Michigan Wolf Petition: HSUS at it Again!


grey-wolf_565_600x450Late last year, a state law was approved allowing the Natural Resources Commission to create a wolf hunt, if they deemed it warranted.  Recently, though – ahead of a formal recommendation by state wildlife officials as to whether a wolf hunt should take place or not – a coalition called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected submitted over 235,000 signatures to state election officials.  If a little over 161,000 of those signatures are deemed valid, the new state law would be temporarily suspended, and voters would then decide the fate of the wolf hunt in November of 2014.

Keep Michigan Wolves Protected’s Director is a woman by the name of Jill Fritz, who also happens to be Michigan’s Director of the Humane Society of the United States.  I found it as no surprise that the HSUS would be involved in this particular issue, considering the success they had when they put Michigan’s now extinct dove hunt up for a vote.  I’m sure they were overjoyed then to know that Michigan hunters would sit idly by, while they promoted their agenda and allowed the uninformed public to decide the issue, rather than letting wildlife biologists and sound scientific evidence make the call.  With that previous experience in their pocket, I have no doubt that they felt very confident before starting this recent wolf petition process.

If these petitions are deemed valid, and if this issue is brought before the voters in November of 2014, the question remains, though, as to whether Michigan’s hunters will stand idly by and watch another hunting opportunity become extinct based on emotion and a “I don’t hunt wolves, so why do I care” mentality; or will they step up, make the facts known, vote this issue down, and allow scientists to make the call as to whether a wolf hunt takes place, not a group of anti-hunting whackos who purposely name their organization to creatively confuse and manipulate the public into thinking they’re about saving puppies and kittens in a shelter?

Michigan United Conversation Club’s Executive Director, Erin McDonough, “believes that HSUS has vastly underestimated the intelligence level of Michigan’s residents and has grossly overestimated this state’s tolerance for out-of-state extremists attempting to buy election results.”

I hope she’s right.

But based on what I witnessed of hunters during the dove hunt fiasco, I’m afraid we’re about to see another hunting opportunity decided by the uninformed public, and not by sound scientific management.

I can only hope that I’m wrong.



Copyright 2014 SimplyOutdoors.net

Stay Informed

Choose the way you would like to be notified for latest posts.

Bookmark & Share

Share this with your friends.


  • You clearly don’t understand the process. There are strict time frames regarding when a law can be challenged through the referendum process. This law was signed over the Christmas holidays and by the time the state certified the language for the petition, there were only 67 days to collect more than 161,000 signatures. Amazingly 253,705 signatures were gathered representing every county and included hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts. This referendum does not deny anyone’s right to hunt, trap or fish and does not stop the DNR from managing problem wolves or the ability of livestock owners to kill wolves in the act of attacking livestock or through a permit, the ability to kill any wolf on his property.

    The DNR has now developed regulations for a wolf hunt but has not provided the scientific data to support such a hunt.

  • Wolf Supporter (who doesn’t have first name, apparently),

    I’m not sure how anything that I stated implied that I don’t understand the process. The fact of the matter is that – if the signatures are deemed valid – hunting wolves in Michigan will ultimately be decided by the public and not by wildlife experts, which is exactly what I said.

    And though you claim that “hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts” are represented in the signatures, I would love to see absolute proof of that. Your definition of an outdoor enthusiast, hunter and fishermen could surely differ from mine.

    And I didn’t state that this referendum would deny anyone’s right to hunt, so for you to mention that is dishonest. I merely mentioned that this referendum puts our ability to hunt wolves in the hands of the uninformed public, and not in the hands of those individuals – the state’s wildlife biologists, etc. – who should be determining whether the hunt should happen or not.

    Most of the uninformed public has a hard time sifting through the dishonesty associated with the organization backing this referendum. The Humane Society of the United States uses its name to confuse and manipulate individuals into thinking that they are all about saving animals and such – in a shelter or otherwise – when, in fact, they are merely a complete anti-hunting organization who kill more animals every year than they protect, and who use the honest donations of citizens to fund their extreme views as well as to compensate their overpaid staff.

    I’m just hopeful that most of the hunters in this state can see through the dishonesty, and let the experts decide if there is to be a wolf hunt.

  • Bruce (aka Wolf Supporter)

    If I understand you correctly, you do not believe the public should have the right to vote on wildlife issues, but uninformed politicians and political appointees (business owner,engineer with consulting firm,union trades experience, paper company supervisor, lawyer) have the knowledge to decide? While all notable careers, only one Commissioner, Annoesjka Steinman, has a background in natural resources. Yes, many hunters do not support a wolf hunting season because they understand the critical role hunters play in the ecosystem.

  • I suppose you do understand me correctly.

    I am very uncomfortable letting an issue such as this one be decided by the general public, most of whom are persuaded and convinced on which way to vote based on the limited knowledge and information they receive from organizations such as the HSUS who purposely aim to deceive and manipulate uninformed persons into casting a vote. And I am more comfortable with the NRC making the decision because, even though you refer to them as “business owners, etc.”, they are still receiving first-hand knowledge from wildlife experts – including wolf experts from other states in this case – before they make their decision; they are not basing their decision simply on how they “feel” about the issue.

    And I am a hunter, and I certainly understand the role hunters play in the ecosystem; and I never said that a wolf hunt should or shouldn’t happen. My point was that I’m not comfortable with whether a hunt happens or not being based on the general public casting their vote, because of the reasons I stated previously.

Leave a Comment