I wrote a post a few weeks back about Racing for Wildlife, and MUCC’s affiliation with this great program. Well now the time has come, and an opportunity has shown itself, for everyone to help out with this great cause.

Jennifer Lewin, the Web Content Manager for The Conservation Fund/Racing for Wildlife, recently contacted me to let me know about a charity trap shoot that is coming up to help raise money for the Mill Creek Youth Camp restoration project, here in Michigan. She wondered if I would be interested in helping to get the word out about this wonderful event. And since I’m such a push-over, and because she was so nice, I agreed that I would be more than happy to spread the word.

Here are the event details:

Location: Chelsea Rod and Gun Club

Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2008

Time: Event starts with lunch at 11am.  Shoot starts at 12pm and runs until 3:30pm.

This sounds like a wonderful event, and I am slightly bummed that I cannot attend. For those of you who do go, you will have an opportunity to dine with Ryan Newman, the driver of the #12 Alltel Dodge. Racing for Wildlife is a partnership between the Conservation Fund, and The Ryan Newman Foundation, so you will have an opportunity to dine with him if you can attend. That is pretty cool, and plus what fun would it be if you didn’t also have an opportunity to shoot guns at a gun club. I think both of those things right there make the time and money worth the effort. If you would like to read more about this event you can do so here.

For those of you, like me, who can’t make the event, you can still help my donating. Donations are able to be made at their website, and for those of who are not comfortable with that here is the necessary information to pay by check:

Racing for Wildlife
c/o The Conservation Fund
1655 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1300
Arlington, Virginia 22209-2156

Checks can be made payable to The Conservation Fund/Racing for Wildlife. Gifts are tax deductible.

I think this is a great cause, and I’m sorry that I cannot attend. I wish them the best of luck with their project, and I hope that everyone who can’t attend is able to donate a little money. It is not everyday that such a great organization comes around and truly makes an impact at the local level.

Popularity: 3% [?]

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% [?]

I was talking to my father-in-law the other evening, and he brought up something that really intrigued me. One of his renters, who had just recently returned from a year and a half in Iraq, had a plan that he thought I would be interested in helping with. The plan is a little ambitious, but in the end is definitely worth it. I honestly can’t believe that something like this doesn’t exist in our state already, but I’m hopefully that one day it becomes a reality.

The idea behind the plan is to have a dedicated place where any veteran, especially disabled ones, could be able to enjoy the outdoors. A place where they could come for a weekend, or however long, and turkey hunt, deer hunt, duck hunt, or just fish. A place where they can enjoy the things they once did and be able to forget, for just those few days, about their everyday life struggles. I think we at least owe them that much.

I have found quite a few organizations that do something similar to this, but of course they are in different states. There are also a couple organizations that do this, but they rely upon hunting clubs and such to provide the land for these hunting opportunities. Don’t get me wrong, I think that organizations like that are great as well, but the vision that he has for this project is to have a a place where these particular gentleman and women can enjoy the outdoors, and have that place be specifically built for their needs. By having a “resort” of such, it makes it much easier to provide the necessary services that will allow these veterans, despite what kind of disabilities they may have, to still be able to enjoy the outdoors.

I have to be honest and tell you I wasn’t really sure I could contribute a lot to this cause. I mean sure I would love to volunteer my services to take a couple of these veterans out on a hunt, and be a “guide” of sorts, but once I got started talking to Joe (the guy with the idea), I realized that he was already ahead of the game. He already has a lot of good contacts that he has established in the outdoor community, and with the drive I see that he has for this particular project, I have total faith that it will become a reality. He has even talked to the local VFW’s as well as the local VA and has already started the ball rolling.

The biggest obstacle he faces right now is acquiring land. He has had many people offer up donated vehicles for the lodge, and things of that nature, but land is the one thing that holds him up. He is hopeful that he can acquire some “backers” to help raise enough money to purchase a plot of land and get this project rolling.

I think this is a great idea, and I am more than willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to get this thing off the ground. I would be more than happy to take these veterans hunting and fishing, and have a chance to get to know them, and thank them for the service they’ve done for our country. It only makes sense to give back to these particular individuals and allow them to be able to enjoy our state’s great outdoors.

If any of you have anything you could contribute to this particular idea I would love to hear about in the comments section.

Popularity: 2% [?]

I already touched on the What Can We Do? portion of this challenge, imposed to us by Kristine, but now I want to touch on the other side of the challenge. I want to talk about the What Should We Do? portion.

I am going to take a slightly different approach to this part of the challenge. Plenty of other bloggers have listed their ideas for what the community, as well as the organizations that support hunting and fishing, should do in order to help promote our way of life. Rather than rehash all of those ideas here, and I think there are some good ones, I am going to focus on one main point that I think outdoor organizations need to do in order to help protect our heritage.

The point I’m going to make, and Kristine touched on this one as well, is to learn lessons from PETA. PETA is everywhere it seems. They are in the schools, on television, in Hollywood, and just about anywhere else you can think of. They are an in-your-face type of organization, and while I don’t think that hunting needs to be so outlandish with its message, I do think that our outdoor organizations have failed on many levels when it comes to exposure.

The main thing I see that would help to get our message out there is marketing. Why don’t we hunters and fisherman market ourselves? I think we need to not only market ourselves, and the activities that we love, but we also need a bigger push from the organizations that we support to help market us. I’m sure Kristine, with her expertise in this field, could shed some more light on this topic for us, but why don’t we have television and newspaper campaigns supporting our cause? Sure you might see some advertising when there is a hot hunting topic in the news, or a vote on a particular hunting or fishing issue coming up, but where is the everyday marketing of hunting? I think a newspaper or television ad that promotes the outdoor lifestyle would go over great in many communities. Why not an ad that shows our love of the outdoors, while promoting the things hunters and fisherman help to protect? An ad listing the positive things that come from participation in hunting and fishing? Also, there has to be some prominent Hollywood or music stars who participate in hunting and fishing. Why not have them do a celebrity endorsement of our outdoor heritage. PETA does this with their ads that promote not wearing fur. Why not have a star who does this by promoting their love of the outdoors?

I think the whole concept of regularly running positive outdoor lifestyle commercials would do wonders for the hunting and fishing community. It would be a great way to counter the nonsense and lies that is distributed by PETA and the HSUS every day through various outlets. I honestly can’t believe that this has not been brought up before. And while I don’t think certain news outlets would be any help, because of their anti-hunting stand, I do think that local as well as national organizations could benefit directly from running periodic television commercials that show all of us fisherman and hunters as the honest, nature loving citizens, that we are.

What do you think?

Popularity: 3% [?]

I actually saw this a few weeks back, but I kept forgetting to write a post about it and update everyone.  I have talked about the Michigan DNR and their budget woes a few times this year.  In one post I talked about how the governor was going to allow a portion of the State General Fund to be transferred to the Game and Fish fund to help with their budget shortage, and in another post I talked about how the DNR had magically found 20 million dollars after this agreement was worked out.  The story keeps unfolding.

MUCC, after the DNR found they had a 10 million dollar fund balance instead of their projected 10.8 million dollar shortage,  called for an independent audit of the Game and Fish fund.  The MUCC felt that they couldn’t clearly represent their members without having a good grasp on where the money in this fund was actually going.  I was all for this move and thought it was the best way for the DNR to put themselves back on the positive side of the sportsmen in the state.

It is still unclear to me on where the status of this independent audit is.  What I do know is that now the Michigan DNR will  be providing monthly budget updates to the Natural Resources Commission and the public.  From the MUCC website:

These monthly budget reports will summarize the DNR’s appropriations and plans for spending (by DNR division) for the current fiscal year which ends Sept. 30, 2008. They will be updated monthly, with explanations of any mid-year changes necessary due to legislative transfers, supplemental appropriations, Executive Orders, and revenue adjustments. More detailed division reports are planned for dissemination quarterly to the Natural Resources Commission.

This is still not the audit that I was looking for, and I plan on digging a little deeper to see if I can find out if this audit is still going to happen or if the MUCC has decided that this monthly budget update is sufficient enough.   I think it is definitely a positive move by the Michigan DNR, and will be a great resource for all the groups that are interested in the Michigan DNR’s monetary status on a monthly basis, as well as a good resource for people like me who are curious about the status of the budget.

If any of you are interested you can find this monthly report here.

Popularity: 2% [?]