Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on October 17, 2012

The vote was 23 in favor, 15 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 790 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

The fiscal analysis does not indicate that fees and licenses will pay for the administrative costs of a wolf harvest. Nor does it include costs of court challenges and a likely referendum vote. So this could end up costing more than it generates. Who pays any difference? Who pays Senator Casperson's Wolf Hunt Tax to subsidize it?

The current program of wolf management doesn't generate any revenue at all so this would be an improvement. "does it include costs of court challenges and a likely referendum vote" So what you're saying is that because out-of-state special interests and animal rights groups might sue us or fund a ballot initiative, we shouldn't manage our wildlife based on science? Every once in a while- you have to do something simply because its the right thing to do. Also, its kind of interesting that the "No" votes are all city people and the senators that actually represent the folks are dealing with having wolves in their backyards supported it. Maybe the Yoopers are right- they'd be better off if they could cut themselves off from the Lower Peninsula. Then they wouldn't have people who know nothing about their world controlling their lives.

Is a net loss better than no revenue generated? And if someone funds a referendum that wins, they've helped Michigan's voters with their right to be heard, haven't they? Still who pays? Taxpayers or from hunting fees, is it offensive to ask? And what do you mean manage by science? I know a little of animal breeding at least, and unless I hear an explanation, it sounds fishy. Wolves breed in packs. you shoot them at random out of all the packs you make the packs all smaller. You get almost as many litters of new hungry pups that the adults feed. Arithmetic says if you remove a third of the wolves you just increase the number of litters and pups per adult next spring by a third. Remove the third of the wolves in the smallest packs you get the minimum number of packs and reproduction rate, good I think. Remove the whole third in the largest packs and you still have reduced the number of packs some. Can you tell me why hunting isn't the worst, most unscientific way of picking which wolves to remove? Worse, Sen Casperson has changed the usual "sound scientific management" wording in HB5834, and specified in Proposal G for all game, and as specified for bear, etc, to simply "sound management" in SB1350. The DNR cannot tell me what the legal effect of this change is, whether it overrides Proposal G and specifies a particular kind hunt as sound management instead of whatever the NRC decides the science says. I can't get a straight answer, while it is pushed through in a lame duck session. All so we can produce as hungry as possible and "desperate" wolves as quickly as possible? Every once in a while you have to not do something just because it's the wrong thing to do. Not morally, just incorrect. And expensive too. There is already a $10million nongame wildlife fund that could pay for needed directed removal of wolves with $6million in an interest bearing trust. All they have to do is not declare them game animals. (Are you saying that Democrats are city people and Republicans represent the U.P.? I'm shocked) Anyway, the wolf hunt proposal seems to be an openly promoted policy of Boone and Crockett and Safari Club International calling for wolves to be considered game animals throughout their North American range, in Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota and western states. They are not outside groups or special interests?

If you like SB 1350, you'll love the original version of SB 996. Before committee it would have reimbursed coyote and wolf hunters for injury to dogs being used to hunt coyotes and wolves.