently in Minnesota a 16 year old was attacked as he slept in a tent. I guess that we will have to wait and see what happens in November. Most UP residents do not want them.


----------



## Wolverick

If the antis have their way and ban a hunt it does not mean wolves will not be killed. It will result in government paid hunters and trappers. There is no way the state can allow the kind of depredation that will result from an unchecked wolf population. It may take a long time but pressure will be placed on lawmakers to do something. It they fail then I`m sure the locals will exercise the final solution. I know I would.


----------



## Jager Pro

Wolverick said:


> If the antis have their way and ban a hunt it does not mean wolves will not be killed. It will result in government paid hunters and trappers. There is no way the state can allow the kind of depredation that will result from an unchecked wolf population. It may take a long time but pressure will be placed on lawmakers to do something. It they fail then I`m sure the locals will exercise the final solution. I know I would.


So it sounds like the antis SHOULD be on our side...? The way I read this is that if there is no wolf hunt then the DNR will kill a certain number of wolves, if there is a hunt then there is a chance that the quota won't be met, so all in all less wolves could be killed if the hunt goes on.


----------



## Wolverick

Unfortunately, in my experience, most antis are completely state-est and would rather see the state employ trappers than to see their fellow citizens enjoy the opportunity to harvest a wolf. I`m not saying they would not resist it or like it. It`s just how they think. 

The good news is most people do not think that way and they can be reached through a reasoned argument. At least I hope they can.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

Here is the MUCC link to the new petition drive to stop the vote next November to halt the wolf hunt. Get active NOW! 

http://www.mucc.org/for-imediate-release-11-26-2013/


----------



## Jager Pro

The link didn't work for me.


----------



## Jager Pro

> Imagine that, it's not completely safe out in the WILDerness where predatory animals are know to be.


Wow congratulations, you finally figured out one of the motivations for keeping the wolf hunt! Making life safer! You realize that dogs are being attacked in backyards of populated areas.


----------



## Walleyeball

Robert Holmes said:


> The areas selected for the wolf hunt are areas where there are significant wolf problems. The reduction in wolf numbers through hunting would take place if there was a season or not. There are significant wolf problems throughout the UP and as the population grows so do these problems. When wolves attack pets, livestock, or reside too close to residences the DNR has to kill them. Recently a friend had his dogs attacked by a wolf when he called the DNR their response was go ahead and shoot it. This happened in his backyard. What the pro wolf people don't understand is that our children and pets are no longer safe in the UP. These animals kill for the pure joy of killing. Don't think for a moment that they won't attack humans recently in Minnesota a 16 year old was attacked as he slept in a tent. I guess that we will have to wait and see what happens in November. Most UP residents do not want them.


These "significant wolf problems" are inflated by numbers that don't reflect the human causes for many of the incidents. There's no mention that somewhere around 70% of livestock attack happened within one farm, or that this farm didn't properly despose of carcasses or have any kind of fencing to deter wolves from entering. There's no mention that the wolf population regulates itself and is in fact smaller this year than it was last year. There's no mention of the damage indiscriminate killing of wolves can can to do the sutainability of the population in regards to packs and territory.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

Walleyeball said:


> These "significant wolf problems" are inflated by numbers that don't reflect the human causes for many of the incidents. There's no mention that somewhere around 70% of livestock attack happened within one farm, or that this farm didn't properly despose of carcasses or have any kind of fencing to deter wolves from entering. There's no mention that the wolf population regulates itself and is in fact smaller this year than it was last year. There's no mention of the damage indiscriminate killing of wolves can can to do the sutainability of the population in regards to packs and territory.


You been to this one farm to back up what you said, or you just read what some reporter repeated and not reported? You have seen the actual satellite data reports from the collared wolves and how that is one of the factors that set the boundaries for the hunt? What's your definition of a fence that every farm always has?


----------



## Walleyeball

WAUB-MUKWA said:


> You been to this one farm to back up what you said, or you just read what some reporter repeated and not reported? You have seen the actual satellite data reports from the collared wolves and how that is one of the factors that set the boundaries for the hunt? What's your definition of a fence that every farm always has?


Sure, I just drove up to Matchwood and poked around this guy's farm. No, this is info from DNR reports and statements confirmed by DNR wildlife biologist Brian Roell 
From 2010 to 2013, 73 percent (57 of 78) of wolf conflicts with livestock occurred on the Koski farm along with 80 percent (96 of 120) of individual livestock confirmed killed by wolves; 82 percent ($32,936 of $40,098.51) of all compensation for livestock lost to wolves has gone to the Koski farm; and 64.4 percent (96 of 149) of the cattle killed by wolves in the entire U.P. in the past 3 years have been on the Koski farm.
DNR statistics of confirmed livestock losses from wolves in WMU B showed "an astoundingly high percentage in recent years occurred on the Koski farm." You take numbers from 11 farms in one area and combine the numbers. If one farm, through irresponsible and negligent behavior, accounts for 73% of incidents over a 3 year span, and that total number is used to justify the necessity for a wolf hunt you have to wonder what the decision would have been if that farm's 73% was removed from the discussion.
If you're not familiar with livestock fence, I really can't help you and I never said anything about "a fence every farm always has". If you can't read and understand a post, you shouldn't respond to it. UP farms can receive, and in Koski's case had received, free fencing and guard donkeys to deter wolves. The farmers like Koski didn't use the fencing and allowed the donkeys to get sick and die, then left them, along with other carcasses, to rot and attract wolves.
Sure tracking collars to show where the most wolves are. Is it coincidental that they seem to be converging on these irresponsible farmer's land? Of course it is :coco: Does this satellite data show which wolves are commiting the attacks? Does it account for ALL the wolves, or just some? Thought so. Yes it was a report, but even if a reporter repeats something it's still a report as soon as it's published by said reporter.:16suspect


----------



## Walleyeball

Jager Pro said:


> Wow congratulations, you finally figured out one of the motivations for keeping the wolf hunt! Making life safer! You realize that dogs are being attacked in backyards of populated areas.


Uh huh, everyone knows the motivation for keeping the wolf hunt. So guys can hunt wolves. That's why some facts and figures have been made up (which our senator admitted) and petitions & commentary opposing it were thrown out so they couldn't be heard.
Life would be safer without cars and carcinogens too, so lets start destroying cars and anything that emits radiation and ban grilling & barbecuing meat to reduce the threat to people.:yikes:


----------



## Walleyeball

Jager Pro said:


> Wow congratulations, you finally figured out one of the motivations for keeping the wolf hunt! Making life safer! You realize that dogs are being attacked in backyards of populated areas.


----------



## Walleyeball

Yup, they're running amok up there.


----------



## Jager Pro

Walleyeball said:


> Yup, they're running amok up there.


Aren't you the one that said hunters are trying to exterminate the wolves? If so then it looks like a pretty poor job to me.


----------

