# We Won!!! 65-43 with 2 abstain



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Maximum use of hunter avoidance conditioning by deer/wolf hunters, fur primeness, yearling dispersal prior to mating season, etc...--all of these factors equate to November-December being prime. After having to wait for the next NRC meeting after 90 day period would put hunt in Spring at the earliest. Not a good hunt period for most species, that alone U.P. animals.

Besides, a court injunction is as sure as the Sun setting in the West, but it will be lost ultimately.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Seaarkshooter said:


> Maximum use of hunter avoidance conditioning by deer/wolf hunters, fur primeness, yearling dispersal prior to mating season, etc...--all of these factors equate to November-December being prime. After having to wait for the next NRC meeting after 90 day period would put hunt in Spring at the earliest. Not a good hunt period for most species, that alone U.P. animals.
> 
> Besides, a court injunction is as sure as the Sun setting in the West, but it will be lost ultimately.


Can't the NRC call a special meeting to address this at 91 days?


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Probably. However, an injunction is inevitably going to have a cease action attached to it. It's highly anticipated that they will file the paperwork this week as well for the lawsuit.

In the end, there are two motivating factors that are prompting the oppositions actions to keep moving on this, which would mean they're not going away anytime soon: 

1) It is in the hands of an army of self serving lawyers paid for by a special interest group, H$U$. Laywers will now milk this cow til it bleeds.

2) Legislators are on the take now by the special interests. The political adage of serving the far remembering special interests over the short sighted voting public by polititions will take precedence from this point on. 

You and I will remember this action for some time because of our hobbies, however, Sarah the voting soccer mom won't remember this issue existed once the tulips bloom again; special interests, 90% of the time, take precedence over the voting public. That's our system, right or wrong.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

I will be interested to see what happens in a few years as we passed prop G and that was suppose to be the end of this worry.

Ganzer


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

I think we need "sound science" defined.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

If the DNR and the NRC were using sound science they would have have everything ready to go for the wolf season to take place. It is possible that it could be common sense. If HSUS prevents even 1 wolf hunting season from taking place they win. It also gives them time to file lawsuits to prevent another wolf season. This whole thing is getting to the point of being stupid.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

The legislation was written to not take place for 91 days after the new legislative body takes office at the beginning of the year--as is common for a law initiation proceedure like this, which, I might add, has only been possible to pass in Michigan's history a few times. This is NOT something that anyone can blame on the NRC or the DNR. The DNR and the NRC do not draft citizen initiated legislation. So, before we begin digressing towards a bashing of the DNR, NRC or the Govenor if that's where you want to take this, can I please suggest that my fellow sportsmen read the legislation in full, research the state constitution proceedures and stay focused. The fight is not over. Poor dialogue will only hurt the righteous cause for which this new legislation protects YOUR right to hunt, trap and fish against antis.

A more appropriate turn in this thread would be in THANKING everyone that used their own money, time, blood and tears to make this possible.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Ranger Ray said:


> I think we need "sound science" defined.



Exactly !


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Seaarkshooter said:


> A more appropriate turn in this thread would be in THANKING everyone that used their own money, time, blood and tears to make this possible.


....and consider making a small donation.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

TVCJohn said:


> ....and consider making a small donation.


x 2!



http://www.citizenswildlife.com/donate/

http://www.defendthehunt.com


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Maybe this time "hunters" will actually vote the right way? Because we failed to stand together in 2006 is why we are even in this mess now! HSUS has been laughing at us for years and will continue to do so.

You thought the dove commercials were stupid, wait until we see what's coming in the following weeks!

This link won't link auto, have to click on search related topics 

http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Dove_Hunting_Referendum,_Proposal_3_(2006)


Proposal 3 (Dove Hunting)
ResultVotesPercentage
No2,534,68069.0%
Yes 1,137,379 31.0%


----------



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

Who were the 43 and 2 abstaining that voted against us? That way we can pay them back in November. We should have a list as a reminder. FRANK


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

Bonz 54 said:


> Who were the 43 and 2 abstaining that voted against us? That way we can pay them back in November. We should have a list as a reminder. FRANK


 
Copied from another thread:

Here is how your representatives voted for the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. If they did not represent your interests remember that at the ballot box.

HOW THEY VOTED ON SFWCA



*Yeas65*

Bolger Graves LaVoy Poleski

Brown Haines Leonard Potvin

Brunner Haugh Lori Price

Bumstead Haveman Lund Pscholka

Cochran Heise Lyons Rendon

Cotter Hooker MacGregor Rogers

Crawford Jacobsen MacMaster Santana

Daley Jenkins McBroom Schmidt

Denby Johnson McMillin Shirkey

Dianda Kelly Muxlow Somerville

Farrington Kesto Nesbitt Stamas

Forlini Kivela OBrien VerHeulen

Foster Kowall Oakes Victory

Franz Kurtz Outman Walsh

Genetski LaFontaine Pagel Yonker

Glardon Lauwers Pettalia Zorn

Goike 



*Nays43*

Abed Faris Lane Slavens

Banks Geiss McCann Smiley

Barnett Greimel McCready Stallworth

Brinks Hobbs Nathan Stanley

Callton Hovey-Wright Olumba Switalski

Cavanagh Howrylak Roberts Talabi

Clemente Irwin Robinson Tlaib

Darany Kandrevas Rutledge Townsend

Dillon Knezek Schor Yanez

Driskell Kosowski Segal Zemke

Durhal Lamonte Singh


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Bonz 54 said:


> Who were the 43 and 2 abstaining that voted against us? That way we can pay them back in November. We should have a list as a reminder. FRANK


Phelps (Flushing) and Lipton (Berkley. RO, Ferndale) abstained, however, both voted AGAINST our same legislation minus appropriations last year. Both abstained I believe due to survivalist political considerations. Lipton is running for Senator now and Phelps is neck in neck with his opponent in the polls. 

IMO, both are NO FRIENDS to conservation and NEED TO GO. I have had numerous conversations with Ellen "save my right to vote" Lipton (I live in Berkley) and I can tell you with authority her only interaction with animal management came from visits to the zoo and whatever ran underneath her automobile tires. I suppose Harvard Law School may have had an elective somewhere in outdoor related activities, but if she took it while she was there, it certainly didn't further any understanding.


----------



## Northwood lures (Jan 23, 2013)

Ranger Ray said:


> I think we need "sound science" defined.


yup. I have seen sound science bring about a lot of unsound solutions


----------

