News

LSJ: HB 6272

Published November 21, 2004. By Stacey Range. Lansing State Journal
DNR may get OK to promote hunts

Just months after losing a decades-long battle to keep mourning doves off Michigan's game list, activists are mounting new opposition to a bill they fear will limit their say on future hunts.

The bill, which legislators could vote on during their lame-duck session next month, would allow the Department of Natural Resources and Natural Resources Commission to promote legislation classifying game animals and declaring open season on new game.

Critics say the bill could lead to a slew of now-protected animals, such as Sandhill cranes and gray wolves, being reclassified as game. Ultimately, they fear it could transfer authority for that task from lawmakers to the more autonomous Natural Resources Commission.

"It's extreme, excessive and unreasonable," said Julie Baker of the Lansing-based Stop Shooting the Doves Coalition. "It has far-reaching consequences that could really undermine the people's voice in deciding what animals should be hunted."

State Rep. Sue Tabor, R-Delta Township, the main advocate for the new dove hunt and sponsor of the latest bill, said activists have nothing to fear. "I have no intention of adding another animal to the game list or doing anything other than what the bill now says," Tabor said. "They're just being paranoid."

Tabor said the bill is intended solely to ensure that the state's wildlife officials could not be silenced by court-imposed gag orders, as happened during the dove debate.

A court order issued in 1985 upon request of the Humane Society of the United States prevented officials from the Natural Resources Department from entering into the mourning dove debate. That gag order was rendered moot when Gov. Jennifer Granholm this year signed legislation allowing Michigan's first mourning dove hunt.

But hunters say the gag order kept vital information about mourning dove hunts from being presented to lawmakers and the public. "

They are the experts and they weren't allowed to speak," said Sam Washington, president of Michigan United Conservation Club. "They could have eliminated a lot of the emotional baggage that went into that debate."

DNR officials are reviewing the bill and have not taken a position on it yet, spokesman Brad Wurfel said.

Baker, who is part of a group circulating petitions to put the mourning dove debate before voters in 2006, said the gag order was needed because DNR officials were lobbying for the hunt rather than providing unbiased information. The court agreed.

If Tabor's new bill passes, Baker said the main mission of the DNR and RNC would be to lobby for more animals to be added to the gaming list. As worded now, the bill would direct the department and commission to "preserve and promote the heritage of recreational hunting."

"Important decisions would be made more on an animal's target value than on preserving the state's biogenetic diversity," Baker said. "This is scary."

In particular, Baker said, she is worried about the future of the Sandhill crane and gray wolf.

Tabor said both have been mentioned as potential game species, but she doesn't intend to pursue their reclassification.

Most frightening to Baker is where she sees this bill heading.

Tabor, who is ending her third and final term in the state House, has indicated in the past that she believes the power to name game species should be transferred from lawmakers to the DNR and NRC.

The bill as written now keeps authority to name new hunts in the Legislature. And Tabor said she will fight to keep it that way.

But Baker and the thousands-strong grass-roots group that opposed the dove hunt say they don't trust that Tabor won't amend the bill on the House floor. Fueling that fear is the lame-duck session, when lawmakers such as Tabor try to push through pet bills before leaving office.

"That's exactly something she would do," Baker said. "I don't trust her one bit."

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: 12/12/04