I believe it was 1996 when Michigan voters cast ballots to approve Proposal G. Proposal G gave the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game.

Prior to Executive Order 1991-31 of 1991, the Natural Resources Commission had the authority to establish policies concerning the taking of game. The executive order abolished the existing DNR and a number of agencies, commissions, and boards; created a new DNR; and vested in the director of the new DNR all of the authority of the abolished entities and the Natural Resources Commission.

Passage of Proposal G would give the Natural Resources Commission the exclusive authority under the NREPA (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) to establish policies for the taking of game.

According to an article in the Marquette Mining Journal of July 22, 2008, the Michigan DNR will hold five public meetings to gather input from residents for the purpose of preparing a bear management plan.

“These meetings are an important first step in creating a bear management plan that includes the opinions of all Michigan citizens,” said Adam Bump, a DNR bear specialist. “We need to understand the various issues that stakeholders have and inform the public about the science behind bear management.”

On the Outspoken Sportsman’s website, there is information that says that invitations were sent out to anti-hunting and animal rights groups to attend the meetings. I can’t confirm this information.

Not mentioned in the Mining Journal…the DNR contact(ed) stakeholder groups across the state and invited them to send a representative to the meetings. THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE GIVEN VOTING RIGHTS. Simply put this means the DNR is allowing anti hunting groups a vote on Michigan bear hunting.

If I am understanding Executive Order 1991-31 of 1991 and Proposal G, in 1991 the DNR, including advisory boards, etc. was essentially abolished. A new DNR was established that gave the authority of game management to the director of DNR and the Natural Resources Commission.

Then Proposal G gave the NRC exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game. Why then is the DNR sending invitations to anti-hunting and animal rights groups and telling them they will be given a vote in establishing a bear management plan? To me, this sounds like old business as usual.

Wasn’t it the intent of Proposal G to get rid of the politics of special interest groups in order to utilize sound science in managing game? I would suppose it would make public relations sense to offer the public meetings to “inform the public about the science behind bear management” as bear specialist Adam Bump said, but guaranteeing special interest groups’ representative a vote in the decision making process appears to be against the will of Michigan voters.

The more states drift away from the sound science of game management in favor of appeasing the special interest, the more wildlife management problems crop up. Cannot anyone else see this?

Tom Remington

Related Posts