As usually happens, Tom Remington, over at the Black Bear Blog, covered a local story before I even knew it was going on. I’m not sure how Tom does it, but I am grateful that he does. He always has breaking news stories on his blog, and it is a site I frequent on a daily basis. Tom’s latest discovery has to do with Michigan’s Proposal G.

Proposal G was a ballot proposal back in 1996 that granted the Natural Resources Commission “exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state”. It required the commission to use sound scientific principles in order to regulate the taking of game in the state as well. When Proposal G passed, it gave the Natural Resources Commission the exclusive authority under the NREPA (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) to establish policies for the taking of game. What this basically says is that the NRC has the final say on issues that involve the taking of game animals. Individuals, organizations, municipalities, as well as other persons can bring up an issue to the DNR, but the NRC ultimately decides what the correct way to handle the situation is. I should also mention that Executive Oder 1991-31 from 1991 “vested in the director of the new DNR all of the authority of the abolished entities and the Natural Resources Commission”. Basically, the DNR director has the authority over the DNR as well as the NRC.

Where does this all come into play? Well, the DNR recently announced that there would be 5 public meetings next month in order to allow for some public opinion into the state’s black bear management plan. That part doesn’t surprise me, since, according to Proposal G, “The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input”. The surprising part comes from an accusation that was made on The Outspoken Sportsman.net site:

Not mentioned in the Mining Journal…the DNR contact 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.

While neither Tom, nor I, could verify this information, I am still curious as to the validity of the statement. If this is in fact the case, then I am very concerned about the way that this situation is being handled. I am not sure that allowing known anti-hunting organizations a vote, is the right way to go, and I would definitely think that by allowing these individual’s vote-to sway a management plan one way or another-definitely doesn’t apply to the “to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game” portion of Proposal G.

I’m not sure I am going to let just a few voices sway my opinion on this topic however. For one, I cannot verify that this is actually taking place. I could not find any piece of documentation that mentioned any individual being allowed a vote. I, for that matter, can’t even find anything saying that a vote on the management plan takes place. As I mentioned above, public opinion is required before any order is enacted, but I can find no information that says a vote takes place.

I also know that the DNR used their voted-by-the-people Proposal G rights in regards to a few local incidents in the state. Once in Clinton Township, where the township wanted to ban bowhunting, and another near Muskegon, where Dalton Township wanted to ban goose hunting on Twin Lake. Both of these were open to public opinion, like is stated in Proposal G, but both were shot down by the DNR after checking the facts, listening to public opinion, and viewing the number of hunting-related incidents in the area.

So far, from what I’ve seen, the DNR has been handling all these different issues according to the Proposal G guidelines. While I am concerned about the above statements, until I see some evidence to the fact, I am going to approach this particular subject with caution, and trust that the DNR is handling its bear management plan activities just as well as it handled the two issues I mentioned above. If, however, I find out differently, and a vote is taking place, and that known anti-hunting organizations are allowed to participate in that vote, I will have a very different opinion. And you can be sure I will let everyone know on this site.

Popularity: 4% [?]