Additional Talking Points and Background Info:

• Presently, wildlife is held in trust for the people of the state of Michigan, "only the legislature may designate a species as game" and "only the legislature may authorize the establishment of the first open season for that animal."  Section 40110 of Public Act 451 [MCL 324.40110] is what protects the integrity of public input through legislative representation.  This is the law that was a "problem" for more than 20 years of failed legislative and legal assaults by dove shooting proponents.
  
• Fringe factions would ultimately like to eliminate this sensible checks and balance law [MCL 324.40110] which prevents the Department of Natural Resources and the Natural Resource Commission from having too much influence or power.  Their goal is to transfer legislative authority and set the ground work for the agencies to become more dogmatic with absolute control over how and for what purpose our wildlife resources are managed.  In the end they hope to stop "that pesky" citizen input that is most representative of the voice of the majority, and to gain access to state funds to push their narrow militant agenda.
  
• The DNR and NRC both have a long history of illegally establishing shooting seasons on traditional non-game species that are protected in Michigan. The agencies have been known to work against the will of the people, make decisions against their own wildlife biologists scientific recommendations, and even violate court ordered injunctions to serve the emotional wants of a small and radical element who have extreme and unpopular agendas.  See more on this here.
  
• HB 6272 is dangerous and has far reaching consequences. The NRC would have ungoverned control to decide why and for what purpose Michigan's endangered, threatened, extirpated or special concern species are deemed "recovered" and then "managed" to serve dictatorial interests that are excessive and unreasonable.  Important decisions regarding our wildlife resources would be based more on their potential target value as part of the game list vs. preserving the state's genetic biodiversity.  Sensitive and critical habitats (entire ecosystems) could then be managed predominantly for game or potential game species -- at the cost of non-game species that have no "license value."  See how you pay to subsidize wildlife management here. See current compiled statistics of special species in Michigan here.
  
• This bill would undermine traditional public values. A recent public opinion survey [Resource Attitudes Management Survey, 2001] sponsored by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources confirmed that the public does not show strong support for managing wildlife simply to increase or promote recreational hunting opportunities (only 23 percent strongly agreed with this wildlife management purpose).  And under competing management goals, strong public values (73 percent) show current or expanded protection and preservation of many special non-game species "using equal effort for all endangered species" and "focusing effort on species in the greatest danger of extinction."  See overview by the Michigan State University Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife of Sociology [May 2002] here.

Welcome | News
| Action Alert | Your Representation
| Roll Call Vote
| Facts | What Can I Do? | Contact | Your Comments

Copyright ©2004 - Songbird Protection Coalition
Questions or Comments about this site?  Email Us
Page Updated: 11/21/04