# No Wolf Hunt No Matter What



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Chris Raymond said:


> Drew, an argument could be made that excluding consideration of the mourning dove as a game species in this latest bill was a nod to special interests.


True, and that special interest group is called the "People of Michigan" who voted on that issue and decided that the dove was a songbird and not a game bird. End of story unless a group wants to comment to the time, effort and money to put it on the ballot again. With nearly 2/3 of Michigan voters voting 'songbird' the last time, it seems unlikely enough minds could be changed to reverse course.
Considering that the DNR had over 100 years to put the dove on the list of game birds and never did that, might be a strong indicator on why so many think 'songbird' and not 'game bird' when discussing the dove. 
Had the DNR put the dove on the game bird list back in the 40's, 50's or 60's the vote on this issue probably would have never taken place.

L & O


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Liver and Onions said:


> 1st, where do you get inaccurate information like that ? 2nd, do you actually believe that ?
> 
> L & O


L&O that info was from the DNR. It cost someone money for all of the signatures that they collected. I stopped at both Jay's stores in June and they were busy collecting signatures.


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> True, and that special interest group is called the "People of Michigan" who voted on that issue and decided that the dove was a songbird and not a game bird. End of story unless a group wants to comment to the time, effort and money to put it on the ballot again. With nearly 2/3 of Michigan voters voting 'songbird' the last time, it seems unlikely enough minds could be changed to reverse course.
> Considering that the DNR had over 100 years to put the dove on the list of game birds and never did that, might be a strong indicator on why so many think 'songbird' and not 'game bird' when discussing the dove.
> Had the DNR put the dove on the game bird list back in the 40's, 50's or 60's the vote on this issue probably would have never taken place.
> 
> L & O


So, if the "People of Michigan" at some point decide to put the issue of hunting deer and turkey (I only selected these species as they seem to be two of the most popular) to a referendum at some point in the future and the majority of the "People of Michigan" decide that neither should be hunted within the state, what are you going to do? Should all hunting, angling and trapping issues be decided by referendum? Should none? If scientific methods are acceptable for wolf, shouldn't they also be respected and utilized for doves as well? 

As an side, my hope for doves in MI is that the feds step in at some point and dictate something that is in common with our neighboring states due to dove being a migratory species and under their jurisdiction...and I'm a very strong advocate of less governmental interdiction, especially so with things federal. Go figure.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Robert Holmes said:


> L&O that info was from the DNR. ....................


Not a chance. Maybe that is what you heard, but that is not what any DNR official said. MUCC did not spent anywhere near the amount that you stated. Was $800,000 spent on the campaign.......could be. 

L & O


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Who knows how this will end up. To put it in simple terms.....hunter numbers are falling while anti and non hunter numbers are rising. 

The anti's are going to keep coming and our only defense is to, be able to include a substantial number of non hunters in our support base. Without them we will lose.

You guys want to tell those non hunters that they don't get a vote.......but hey, support us anyways. I only have 20yrs or so left anyways, hopefully they don't crush us before I am done.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

danthebuilder said:


> I just want to say thanks for this post. Its amazing that some people are willing to so easily take a block out of the foundation of our democracy to get their way.


Read Article II, Section 9 in the MI state constitution. If what was done was so bad, try to change the state constitution in the future.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Here's something else to think about...

The Governor appoint's both the NRC and the MDNR director. One election could rock our world. And there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do about that.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> Who knows how this will end up. To put it in simple terms.....hunter numbers are falling while anti and non hunter numbers are rising.
> 
> The anti's are going to keep coming and our only defense is to, be able to include a substantial number of non hunters in our support base. Without them we will lose.
> 
> You guys want to tell those non hunters that they don't get a vote.......but hey, support us anyways. I only have 20yrs or so left anyways, hopefully they don't crush us before I am done.


You're are correct their numbers are exploding and with the younger generation not participating its only going to get worse. I thought the right to hunt, fish and trap was amended to our constitution. I was wrong, we need this to wrap everything up for our future. I see my State Rep. was a supporter.

http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Right_to_Hunt_and_Fish_Amendment_(2014)


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

If the USFWS and Michigan DNR had to depend on the revenue of special interest groups to support their fish and wildlife (game and non game species)how much money would they have? That is only the tip of the iceberg as there are many groups like ducks unlimited that donate service, time, and money to projects. I am sure that if Michigan had a dove season there would be money for habitat and many other projects that benefit doves and other animals. We are missing out on more than just a hunting opportunity by not having a dove season. 
With or without a season the doves will fly south and get shot in another state by Michigan hunters. The wolves have exceeded a point of tolerance. Their population cannot grow unchecked or unbalanced like it did 200 years ago. The special interest groups think that once the population of wolves reaches a certain point they will just starve. In most situations predators at the top of any food chain do not just walk away from a dinner and starve. They will and have attacked livestock, pets, hunting dogs, and yes even people. 
In the long run we may never have another wolf season, the end result will be determined by the tolerance level of the people who are living with them. Pretty much the same as it was 100+ years ago.
The huggers should form an alliance and donate their time, money, and energy to buy land and create habitat for wolves and other creatures. They could have banquets and raffle off guns (invite hunters) to raise funds.


----------



## Zeboy (Oct 4, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> True, and that special interest group is called the "People of Michigan" who voted on that issue and decided that the dove was a songbird and not a game bird. End of story unless a group wants to comment to the time, effort and money to put it on the ballot again. With nearly 2/3 of Michigan voters voting 'songbird' the last time, it seems unlikely enough minds could be changed to reverse course.
> Considering that the DNR had over 100 years to put the dove on the list of game birds and never did that, might be a strong indicator on why so many think 'songbird' and not 'game bird' when discussing the dove.
> Had the DNR put the dove on the game bird list back in the 40's, 50's or 60's the vote on this issue probably would have never taken place.
> 
> L & O


Be Careful!!

What if the two wolf bills get voted down in the same fashion this fall?????

Putting the anti dove hunting clause, the way it was worded, in this bill could end up being a major problem down the road. Either you are for "sound science" for ALL species or you are not. There is no real grey area there. Now wouldn't that be ironic if that clause ended up being the wolf hunts unraveling?

Oh - and I swear that at one time we voted that marriage was between one man and one woman

Flame on-


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Robert Holmes said:


> The huggers should form an alliance and donate their time, money, and energy to buy land and create habitat for wolves and other creatures. They could have banquets and raffle off guns (invite hunters) to raise funds.


They already have. I stumbled upon a website a few days ago that was some type of wolf baters alliance who are working hard to preserve large land tracts across the western U.P., Wisconsin and minnesota. Their claim is the wolf travel corridors are being destroyed by large parcel fragmentation and wolve may be in danger of inbreeding. Guess who is now a realtor in the W.U.P.. JH....lol


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Liver and Onions said:


> True, and that special interest group is called the "People of Michigan" who voted on that issue and decided that the dove was a songbird and not a game bird. End of story unless a group wants to comment to the time, effort and money to put it on the ballot again. With nearly 2/3 of Michigan voters voting 'songbird' the last time, it seems unlikely enough minds could be changed to reverse course.
> Considering that the DNR had over 100 years to put the dove on the list of game birds and never did that, might be a strong indicator on why so many think 'songbird' and not 'game bird' when discussing the dove.
> Had the DNR put the dove on the game bird list back in the 40's, 50's or 60's the vote on this issue probably would have never taken place.
> 
> L & O


Having a Dove season would be a great void filler to get more kids outdoors. It doesn't take a whole lot of special habitat in order to have success. In the 40-60s pheasant were king, you probably couldn't convince anyone back then what things would look like 20+ years down the road.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Here you go Robert. This is the site I referred to in an earlier post.

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs026/1109696887834/archive/1110385674118.html


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I noticed at the bottom it asks for a donation so Miss Prissy can take long vacations in Yellowstone with her backpack and dog. I wonder how much of that money actually goes into land purchases. All of that donation stuff goes into the wrong pockets. I would like to have the money that UNICEF and others gave to Somalia so that they could breed pirates.


----------



## Drew YoungeDyke (Aug 7, 2014)

Chris Raymond said:


> Drew, an argument could be made that excluding consideration of the mourning dove as a game species in this latest bill was a nod to special interests.


No, it had nothing to do with special interests. The legislature had already removed doves from consideration in getting SB 288 passed. If we'd included doves, it would not have had the votes to pass the Legislature.


----------



## Drew YoungeDyke (Aug 7, 2014)

swampbuck said:


> Exactly, it should have eliminated them, it is a special interest group causing the problem


That makes absolutely no sense. Under the Michigan Constitution and US Constitution, you cannot ban a group from advocating for an issue. That's part of petitioning your government for a redress of grievances. 

We were fixing a very specific part of the law that will allow the NRC to name new game species, transfer fisheries orders from the DNR director individually to the NRC, fund protection of those fisheries from Asian carp with a rapid response fund, and free licenses for active military. 

The wording and drafting of the bill was to accomplish those bullet points listed above, and that's it. You can't throw wholesale Constitutional changes into a bill like this, otherwise it would violate the single-subject rule of the Michigan Constitution.


----------



## Drew YoungeDyke (Aug 7, 2014)

Liver and Onions said:


> 1st, where do you get inaccurate information like that ? 2nd, do you actually believe that ?
> 
> L & O


Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management spent about $800,000, not MUCC. MUCC was part of that coalition, but the funding came from multiple organizations, notably the Michigan chapters of SCI, the Michigan Bear Hunters Association, Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers, Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, UP Bearhoundsmen, the Upper Peninsula Sportsmens Alliance, U.P. Whitetails, National Wild Turkey Federation, MUCC, and a whole lot of other conservation, hunting, fishing and trapping organizations.


----------



## Drew YoungeDyke (Aug 7, 2014)

swampbuck said:


> Here's something else to think about...
> 
> The Governor appoint's both the NRC and the MDNR director. One election could rock our world. And there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do about that.


That's why the NRC was put on staggered terms beginning in 1929, so that one governor could not stack the whole commission.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Robert Holmes said:


> I noticed at the bottom it asks for a donation so Miss Prissy can take long vacations in Yellowstone with her backpack and dog. I wonder how much of that money actually goes into land purchases. All of that donation stuff goes into the wrong pockets. I would like to have the money that UNICEF and others gave to Somalia so that they could breed pirates.


Yeah, I'm thinking sooner or later she will be hit with a dose of reality if she continues to wander freely in wolf habitat with that dog. Maybe she needs to check out the Cooks area.

I think their efforts for preservation of Wilderness areas is great. The problem is those very same people want to deny managment efforts even though wolves have far exceeded the recovery quota. It's really no different than going back on your word, they're trash.


----------



## Chris Raymond (Jul 15, 2004)

Drew YoungeDyke said:


> No, it had nothing to do with special interests. The legislature had already removed doves from consideration in getting SB 288 passed. If we'd included doves, it would not have had the votes to pass the Legislature.


And how was that not a special interest when action favored the anti-dove crowd is taken? Science, the very base tenant of this piece of legislation, was thrown out of the equation and made an exclusion in this case. Special interests were involved and most certainly taken into account.


----------

