BEST LAID PLANS - Trent Universitypeople.trentu.ca/~brentpatterson/Index_files/Warren -...
-
Upload
vuongtuyen -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of BEST LAID PLANS - Trent Universitypeople.trentu.ca/~brentpatterson/Index_files/Warren -...
USED BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE; DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSENSUS OF DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS – ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE; STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT; WITH AN EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION
A bill to authorize the removal, capture, or lethal control of a gray wolf that is killing, wounding, or biting livestock under certain circumstances; and to promulgate rules.
PA 290 Approved by the Governor on October 6, 2008
MICHIGAN LEGISLATION
A bill to authorize the removal, capture, or lethal control of a gray wolf that is killing, wounding, or biting a dog EVEN ON PUBLIC LANDS; and to promulgate rules
BECAME EFFECTIVE UPON DELISTING
PA 318 Approved by the Governor on December 17, 2008
WISCONSIN ACT 169 SIGNED INTO LAW APRIL 2012 ESTABLISHED A WOLF HUNTING SEASON THAT INCLUDED AN EXCEPTIONALLY LONG SEASON AND THE USE OF DOGS MINNESOTA FOLLOWED WITH A MORE CONSERVATIVE HUNT (NO
DOGS)
UNLIKE WISCONSIN OR MINNESOTA MICHIGAN IS A “REFERENDUM” STATE
Citizens can challenge a new law by gathering signatures (5% total votes cast in last Governor’s election- about161,000) Referendum cannot be exercised if law contains an appropriation Petition must be filed within 90 days of final adjournment of legislature
OR
Citizen Petition to Initiate Legislation (8% total votes cast in last Governor’s election-about 258,088) Legislators have 40 days to enact or reject the proposed law If not enacted, must go before voters as a ballot proposal
MICHIGAN LAGGED BEHIND IN ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON (possibly due to pending referendum) BUT POLITICIANS CONTINUED TO WITTLE AT THE PLAN - PA 487 DECEMBER 27, 2012 ALLOWS FOR PAYMENT OF MISSING LIVESTOCK
Meanwhile, Legislation designating the wolf as a game animal was introduced DNR WILDLIFE CHIEF COMMENT ON PROPOSED WOLF LEGISLATION
“INSTEAD OF ‘SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT’ WE MIGHT WANT SOME SUBSTUTE TERM. THE SCIENCE WILL BE DEBATABLE. WOULD IT BE BETTER TO USE TERM LIKE ‘PROFESSIONAL’ OR SOME SUCH?”
ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE WOLF HUNT MUST BE ANTI-HUNTING
WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ANTI-HUNTING COMMUNITY FROM HAVING TOO MUCH TIME TO SET UP A REFERENDUM, WE NEED TO PASS THIS LAW THIS YEAR (DECEMBER 2012)
Public Act 520 Signed into law December 28, 2012 (last days of legislative session)
Designated the wolf a game animal and authorized a hunting season
The word “scientific” was Removed from the language of the bill.
The legislature finds that “The sound management of wolf populations…”
ALTHOUGH TOLD, NEITHER DNR WILDLIFE CHIEF NOR LEGISLATIVE LIASION SHARED WITH LEGISLATORS OR NRC THAT:
One producer accounted for 96 of 147 livestock
losses over the three year period used
He failed to utilize good animal husbandry practices
That WS and DNR biologists provided over 2500 hrs
of support to this producer
Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods
and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt
Debate continues around science behind wolf hunt
John Koski, Part 1: Tour the farm with more wolf attacks than anyone in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
MDNR official (Adam Bump) says he misspoke when talking about Michigan wolves
Cattle farmer John Koski, divisive symbol in Michigan wolf hunt, to plead in animal neglect case
IT TOOK THE MEDIA TO EXPOSE
The State Constitution affords individuals to challenge new laws enacted by legislature through the veto referendum process. A coalition of organizations supported the effort. 253,000+ signatures were gathered from every county IN LESS THAN 70 DAYS!
Signatures were certified suspending the hunt. Repeal of PA 520 will appear on the November 2014 ballot for voters to decide.
BUT
PUBLIC ACT 21 SIGNED INTO LAW MAY 8, 2013
GRANTS NRC THE AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE ANY SPECIES (except mourning doves) A GAME ANIMAL
NRC A POLITICALLY APPOINTED BODY WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND ACTED QUICKLY
NRC DECSIONS CANNOT BE CHALLENENGED THROUGH THE VETO REFERENDUM PROCESS
RENDERS THE REFERENDUM INITIATIVE FOR PA 520 MEANINGLESS PUBLIC ACT 21 ALLOWED THE 2013 WOLF HUNT TO MOVE FORWARD
NEARLY 230,000 SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED
IF CERTIFIED BOTH REFERENDUMS WILL APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 2014 BALLOT
BOTH LAWS NEED TO BE REJECTED BY VOTERS OR THE OTHER BECOMES EFFECTIVE
REPEAL WILL NOT IMPEDE ANYONE’S RIGHT TO
HUNT, TRAP OR FISH.
REPEAL WILL NOT AFFECT ANY SPECIES
PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS GAME OR ANY METHODS CURRENTLY ALLOWED REPEAL WILL NOT PREVENT LEGISLATORS FROM DESIGNATING SPECIES AS GAME IN THE FUTURE
REPEAL DOES NOT IMPACT DNR’S ABILITY TO
MANAGE PROBLEM WOLVES OR USE OF LETHAL AND/OR NON-LETHAL METHODS
REPEAL ONLY REMOVES THE DESIGNATION OF THE
WOLF AS A GAME ANIMAL IN MICHIGAN AND REMOVES THE AUTHORITY OF NRC TO DESIGNATE SPECIES AS GAME.
How many wolf hunt questions can be squeezed onto the November ballot?
“PROTECT THE RIGHTS TO HUNT, FISH AND TRAP IN MICHIGAN”
A ballot committee “Citizens for Professional Wildlife
Management” has begun a drive for a citizen-initiated
law called the “Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Act”
It is a mirror image of Public Act 21 except it also
includes an unnecessary appropriation of $1 million
dollars related to Asian Carp. The purpose of the
appropriation is to prevent challenge through the veto
referendum process.
Allows for free licenses for military personnel
IF ENOUGH SIGNATURES ARE COLLECTED, THE ACT
GOES DIRECTLY TO LEGISLATORS FOR PASSAGE. IT
DOESN’T REQUIRE THE GOVERNOR’S SIGNATURE
FOR PASSAGE AND DOES NOT GO TO THE VOTERS
UNLESS LEGISLATORS FAIL TO ACT.
WOLF HUNTS ARE BEING DRIVEN BY POLITICS NOT SCIENCE
Wisconsin's proposed wolf reduction worries scientists Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (10/14/13)
WI DNR removed University of Wisconsin Researchers from all Wildlife Advisory Committees, including the Wolf Committee
Dr. Rolf Peterson "Wolf hunting by the public is not about solving problems, for the most part. It’s about people’s desire to kill wolves for whatever reason that might be“
Michigan Radio December 2012
Does wolf hunt reduce livestock losses? Maybe not, lawmakers are told - Dr. Adrian Treves "We do not have any experimental studies of that question ... So the strict scientific answer is, We don't know.“ Minnesota Legislative Hearing
MICHIGAN’S WOLF MANAGEMENT COUNCIL TOP DOWN PROCESS DECISIONS MADE IN LANSING THEN ATTEMPT MADE TO JUSTIFY NO CONSENSUS NO WORKING THROUGH SOLUTIONS
IS THERE A WAY TO DISCUSS WOLF MANAGEMENT WITHOUT POLITICS GETTING IN THE WAY??
DNR funding must be reformed if non - hunters are to have any say (There is public support for revisions to Pittman-Robertson funding)
Hunters Pitted against Non-Hunters Not a hunter rights or gun issue
But, politicians fear their NRA rating
EDUCATION TIPS TO AVOID CONFLICT (Warn about feeding bears but not wolves)
POSITIVE ASPECTS OF WOLVES
COUNTER MISINFORMATION THROUGH NETWORKING (Everyone’s responsibility)
PROMOTE ECOTOURISM International Wolf Center adds about $5.5 million directly or indirectly annually to the local economy
PARTNER WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN USE TO COUNTER MISINFORMATION DATA SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE & POSTED TO THE WEB MOST FOIA REQUESTS SHOULD BE UNNECESSARY REFER TO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
POLITICALLY BASED MANAGEMENT DOES LITTLE TO PROTECT THE ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF WOLVES AND DOES NOT INCREASE TOLERANCE.
RATHER, IT RELIES ON FEAR,
DISTORTIONS AND EMBELLISHED STORIES THUS GIVING THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THE HUNTING OF WOLVES IS NEEDED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC SAFE