Michigan Legislators Who Support Hunting and Fishing, and those who don't

[djkimmel]

The anti-hunting, anti-fishing radical animal rights group Humane Society of the United States (H$U$) is making a habit out of attacking hunting and fishing in Michigan. This latest excuse to attack us - using our wolf hunt as cover - has helped them raise millions of dollars from anti-hunters and confused animal lovers who think they're actually helping animals.

H$U$ couldn't have asked for a better outcome for their radical ends than were we almost ended up - they were able to take a shot at our whole, longstanding scientific fish and wildlife management system and the Natural Resources Commission while getting far too many people to make it only about wolves.

The danger of their attack to the future of Michigan hunting and fishing can never be overstated. H$U$ has more than enough money to buy multiple referendum petition drives and run bigger publicity campaigns to mislead voters about what they are voting for as they almost did with bears in 1995-96, as they successfully did with doves and as they almost did this time (and still are) with wolves. They may still get the majority vote on the two referendums on November 4th, and they will use that as justification to put more pressure on our hunting and fishing-friendly politicians, raise more money and continue pouring it into attacking hunting and fishing here and everywhere else.

We had no choice but to raise money and run the more complicated Citizen's Initiative petition that requires almost 100,000 more signatures than the petition drives H$U$ can run. We had to do this so H$U$ couldn't just referendum our sports out of existence. With almost $200 MILLION in assets H$U$ can more than afford to do just that. We can even call any of it a sport anymore because they've told so many public that we kill for the sport of it.

We were successful this time thanks to a ton of work including volunteer help from both bass federations and many of you! Thank you so much! But the $1.5 or more Millions additional H$U$ is still pouring into this technically meaningless vote for the Proposals 1 and 2 show the fight is far from over. We have only slowed them down a little, not stopped them. They still expect to win and they will definitely continue to raise far more money than us. I say meaningless because the outcome of the votes on Proposals 1 and 2 don't change anything in the near term. But long term they mean H$U$ will turn up the heat in their attack on us because it will be a clear signal to them that their strategy can work in Michigan if they just raise more money and turn a few more fishing and hunting-friendly politicians out of office.

We owe it to the Michigan Senators and Representatives who, despite a ton of heat put on them by paid phone banks, email and letter campaigns, press conferences, rallies, and H$U$ members and paid helpers going door-to-door in their districts, supported us by voting to pass our Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (SFWCA) Citizen's Initiative! One of them has already lost in a local primary where his vote to support our SFWCA was used heavily against him. It may not be the reason he is out but regardless we lost a hunting and fishing supporter already. That's potentially 1 less vote for the next issue that affects us.

We need to stand up and let the rest of Michigan know that the majority of our elected state officials did not take the publics vote away (a popular and effective H$U$ talking point) but only did their job in doing what what we and the 374,000 Michigan voters who signed our petition asked them to do. We owe it to these senators and representatives to support them too. We CANNOT let H$U$ get a majority of sympathetic elected legislators into office or H$U$ would be able to get new laws passed to overturn our law. We need to keep a majority hunting and fishing-supporting state legislature in office to keep our victory secure for the near future.

I usually do not decide who to vote or not vote for because of one reason, topic or issue, but I personally would have a very hard time voting for an elected official who makes H$U$'s radical animal rights agenda easier for them. I could probably never vote for an elected official who spoke in support of anything H$U$ was shoveling, especially if the person was speaking directly from H$U$ talking points handouts. Anyone gullible enough to believe the crap they shovel, or uneducated enough to believe that H$U$ is the wonderful friend to animals they claim to be, or who is just plain sympathetic to their radical agenda will be a clear danger to the future of fishing and hunting in Michigan.

You can say you're not an anti-hunter or anti-angler all you want but if you support anything the H$U$ does you ARE an anti. There's no gray area or in between land of common ground. You're either with us... or you're one of them. I don't expect you to use only this information to decide how to vote but I have always considered one of the most important priorities of GreatLakesBass.com to be a place where you can get information to help us all be well-informed, educated voters, citizens and hunter/anglers.

So here are both the lists of state senators and representatives who supported us and those who supported the radical anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda of H$U$. I have special mention for a few who deserve it too. There were a few people not present at the Senate or House votes. I will leave them alone for now because I have not talked to them nor do I know them personally, and sometimes you may want to support something but the voters in your district may boot you out of office if you do. This is as much an education problem of the general public that we all need to own as anything else. I hope the Wildlife Council we enacted also this year is able to make some ground in educating the public to be less susceptible to snake oil salesmen types like H$U$.

[djkimmel]

Roll Call No. 527 State of Michigan Senate SFWCA Vote August 13, 2014
SFWCA passed 23 - 10

SENATE YES VOTES - These are the Michigan state senators who supported US (hunters, anglers and trappers), the SFWCA, the NRC and scientific management of Michigan fishing and hunting, and voted AGAINST H$U$:
Jim Ananich, Senate District 27
Darwin Booher, Senate District 35
Jack Brandenburg, Senate District 11
Thomas Casperson, Senate District 38
Bruce Caswell, Senate District 16
Patrick Colbeck, Senate District 7
Judith Emmons, Senate District 33
Michael Green, Senate District 31
Goeffrey Hansen, Senate District 34
David Hildenbrand, Senate District 29
Joe Hune, Senate District 22
Mark Jansen, Senate District 28
Rick Jones, Senate District 24
Roger Kahn, Senate District 32
Michael Kowall, Senate District 15
Arlan Meekhof, Senate District 30
John Moolenaar, Senate District 36
Phillip Pavlov, Senate District 25
Randy Richardville, Senate District 17
David Robertson, Senate District 26
Tory Rocca, Senate District 10
Tonya Schuitmaker, Senate District 20
Howard Walker, Senate District 37

[djkimmel]

Roll Call No. 527 State of Michigan Senate SFWCA Vote August 13, 2014

SENATE NO VOTES H$U$ ANTI-HUNTING SUPPORTERS. These are the Michigan state senators who chose to support the H$U$ attack on the NRC and scientific management of Michigan fishing and hunting. They voted against us to support the anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda instead for whatever reason they claim they still voted to help advance the anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda of H$U$:
Glenn Anderson, Senate District 6
Steven Bieda, Senate District 9
Vincent Gregory, Senate District 14
Morris Hood, Senate District 3
Bert Johnson, Senate District 2
Mike Nofs, Senate District 19
Virgil Smith, Senate District 4
Rebekah Warren, Senate District 18
Gretchen Whitmer, Senate District 23
Coleman Young, Senate District 1

[djkimmel]

Roll Call No. 450 State of Michigan House of Representatives SFWCA Vote August 27, 2014
SFWCA passed 65 - 43

HOUSE YES VOTES - These are the Michigan state representatives who supported US, the SFWCA, the NRC and scientific management of Michigan fishing and hunting, and voted AGAINST H$U$:
Jase Bolger, House District 63
Terry L. Brown, House District 84
Charles M. Brunner, House District 96
Jon Bumstead, House District 100
Tom Cochran, House District 67
Kevin Cotter, House District 99
Hugh D. Crawford, House District 38
Kevin Daley, House District 82
Cindy Denby, House District 47
Scott Dianda, House District 110
Jeff Farrington, House District 30
Anthony G. Forlini, House District 24
Frank Foster, House District 107
Ray Franz, House District 101
Bob Genetski, House District 80
Ben Glardon, House District 85
Ken Goike, House District 33
Joseph Graves, House District 51
Gail Haines, House District 43
Harold L. Haugh, House District 22
Joe Haveman, House District 90
Kurt Heise, House District 20
Tom Hooker, House District 77
Bradford C. Jacobsen, House District 46
Nancy Jenkins, House District 57
Joel Johnson, House District 97
Tim Kelly, House District 94
Klint Kesto, House District 39
John Kivela, House District 109
Eileen Kowall, House District 44
Kenneth Kurtz, House District 58
Andrea M. LaFontaine, House District 32
Dan Lauwers, House District 81
Bill LaVoy, House District 17
Tom Leonard, House District 93
Matt Lori, House District 59
Pete Lund, House District 36
Lisa Posthumus Lyons, House District 86
Peter MacGregor, House District 73
Greg MacMaster, House District 105
Ed McBroom, House District 108
Tom McMillin, House District 45
Paul Muxlow, House District 83
Aric Nesbitt, House District 66
Margaret E. O'Brien, House District 61
Stacy Erwin Oakes, House District 95
Rick Outman, House District 70
Dave Pagel, House District 78
Peter Pettalia, House District 106
Earl Poleski, House District 64
Phil Potvin, House District 102
Amanda Price, House District 89
Al Pscholka, House District 79
Bruce R. Rendon, House District 103
Bill Rogers, House District 42
Harvey Santana, House District 9
Wayne A. Schmidt, House District 104
Mike Shirkey, House District 65
Pat Somerville, House District 23
Jim Stamas, House District 98
Rob VerHeulen, House District 74
Roger Victory, House District 88
John J. Walsh, House District 19
Ken Yonker, House District 72
Dale W. Zorn, House District 56

[djkimmel]

Roll Call No. 450 State of Michigan House of Representatives SFWCA Vote August 27, 2014

HOUSE NO VOTES H$U$ ANTI-HUNTING SUPPORTERS. These are the Michigan state representatives who chose to support the H$U$ attack on the NRC and scientific management of Michigan fishing and hunting. They voted against us to support the anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda instead for whatever reason they claim they still voted to help advance the anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda of H$U$:
Theresa Abed, House District 71
Brian Banks, House District 1
Vicki Barnett, House District 37
Winnie Brinks, House District 76
Mike Callton, House District 87
Phil Cavanagh, House District 10
Paul Clemente, House District 14
George T. Darany, House District 15
Brandon Dillon, House District 75
Gretchen Driskell, House District 52
Fred Durhal, Jr., House District 5
Pam Faris, House District 48
Douglas A. Geiss, House District 12
Tim Greimel, House District 29
Rudy Hobbs, House District 35
Marcia Hovey-Wright, House District 92
Martin Howrylak, House District 41
Jeff Irwin, House District 53
Andrew J. Kandrevas, House District 13
David Knezek, House District 11
Robert L. Kosowski, House District 16
Collene Lamonte, House District 91
Marilyn Lane, House District 31
Sean McCann, House District 60
Michael D. McCready, House District 40
David E. Nathan, House District 8
John Olumba, House District 3
Sarah Roberts, House District 18
Rose Mary C. Robinson, House District 4
David Rutledge, House District 54
Andy Schor, House District 68
Kate Segal, House District 62
Samir Singh, House District 69
Dian Slavens, House District 21
Charles Smiley, House District 50
Thomas F. Stallworth III, House District 7
Woodrow Stanley, House District 34
Jon Switalski, House District 28
Alberta Tinsley Talabi, House District 2
Rashida Tlaib, House District 6
Jim Townsend, House District 26
Henry Yanez, House District 25
Adam Zemke, House District 55

[djkimmel]

I hope you find the above information about who voted yes on our Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Citizens' Initiative to support us (those in blue navy) and Michigan hunting and fishing vs. who chose to support the anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda and effort of H$U$ and their friends by voting no against us (those in red) helpful when you vote this coming Tuesday, November 4. Please make sure you exercise your right to vote. It always matters. Always. Thank you.

[djkimmel]

I was not at the Senate vote on August 13 but I did go to the State Capitol for the entire House Session and vote on August 27. For those of you who want to know more about how our elected officials handled this issue, and possibly how their own elected official handled the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the demands of H$U$ to stop it, here are the statements that were actually made during each of the two voting sessions taken from the online Journals anyone can download from:
SENATE JOURNAL 59: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-SJ-08-13-059
HOUSE JOURNAL 62: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HJ-08-27-062

I supply this information only if you want to take the time to read more specific information from a few senators and representatives. I have put the statements of those who spoke against us and in support of H$U$ in red, the statements of those who supported us and the SFWCA in blue. My comments on a few things are below each statement in black. Here are the bad ones first. Senators from the online Journal of the Senate No. 59:

No. 59
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Journal of the Senate
97th Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2014
Senate Chamber, Lansing, Wednesday, August 13, 2014. 12:00 noon.

Senators Young, Whitmer, Smith and Warren, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the legislative initiative petition.

Senators Young, Whitmer and Warren moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the initiative petition be printed as their reasons for voting "no."

Senator Young's statement is as follows:

Mr. President, tyrannies fall no matter who supports them, and democracies rise no matter who's against them. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this poorly disguised plan to avoid a vote of the people, which is where our power derives from—the people. Standing here this afternoon at this podium, I am struck by a profound sense of déjà vu. Haven't we done this before? Haven't we had this same argument?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have. We had this argument when my colleagues across the aisle decided the people of Michigan shouldn't go to the ballot to decide whether women needed to carry rape insurance. No, they went ahead and passed it, because they were afraid it would fail at the polls.

Just a few months ago, this same group of legislative Republicans tried to circumvent a citizen's initiative to raise the minimum wage. Now, they're at it again, trying to guarantee victory in November today giving a small special interest group their way instead of letting the issue go on the ballot.

What's most galling about this, at least for me, isn't the tried-and-true GOP tactic of taking an issue out of the hands of voters when they need to guarantee a victory. No, I'm used to that at this point. I'm almost immune to that anti-democratic, unconstitutional, illegal behavior—which itself is a darn shame. No, I'm used to that. I've come to expect that.

What gets me, ladies and gentlemen, is that there are so many other pressing issues before us, and yet, today, on the one day of session planned for this month, this is the work the Republican majority decided to do; an issue that should go to the ballot and be decided by the voters. On a day when parts of my district are flooded and dive teams are swimming on I-75 and raw sewage is flowing in front of Cobo Hall in the heart of the Motor City, as I speak, you're sitting up here talking about circumventing the ballot and the right to vote, once again, so a handful of people can have permission to hunt wolves.

Now, I'm not trying to belittle this issue. I know it's important to folks, but there's a proper way to do that. Ambition is good, but ambition must match the constitutional rights of the place. You can't just do what you want because you don't like it. You have to follow the Constitution, because we swore an oath to do it. Mr. President, my colleagues, that oath means something.

Your refusal to take meaningful action on roads has led to today's reality, where even when the waters recede, the roads may not be passable. You still haven't learned your lesson. Let me give you the opportunity to experience déjà vu, too, by telling you the same thing I've been telling you. When you play politics and reward special interest instead of dealing the issues you're in office to address, there are very real consequences for millions of people.

Right now, the people who are suffering from that are my constituents, but one day they'll be in your districts. It is not right to circumvent democracy for the sake of expediency. It's wrong. There are people in my district who are suffering. We need to solve these issues now, because one day it won't be my constituents; it will be yours. Hopefully, by then, you'll care.

These are my comments about Senator Young's statement: A common theme in some of the statements shows that some of our elected officials such as Coleman Young, Senate District 1, speaking above is they chose their party infighting over the individual issue, and you, me and everyone else who volunteered to collect petition signatures, donated time and money to this expensive and necessary effort and who hunt and fish, or are at least not anti-hunting and anti-fishing. Personally, I prefer elected officials who can put me and the individual important issues before their party though not everyone may feel the same way. It seems to me that party infighting has caused many of the issues that disenfranchise voters and have some of us thinking our government is ineffective and wasteful. What do any of you think about that?

I also like how he says "You have to follow the Constitution" as if we didn't do that?? We definitely followed the Constitution which explicitly allows anyone who feels they have enough support to endure the effort, time and cost of collecting almost 300,000 Michigan voter signatures AND get the majority support in BOTH the state senate and house to do exactly what we did!

Insinuating that our effort is somehow different than their effort is insulting to me and misleading. Our effort was actually more difficult and time-consuming as a Citizens' Initiative requires about 100,000 more signatures AND majority support in both state chambers. I'm especially disgusted that Senator Young tied our effort to this kind of negative, untrue comment - "anti-democratic, unconstitutional, illegal behavior" because we did not break any law or go outside of our state constitution! This is exactly the kind of tactic I expect from H$U$ not from our elected officials. But then, some elected officials were apparently fine going along with the H$U$ playbook and rhetoric, and Senator Young is obviously one of them.

We FOLLOWED the Constitution and did something that is specifically allowed any voters to do. Just because they don't like that we were able to do it does not make it wrong, bad, anti-democratic, unconstitutional or illegal. Yes, I take great offense to that. H$U$ could do the exact same thing we did if they wanted to but they know they do NOT have the majority in our state legislature. Thank God! We NEED to keep it that way because H$U$ can afford to pay whatever it takes.

Love how he calls us a small special interest group too when he is doing the work of H$U$, another special interest group. At least we ARE Michigan citizen's and voters whose activities directly benefit Michigan jobs, the economy, the MDNR and our natural resources WHILE H$U$ is an out-of-state radical special interest group whose plans would cost Michigan jobs, harm our economy more, harm and even eviscerate the MDNR and therefore the natural resources they claim to be trying to protect. Who would you rather serve - Michigan hunters and anglers, or H$U$? Whom would you rather have as stewards of our natural resources - Michigan hunters and anglers, or H$U$? I know I don't want H$U$ involved in anything to do with Michigan. I hope you all feel the same and recognize that it is bad to have elected officials who are so susceptible to H$U$ lies and harmful agendas.

[djkimmel]

Gretchen Whitmer, Senate District 23 statement is as follows:

Senator Whitmer's statement, in which Senator Smith concurred, is as follows:
I talk to so many classes of kids who watch us from the Gallery, and they're always stunned at how rude it is that we don't listen to one another. So I think it's really important that, since we are working one day this month in session, we at least extend the courtesy to listen to one another.

I rise to oppose the so-called citizens' initiative before us. I'm not going to debate the merits of wolf hunting, because I shouldn't have to. There are ballot initiatives supporting both sides of the argument that are intended to let people decide, but I do think we should be debating why the desires of the people who want to kill wolves should outweigh the rights of those who don't, because that's what this is really about.

This proposal is explicitly intended to push one special interest's agenda and to override the people's right to vote on this issue in November. As with the awful rape insurance citizens' initiative pushed through last year, once again, you're letting 3 percent of the population dictate the rights and laws that affect 100 percent of our people, again overstepping the bounds of this body and again stifling the voters of Michigan.

What is it with Republicans and democracy? It was good enough to get you here, but any time the democratic process runs counter to the Republican agenda or your campaign donors' interests, you have no problem circumventing or even outright suppressing—as is the case with this bill—the will of the people.

Is that why we are here? Does that sound like something we were elected to do as a representative government? Democracy is one of the founding principles of our nation and one of the core components of our state government here, but you continue to treat the voting public as your subjects rather than your bosses; dictating terms to them rather than responding to their elective decisions.

It's not as if we don't have serious work we could be doing here today. Metro Detroit is literally underwater. Bay City residents have struggled without any drinking water. Our roads are still falling apart. Yet on the one day you bother to show up to work this month, you ignore all of that and instead spend your time to take away another opportunity for voters to have their say.

Sadly, these attacks on democracy are not an anomaly, but rather an annual affair. In 2011, legislative Republicans passed a bill to gerrymander more partisan districts for Republican commissioners in Oakland County after they weren't please with the results of a map drawn by a bipartisan committee. In December 2012, Michigan Republicans used a lame duck session to restore the state's emergency manager law that strips power away from local governments mere weeks after Michigan citizens voted to repeal the undemocratic law. Late in 2013, Republican legislators bowed down to Right to Life of Michigan and passed the insulting rape insurance law, because 3 percent of the population signed a petition asking them to. Republicans could have instead let the issue go to the statewide ballot for all Michigan citizens to vote on it, but knew full well they wouldn't like the results, so they decided to take matters into their own hands. That move is now being mirrored today.

Whether it's wolves or women's rights, the right of the people to vote on important issues shouldn't be hijacked at the Legislature's whim, and the democratic process should not be reduced to a Republican plaything. Earlier this summer, you pushed through legislation designed to derail a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage. Here we are again in 2014 making a legislative decision to intentionally counteract voter intentions.

Why does the Republican majority, who wraps themselves in our flag, continue to trample on our rights and insist on being so condescending, making decisions for the people instead of letting them decide for themselves at the polls? It's not just arrogant; it's anti-democratic to take away the will of the people because you think you know better. It's perhaps even worse that the argument that pushed this initiative forward in the first place was based on completely false information; stories invented and further voiced here to make it sound like the issue was a crisis.

The flooding in Detroit is a crisis. The state of our roads is a crisis. But instead of addressing those, we are here today taking away the rights of our people once again. That, by itself, is a crisis of your own creation. This ongoing practice of overriding the voters is the antithesis of what we were sent here to do as legislators, but Republicans have made this a standard operating procedure.

Regardless of where you stand on this individual issue, I urge any of my colleagues in this room who consider themselves true advocates for democracy and champions of our elective process to vote against this legislation.

These are my comments about Senator Whitmer's statement: Once again Senator Whitmer is tying our effort to her party's infighting with the other party. What does any of her comments about other issues really have to do with our issue? She actually highlights in multiple ways EXACTLY why the Natural Resources Commission was created - because too many politicians will want to confuse sound scientific management with the crap anti-hunters like H$U$ spread, and they will easily be led to say we have too many more important issues than this hunting and fishing stuff to use our valuable time on such an unimportant issue... of course, how many of us actually feel this is such an unimportant issue? There's the primary problem. It is too easy for our enemies to turn people against us and we are not a majority. We are more than 3% though 3% is the number of voter signatures we have to capture and that is a lot of signatures. And we did it.

And again, I could easily turn her arguments around against supporting the out-of-state special interests of the H$U$. Why is Senator Whitmer more interested in her party disagreements with the other party, and the H$U$ than she is with MICHIGAN hunters and anglers?? She is more than willing to demand the other party listens to her but she herself will not listen to them OR to us! I talked to her office staff person. She had someone who claimed they love fishing and even likes bass tournaments, yet when it comes time to support MICHIGAN hunters and anglers, fishing, hunting and the longstanding, multiple vote-supported tradition of scientific management of our natural resources she chose H$U$ and their anti-hunting, anti-fishing agenda and rhetoric. Who's not listening??

We FOLLOWED the State Constitution and apparently SHE wants to circumvent the process and have her way (and the way of her apparent ally - the H$U$) instead. Who's the pot calling the kettle black? Everything she accuses the other party of doing, she is also doing. For myself, I'm tired of our elected politicians being so interested in not working together that almost NOTHING can get done no matter how good it is or how necessary FOR Michigan. If someone is so much more interested in beating up on the other party that they are willing to fall for the lies and misleading tactics, all bad for Michigan, of the H$U$, or maybe none of them actually did ANY research on just what type of group they were getting in bed with? I'm personally glad we have term limits at the moment.

[djkimmel]

More statements coming this evening. Thanks for taking the time to check this information out. It is important for all of us to be informed. I hope you agree.

[djkimmel]

Rebekah Warren, Senate District 18 statement is as follows:

Senator Warren's statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the initiative before us. This initiative before us today would do many things, some of which I wholeheartedly support. Many of you in this chamber know that I have consistently supported efforts to protect Michigan's unique and beautiful natural resources and environment. I have stood here at this podium and advocated for our wildlife, flora and fauna, critical dunes, and biodiversity. I am committed to fighting any invasive species that threaten them. This initiative would appropriate money to support that effort, of which I am strongly in favor.

However, that is a separate issue from the main purpose of this initiative, which I believe is just another attempt to circumvent the democratic process by allowing the Natural Resources Commission to authorize new hunting regulations and seasons without input from those elected by and held accountable to the people of our state. This initiative eliminates citizen voices from the debate, and I have serious concerns about allowing the Natural Resources Commission to operate without necessary oversight.

While I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on legislation to fight invasive species, I cannot vote for this measure today and take away the right of the voters to decide on the important issue of wolf hunting. I urge you to join me in voting "no."

These are my comments about Senator Warren's statement: She supports 'protecting' the resource but apparently has no knowledge of the hundred-plus years of WHO has been the stewards protecting those resources, and how the NRC was setup way back in 1922, and has been WORKING that whole time, allowing input from anyone in the public at open meetings every month! The baloney about lack of oversight means H$U$ is not able to get the NRC to go along with their entire plans for the 'future' of our hunting and fishing, and Senator Warren seems very worried about their rights (though H$U$ can't actually vote in Michigan because they aren't residents!) and the 'voters' H$U$ has misled into thinking some funny business is going on here...

Hunters and anglers have been the primary source of natural resource management budget for decades, and the real stewards of our fish and wildlife, not H$U$ or any of their sympathizers. Senator Warrens seem unaware that 63% of MICHIGANDERS (not H$U$) already voted in 1996 to support the scientific management method used through the MDNR and the NRC. Saying citizen voices are eliminated from the debate I can only guess refers to H$U$ sympathizers though they were heard at many of the NRC meetings I attended. They just didn't get their way because the science is not on their side.

The H$U$ tactic has been to call everyone else liars while providing no facts from recognized experts anywhere. That might work on playgrounds, but hopefully never in the real world of our important natural resources. Of course, the Legislature, INCLUDING Senator Warren has oversight on the MDNR considering they have to APPROVE the Governor's annual budget for the MDNR so more misleading and inaccurate information there.

Voters have already decided they support scientific management of fish and wildlife for Michigan. We've done it this way for a long, long time and the obvious reason we have is because some people can obviously easily be swayed to go along with outsiders (H$U$) without doing any due diligence on whom they are getting in bed with due to things like emotion and other bad influences (inter-party conflict) that have NOTHING to do with sound scientific management that is best for our natural resources. We long-term stewards of our fish and wildlife have known this for maybe 100 years, and I hope we can continue to truly protect our fantastic natural resources the correct way despite the people who wish to subvert the process for their beliefs that are not in the best interest of our fish and wildlife. The people behind this campaign are not from Michigan and they don't care what harm they cause. They just want to get rid of all hunting and fishing, and move on the next place to attack.

[djkimmel]

If you are a Michigan voter and you do not know who your district state representative or state senator is you can go to the Michigan Legislature home page - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=legislators and click on the Find your Representative (http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/ ) or Find your Senator (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysbyaddress.html ) links to look them up. I hope you do know, or you take the time to look him or her up to see how they voted if they are up for reelection.

Please vote YES on Proposals 1 and 2, and tell your friends, family and co-workers! We need to help people understand what is really going on, and who is behind it!

[djkimmel]

Michael Green, Senate District 31 asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Green's statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the citizen-initiated law before us today, the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Michigan Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus considers this proposed law its No. 1 priority this year. This citizen-initiated law was submitted to the Legislature under the Michigan Constitution with nearly 300,000 signatures. One out of six Michigan residents regularly hunt or fish, spending nearly $5 billion and supporting 46,000 jobs in our state's economy each year.

More importantly, these sportsmen and women provide substantial funding and on-the-ground support for critical conservation, wildlife habitat, and wildlife management programs. As their representatives, we must ensure that public policy decisions affecting their way of life and their traditions in the great outdoors are based on sound science, not partisan politics or emotions.

The Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act provides us with the opportunity to do this by placing science and scientists at the forefront of Michigan's wildlife management policy, not politicians or wealthy out-of-state political activists. The act will also provide much-needed resources to strengthen fishery managements programs, including efforts to combat the threat of aquatic invasive species such as Asian carp.

Finally, the act also establishes free hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses for active duty members of the military, as a token of our appreciation for their service to our nation.

This citizen-initiated law will ensure that Michigan wildlife is properly and consistently managed and protected, regardless of how the political tide ebbs and flows in Lansing or anywhere else. It is not a Republican or Democrat proposal; it is a proposal from hundreds of thousands of Michigan sportsmen and women who come from every part of our state and from every political spectrum who want to preserve Michigan's strong outdoor legacy for generations to come.

I strongly urge your support.

These are my comments about Senator Green's statement: He gets it. The senators who voted no on our SFWCA mostly did so based on their party politics and emotion NOT what is in the best interests of our natural resources, or you or me! No painting us as uncaring, radical, selfish, brutish killers but the longtime MICHIGAN voter hunter angler stewards who do right by Michigan, and our natural resources!

We followed the Constitution and we did all this work because we care and we know the other side has an agenda that is nothing but bad for Michigan. Senator Green is also Co-chair of the active and largest bi-partisan caucus in Michigan - the Michigan Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus (MLSC) - https://www.facebook.com/MichiganLegislativeSportsmensCaucus. Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation is an active participant in this caucus that meets about every 2 months and has featured guest speakers such as Governor Snyder speaking about the importance of hunting and fishing to Michigan, and MDNR Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter speaking about the great value and importance of bass fishing AND bass tournaments to Michigan.

The SFWCA votes in both the state House and Senate did not split completely on party lines. There were some elected officials who voted on the issue based on its individual merits and importance so we did have bi-partisan support. I truly appreciate and thank the Senators and Representatives who did so, and who make the time to participate in the MLSC!

Remember when you speak to people about this issue and talk online that this is not a 'liberal vs. conservative' issue but a 'hunting and fishing supporter vs. anti-hunter, anti-fishing radical animal rights' issue. A large percentage of the population does not hunt or fish but they generally are not opposed to either, and can be more supportive if we improve the way we get information to them. I am hoping our new Michigan Wildlife Council has similar success as the Colorado model we are following has had there in getting the average voter to help them defeat similar misleading, damaging attacks like this one by H$U$.

[djkimmel]

I was at the State Capitol for the entire House Session and Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act vote on August 27. The H$U$ front here in Michigan - Keep Michigan Wolves Protected held a rally for anti-hunters and animal rights sympathizers before the start of session. Some of the Michigan state Representatives actually spoke to them in support of their anti-hunting, anti-scientific fish and wildlife movement. Here are the statements that were actually made during each of the House voting session taken from the online Journal anyone can download from:
HOUSE JOURNAL 62: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-HJ-08-27-062

I supply this information only if you want to take the time to read more specific information from a representatives. I have put the statements of those who spoke against us and in support of H$U$ in red, the statements of those who supported us and the SFWCA in blue. My comments on a few things are below each statement in black.

No. 62
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOURNAL OF THE House of Representatives
97th Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2014
House Chamber, Lansing, Wednesday, August 27, 2014. 12:00 Noon.

Rep. Irwin (Jeff Irwin, House District 53), having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Judging by its title, this law claims to ensure scientific wildlife management, provide free hunting licenses to soldiers, and to protect from invasive species. You'll notice that nowhere in there does it mention 'nullifying referendums,' 'wolves,' 'wolf-hunt,' or 'delegating power to the Natural Resources Commission.' It's bad enough to show such utter distrust for Michiganders' constitutional rights to referendum by nullifying referendums without a vote. But to do so under the completely unrelated guise of providing for the armed forces and stopping invasive species is simply deceitful."

These are my comments about Rep. Irwin's statement: How about showing zero understanding about the long history of the NRC, scientific fish and wildlife management in Michigan and the 1996 vote by 63% of Michiganders on Proposal G to continue support of scientific management of wildlife? How about showing zero understanding about who has been the stewards and footing the bill for fish and wildlife management (ALL wildlife, not just 'game' species) at the tune of 92% of the MDNR budget now? How about zero understanding why the NRC was formed by apparently smarter people way back in 1922 exactly because of people like Rep. Irwin and the H$U$? How about showing zero understanding of our state constitution since we FOLLOWED the Constitution!

ANYONE who has enough support from the public AND our elected officials can do the same thing we did? Anyone who doesn't like the results we got by following our Constitution AND having the MAJORITY support can apparently try to mislead people by making it appear that we did something wrong. We DID NOT do anything wrong. We just did something they do not like. I like Rep. Irwin's final nice touch - as if no politician has ever tied various things together or added things to bills to get them passed or killed...? Yeah, right. They do it ALL the time, and our's ARE related! Just because you don't like that you are not the majority on an issue doesn't mean it is okay to misrepresent the facts, the process and people. Once again I have to ask why Rep. Irwin - or ANY other elected Michigan official - is more worried about the rights of the Washington DC-based H$U$ than they are about the rights of you and me, Michigan voters, residents, anglers and hunters??

Jill Fritz, who runs the so-called Michigan-based Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, is an H$U$ employee. H$U$ provided the vast majority of the budget and funding for this obvious anti-hunting method. It followed the same game plan they use every time everywhere. Raise lots of money from people who think they're giving money to a real humane society, not a radical animal rights group who only gives 1 penny on the dollar to animal shelters while using 63% of the money they raise to raise more money; Call everyone on the other side liars; Buy lots of publicity saying the other side is trying to take away your rights, is selfish, doesn't care about animals, are mad killers using animals for pleasure; Accuse the other side of ignoring all your science while not actually going into much detail or providing vetted research or published scientists; Present people who claim they're from the 'other side' and they don't agree with the other side either; Threaten to sue or actually sue anyone (the DNR for example in Maine) who really does have recognized scientific expertise in an effort to silence them; Bully anyone in a voting position into changing their mind by getting their animal-sympathizing voters to call them about some unrelated or misleading 'facts' you demand they listen to or else you'll vote against them; Or if you need more contacts, pay to have banks of people send email and make phone calls doing the same; and the list goes on all similar including a favorite - pay a lot of money to a witness who claims to be an insider who will help your lawsuit, and lie to the court and cover up the fact that you're paying the witness lots of money.

That can actually cost you a lot though - such as losing the entire law suit as frivolous and misleading and having to pay the people you sued -

Google: HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CO-DEFENDANTS PAY $15.75 MILLION SETTLEMENT TO FELD ENTERTAINMENT ENDING 14 YEARS OF LITIGATION - HSUS and animal rights groups the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free USA (formerly the Animal Protection Institute), the Wildlife Advocacy Project, the law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, and several current and former attorneys of that firm, paid the settlement for their involvement in the case brought under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that the U.S. District Court ruled was "frivolous," "vexatious," and "groundless and unreasonable from its inception." Today's settlement also covers the related Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case that Feld Entertainment filed against the groups after discovering they had paid a plaintiff for his participation in the original lawsuit and then attempted to conceal those payments.

In the original ESA lawsuit, Feld Entertainment discovered the animal rights groups and their lawyers had paid over $190,000 to a former circus employee, Tom Rider, to be a "paid plaintiff." The Court also found that the animal rights groups and their attorneys "sought to conceal the nature, extent and purpose of the payments" during the litigation. Their abuse of the judicial system included the issuance of a false statement under oath by Rider, assisted by his counsel, who the Court found was "the same attorney who was paying him" to participate in the litigation. The Court found in addition to Rider being a "paid plaintiff," that the lawsuit was "frivolous and vexatious."

Humane Watch has the early part of the story where ASPCA ended up paying almost $10 Million to Feld Entertainment:
http://www.humanewatch.org/aspca_settlement/

H$U$ put their usual misleading spin on the issue claiming the actual merit of their abuse claim was never addressed - see definitions for 'frivolous' 'vexatious' and 'groundless.' See what you think about that? I mean, they only agreed to the settlement so it wouldn't cost anyone anymore money to finally, someday prove they aren't lying... though why then the U.S. District Court ruled the case was "frivolous," "vexatious," and "groundless and unreasonable from its inception." and included payout on the racketeering case?? H$U$ also 'called on' the circus to put all the money towards helping elephants without mentioning their 14 year long frivolous, vexatious and groundless lawsuit including RICO Act violation cost the circus something like $25 Million in legal fees. H$U$ and their fellow radical animal rights buddies are just paying Feld Entertainment back for the enormous burden they put on them in their groundless case that included racketeering charges showing a payment went to the paid off witness from a check signed by H$U$ CEO Wayne Pacelle, though H$U$ said they were never actually involved in the case... H$U$ also assured their donors (still to this day) that the money to pay off this lawsuit would come from their insurers not donor money... then why is H$U$ still suing their insurers because the insurers dumped them in 2010 and refuse to pay?? The "animal rights groups failed to disclose to the public was that they'd been told four years before that their insurance companies would not provide coverage. The balking insurance companies included the National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Travelers and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co." Uh oh, could someone be telling a fib? Or two? Or ten?? "The entire lawsuit was based on either misleading or outright false statements of fact," according to a lawyer for Feld Entertainment.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/animal-rights-groups-that-paid-circus-15.7-million-file-suit-against-insurers-who-cancelled-them-in-2010/article/2550518

Doesn't this sound familiar to all of us hunters and anglers? Apparently, some legislators are not aware of Google because maybe they would be more likely to support us Michigan voter stewards of Michigan fish and wildlife over the Washington DC H$U$ if they knew the real H$U$... www.humanewatch.org?

[djkimmel]

Rep. Lamonte (Collene Lamonte, House District 91), having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted against this bill to protect the right of the people of the state of Michigan to have a vote on this issue and have their voices heard. Too often the politicians in Lansing have not allowed our democratic process to take place and have circumvented the ballot petition process to allow ballot proposals to be decided by voters. While I support many aspects of this bill, including allowing active duty military free hunting and fishing licenses, we should allow the voters of our state to decide."

These are my comments about Rep. Lamonte's statement: Once again, this tactic is straight from H$U$, and we all know how much we can trust their motives and agenda... No mention of Proposal G. No mention of why the NRC was formed in 1922, and why we had to create Proposal G in 1995-6 to stop radical animal rights in a similar attack. No mention that the NRC is a public body where the public actually has more opportunity to be heard on fish and wildlife issues than anywhere else. No mention that we FOLLOWED the Constitution too. Apparently only H$U$ gets to use our Michigan Constitution in Rep. Lamonte's mind... No mention that our lawful, appropriate use of the State Constitution DID let the voters decide - maybe not the 'voters' (can H$U$ vote in Michigan??) she is listening too.

Every voter has the same exact opportunity we did to follow our Michigan Constitution and run a citizens' initiative to create or change state law. It's not our problem if H$U$ doesn't actually have the support with both enough voters and state legislators to do the same thing we did successfully. Maybe Rep. Lamonte and the minority of representatives who chose to back the Washington DC H$U$ should put more time into pondering that!

[djkimmel]

Rep. Schor (Andy Schor, House District 68), having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this initiated law. I am not going to speak today on the issue of wolf hunting, or of the importance of scientific evidence in determining hunting. We have dealt with those issues twice already.

I rise today to oppose this initiated law protect the democratic rights of the people of this great state. I keep hearing that 350,000 people signed petitions for this, so we should vote on it. But that is disingenuous because a half a million people signed petitions to send the legislative equivalent to the ballot. If we have that many people signing petitions on both sides of this, then we should send this to the ballot and let the people decide.

I am not alone in calling for this. Several newspapers throughout the state have done so as well MLive Media Group has called on us to resist hijacking the public process and allow voters in November to decide whether wolf hunting should be controlled by the Legislature or by a commission appointed by the governor.

The Battle Creek Enquirer said 'It's difficult to imagine a more blatant contempt for the standards of honesty and the democratic process. The Legislature has no business imposing the will of a minority on the rest of the state. We beseech lawmakers in the House regardless of their personal view to put their trust in citizens'

The Lansing State Journal said the constitution allows the Legislature to act, but in this case it would be wise for lawmakers to send the question directly to the ballot.

The TC Record Eagle said that this is bad governance that is eroding citizens' confidence that they have any say in what happens in Lansing, and that it's sad to see lawmakers routinely trample the system just because they can.

The Livingston Daily said that since the public called for these questions by collecting a substantial number of signatures on petitions, voters should decide.

The Times Herald said that this is the Legislature acting against the public's right to decide important issues, and shows a contempt for ballot initiatives that legislators don't like. They said that this action is being done so that state voters can't have their say in November.

The Petoskey News actually titled their editorial 'When Democracy dies.' They said it appears the legislature just doesn't like it when citizens rise up to reject a policy the legislature supports. They say we are silencing those who signed the first two petitions by passing this.

So I ask - Why not send it to the ballot? What are supporters afraid of? The argument that I have heard is that the Humane Society has too much money and will confuse and misinform voters. Really? It is incredible to me that we are afraid of the power of the Humane Society but don't care about the millions spent in Michigan by oil industrialists to confuse and misinform voters.

I hope we will say to all residents of Michigan that we will give them a chance to vote on this like they have asked...whether or for against it. The only way to do that is to vote no on this Initiated Law and let it go to the voters."

These are my comments about Rep. Schor's statement: This was the most disturbing point of the whole day for me. Rep. Schor is my local state representative. I met with him personally twice. He let me explain some of our points and issues but I noted a number of times where he quoted directly from handout notes of H$U$. I got the impression they have his ear. I told him in a detailed noted shortly before the vote that there is no middle ground or gray area here. H$U$ is a radical animal rights anti-hunting, anti-fishing organization and everything they do serves that agenda. ANYONE who helps them with any part of their agenda is also serving their agenda.

Like several other elected officials, Rep. Schor told me he is not anti-hunting and he even takes his own children fishing sometimes but I told him the same thing I told other elected officials - if you serve the H$U$ agenda you cannot claim you are not anti-hunting because you ARE supporting their radical agenda. It doesn't matter to me WHY someone decides to support H$U$ in any way but you are still getting in bed with a radical animal rights, anti-pet, anti-hunting, anti-fishing organization that constantly misleads people about how their donations will be spent, and for what true purposes.

As I have mentioned, I cannot trust someone who doesn't do the most minimal due diligence to see who they are partnering with. Anyone who partners with H$U$ or similar groups is NOT a friend of Michigan hunting and fishing, or Michigan jobs and economy. Partnering with radical animal rights groups is counter to all that and counter to what is actually best for our natural resources. Period.

Rep. Schor sent me a detailed explanation by email moments before the SFWCA came up for vote so I knew he was going to vote no and support H$U$ over me, his actual local voter and Michigan citizen but I was still shocked and very disappointed to hear Rep. Schor get up and for all practical purposes act as spokesperson for the primary enemy to all Michigan hunting, fishing, trapping and our important scientific management of our natural resources. My only conclusion is that either Rep. Schor is actually sympathetic to the radical animal rights movement and they are a supporter of his, or Rep. Schor did zero due diligence to see whose side he was taking and what the actual real implications would have been for Michigan jobs, economy and natural resources if H$U$ managed our natural resources instead of you and me. Because that would be the real end result if H$U$ had their way this time. In supporting H$U$ for whatever reason, Rep. Schor is bad for Michigan's natural resources and I cannot support him. He doesn't support me, and claims to dislike abuses by the other party that he uses himself. That's disengenous.

We all learned at an early age that two wrongs don't make a right - how about that maybe being why people don't feel that they are heard in Lansing. I don't feel I was heard by my elected official. He was busy listening to H$U$ and his party. It is disengenous of Rep. Schor to claim he is acting for Michigan voters when he is actually acting for the Washington DC-based H$U$, and for his party ahead of our natural resources. Thank God the majority of House Representatives DID listen to us! Thank God some of them chose Michigan, hunters, anglers and our natural resources first, not the out-of-state H$U$!

We FOLLOWED the state constitution. H$U$ would have done the EXACT SAME THING we did too IF they had majority support in our Legislature. Don't let Rep. Schor or anyone else kid you about that. Thank God H$U$ does NOT have majority support or important Michigan natural resources would be in vastly more trouble. Rep. Schor has accomplished one thing well - it is more apparent than ever that we need to do whatever we must to continue keeping politics and emotion OUT of our natural resources management. Anyone, including newspapers, willing to ignore that we followed a similar but better process than H$U$ to act as if H$U$ and their sympathizers are somehow more angelic, deserving and honorable than us, or that we cheated H$U$ or anyone else, is NOT a friend of Michigan hunting, fishing or our natural resources.

At least our little special interest group is made up of actual Michigan voters who have a history of stewarding and maintaining and restoring our natural resources INCLUDING wolves while H$U$ has a history of lying, racketeering and claiming to be a humane society while taking money from people who apparently aren't aware only 1% of their money will actually go to kittens and puppies while 63% of their money will go towards raising more money. Where in ANY of that does H$U$ help Michigan animals in any way?

H$U$ can afford to get the same couple hundred thousand animal sympathizers and people who have never looked at what H$U$ actually does with their money to referendum our fishing and hunting away using these same tactics if we don't continue the process Michigan citizens way back in 1922 were smart enough to recognize, and reaffirm again in 1996 with Proposal G. They have almost $200 Million in assets thanks to all those people who give them money not knowing that only 1% of it ever goes towards puppies and kittens. H$U$ has proven they can trick enough citizens to vote against us and against what is actually best for our natural resources if we let them.

After all, if they can trick Rep. Schor into supporting them, they surely can trick some voters too. I'm going to vote for someone who will listen to me first before their party and before an out-of-state radical group like H$U$. Then I'm helping the Wildlife Council educate more voters about the real H$U$ and the real stewards of our natural resources so there are less voters and elected official who can be tricked in the future into supporting the radical animal rights agenda. People were smart enough in 1922 to form the NRC, and smart enough in 1996 to reaffirm. Lets make sure enough of us are smart enough now to know we must keep emotion AND partisan politics out of our natural resources management decisions.

[djkimmel]

There are two other House Reps. - Zemke and Howrylak - who spoke on why the voted no against the SFWCA. I will share them tomorrow.

Several of our Reps spoke in favor but their full statements were not recorded. I have a few notes on them and will share them tomorrow also. Reps LaFontaine, McBroom, Bumstead and Kivela I believe were the ones I recall who did a great job explaining why supporting the SFWCA is so important to Michigan.

[djkimmel]

Rep. Howrylak (Martin Howrylak, House District 41), having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no because the Natural Resources Commission should not be a final authority on the designation of a species as game, absent necessary reforms. The reforms to the Natural Resources Commission that I propose include the following: extensive professional and competency standards as pre-requisites for appointment to the commission and ensuring that decisions are subject to the right of referendum of the voters of the State of Michigan. It is imperative that commission members have a relevant background in conservation and science. Additionally, in its current form, the decisions of the commission are not subject to voter initiative/referendum because of its regulatory authority.

Absent these reforms to ensure that wildlife and wildlife management decisions truly are based on sound science, the commission should only act in an advisory capacity to the legislature in the matter of species game designation.

Furthermore, in the case of this initiated law, there are essentially two competing citizen-led questions. Ultimately, these items are best considered by the voters directly when there are two competing options presented."

These are my comments about Rep. Howrylak's statement: Another representative who seems to have no idea the NRC has been around since 1922, and was formed exactly so partisan politics and emotion would not screw up our natural resources management. The NRC didn't suddenly become broken, set up incorrectly or fail to do a good job just because H$U$ came to town and can't force them to do their bidding. But Rep. Howrylak seems to be sympathetic to poor H$U$'s failure to win this time.

I'm betting Rep. Howrylak knows very little about the NRC Commissioners either because their resumes tend to be incredible particularly in conservation and natural resources. They're caring people who do a much better job than H$U$ or partisan politicians would ever do. They are bound to listen to the MDNR and other experts, and the public. EVERY Michigan voter still has Constitutional rights through multiple means to seek laws if they don't go through the public NRC process for change. Pretending the NRC is untouchable seems like a joke let alone misleading.

The real issue is H$U$ has the ear of some politicians, and H$U$ is not happy that they have lost. Too bad. That's how our system works. If you're a radical outlier, even if you have almost $200 Million to spend, you still have to follow the various laws and regulations in place like anyone else and if you don't have a majority you may lose. Crying about it saying it isn't fair because you lost doesn't change that we all live under the same rules, laws and Constitution.

H$U$ lost and they apparently want people to think they were somehow cheated, not just lost because they DON'T have majority support. They don't. They lost. No matter who they can get to complain for them it doesn't change that we followed the Michigan Constitution AND had the majority, so we won this time. Sour grapes are sour grapes. Not someone else doing a bad job, broken or setup wrong.

The NRC was specifically created, and Michigan citizen voters have previously supported their setup, so partisan politicians like Rep. Howrylak who will listen to out-of-state radical special interests do not get to easily mess up our natural resources. And thank God for that! Because Rep. Howrylak doesn't get to make up rules along the way to support his friends (H$U$ apparently) by pretending he can just say how two competing 'citizen-led' questions are determined. We HAVE a state Constitution for that, or has he forgotten? We followed the Michigan Constitution (unlike Rep. Howrylak and his made up as you go along rules) and chose the more difficult and involved citizens' initiative, and we WON! Another pot calling the kettle black. His H$U$ friends don't like how it turned out so they are pretending there are other rules, laws or policies somewhere outside existing laws and our existing Constitution.

Nice try guys. Really. But YOU have to follow the same laws and Constitution we did, and not liking it doesn't change it. Don't know about you but I'm never fond of people who want the rules to only apply to everyone else while they feel they are allowed to make them up as they go along, and do whatever they need to get their way. They are accusing the majority in this case (which includes us because we ASKED our elected officials to pass the SFWCA) of the actual things THEY are doing. The NRC does not act as an advisory body to the Legislature and I'm very glad that is the case when we have people like Andy Schor and Martin Howrylak in there. Let's make sure that never changes. People can still follow the Constitution and other state law if they are able. If they're not, then they're not. That's how our system works. Maybe we need to send a few state reps for "extensive professional and competency standards" AND check if they "have a relevant background in conservation and science" before they can work on any laws or citizens' initiatives? Of course, these state reps already are subject to referendum, initiative and even recall. I like how he brings that up about the NRC without apparently considering the exact same SHOULD apply to him if he were to exercise any authority similar to the NRC. Bet he doesn't feel that he needs to be held to the same standards though... what do you think?

Of course, all of this is the same misleading total BS that H$U$ is infamous for spreading over every attack they make with the main goal to raise as much money from people who don't know who H$U$ really is, while damaging any hunting, fishing or other animal-related issues along the way as long as they can spend less than they take in. What's disturbing is that an elected official in Michigan would fall for H$U$ BS?? Ultimately, the voters did decide here! Except apparently Rep. Howrylak doesn't seem to consider Michigan voters who signed our petition as voters, nor does he seem to consider when voters PETITION his chamber to vote for them that that counts either (because his 'side' lost?). Apparently, Rep. Howrylak does consider H$U$ to be voters who weren't heard even though H$U$ is from Washington DC and therefore not even Michigan residents, and cannot vote. Nice to know out-of-state radical animal rights people count more for Mr. Howrylak than actual Michigan resident voters do...

[djkimmel]

Rep. Zemke (Adam Zemke, House District 55), having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted ney on todays proposal for several reasons, most importantly because of it's unethical intentions in attaching a $1M appropriation. This citizens initiative deliberately abuses the intention of the legal powers afforded by Michigan's constitution by attaching an appropriation to an initiative petition, SIMPLY to prevent the electorate from enacting a referendum on said petition.

I was literally told that this was the intention of the appropriation by the pro-wolf-hunting organizers of the citizens initiative petition just yesterday.

Regardless of one's thoughts on the hunting of wolves - the important thing that EVERYONE should take away from today's vote is that today is another example of the legislature taking away the will of the electorate to continue to express their opinion on an issue.

The democratic process - all of it - has existed and been successful for so long for a reason: because it allows the majority of a populous to put forward their will to make up our states' and nation's laws. This process is designed to mitigate 'politics' from convoluting the system and allowing a small group of individuals to trump the will of the majority of the people. Our states and nation are not intended to change quickly, and not intended to ever be complete. They're meant to be always be changing and to always empower our citizens to challenge their elected leaders decisions.

Today, we saw 65 of your elected officials send 100% of Michiganders a message: 'we feel that you shouldn't have the right to vote on an issue - the right afforded to you by your constitution.' I find that stance fundamentally wrong."

These are my comments about Rep. Zemke's statement: I've talked about the 'unethical' or however you want to term it practice of attaching things to bills. They do it all the time. It is related and so what if we did. The ONLY reason it is an issue right now with Zemke or anyone else is because it's an issue with their buddies at H$U$. We beat them, and they don't like it. I bet if H$U$ had the support to run a citizens' initiative (they would do one too in a split second if they thought they could pull it off) they would attach an appropriation too, and would Rep. Zemke then be against it? Interesting question it would be good to have an honest answer for.

We FOLLOWED the Constitution and we abused NOTHING. We just beat H$U$ and they don't like it, and apparently they have control over some of these state reps. Enough to get them to spread their stuff as thickly as H$U$ spreads it themselves. OMG - he was literally told we used the same system they use all the time, only better. The horror! The shame and abuse of this process comes from a Michigan elected official more concerned for the out-of-state radical animal rights nuts at H$U$ than he is for huge numbers of actual Michigan citizens and voters??

Rep. Zemke represents not only an out-of-state radical special interest group, he represents the minority, and he expects you and I to think the majority in the the legislature took away anything from anyone other than H$U$ and a minority of animal rights nuts who side with them. We worked with the system and we won with the majority. I can keep repeating it over and over. ANYONE has the same rights we do in using our Constitution and laws to seek change. They only have to have a majority of support. If they don't, they're probably going to lose. I hope they don't pretend they were cheated like some of these minority losers are because it's sad. Just sad.

Mr. Zemke proves he's a poor loser by referring to us as a 'small group of individuals' even though we had to collect 100,000 MORE signatures on our petition drive than the H$U$ kooks AND we had to have the MAJORITY in BOTH state chambers to vote within 45 days to win. All the fancy language and misleading claims doesn't change that we FOLLOWED the Constitution as anyone else can do, AND we had the majority support. Zemke not liking it doesn't change ANY of that. It just makes him look less like a leader and more like H$U$. That is not a compliment in case anyone missed that.

You don't get compliments from me by doing what he and his fellow H$U$ supporters have done by pretending there are some other rules somewhere that we have broken, as if we didn't follow the processes allowed by our state while H$U$ honorably did. Not. So he finishes by 'proving' we did something wrong by saying 65 state reps send 100% of Michiganders some message... well, what I hear clearly is the MAJORITY of our elected officials DID WHAT the CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED number of Michigan voters asked them by passing our SFWCA Citizens' Initiative sending a clear message that if you follow the Constitution AND you have enough support FROM MICHIGAN VOTERS you can have your will passed into law by your elected officials. EXACTLY as the CONSTITUTION ALLOWS! What I find fundamentally wrong is a MICHIGAN House member choosing to support the BS of an out-of-state radical animal rights, anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-pet group so far as to use their same misleading tactics to insinuate MICHIGAN voters and citizens did something wrong by FOLLOWING our Constitution. We deserve better.

[djkimmel]

As mentioned earlier we got great support in strong words from several state representatives on the final SFWCA vote August 27th in the Michigan state house.

Rep. LaFontaine (Andrea M. LaFontaine, House District 32) is always a strong supporter of Michigan hunting and fishing. She gave a great speech about our importance to Michigan and the need to keep scientific fish and wildlife management. She is a member of the Michigan Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus.

My favorite speech of the day was given in support of not only the SFWCA, but also in support of our proper use of our Michigan Constitution and some clarification at the state reps who chose to side with H$U$ instead of Michigan hunters and anglers. It was Rep. McBroom (Ed McBroom, House District 108) who really took them to task for accusing us (using H$U$ rhetoric of course) of so many dirty things that they themselves actually were guilty of - putting their party and an outside special interest group H$U$ before Michigan voters, picking and choosing who is allowed to use the available laws and Constitution, and accusing the majority reps and us of taking away the voters rights (more H$U$ rhetoric) while bowing down to a small special interest group (meaning us hunters and anglers).

Everything Rep. McBroom said with conviction and some reproach was what I was thinking about the entire hypocritical, lying and misleading attack led by H$U$, and these minority elected officials chose to go along with their hypocrisy while accusing us of the very things they were doing to us. The losers were fine allowing the larger number of voters in the Lower Peninsula to decide the fate and policies that directly effect the smaller number of persons in the Upper Peninsula but took great offense that the U.P. citizens and hunters and anglers would use a method that is allowed in our Constitution to make sure the voter majority wasn't tricked into taking advantage of the U.P. minority of voters.

As soon as we figured out how to work within our state law and Constitution to stop H$U$ from becoming the policy maker for Michigan hunting and fishing, their supporters yelled foul accusing us of all the things they were fine doing to us and U.P. voters. None of the reps who voted against the SFWCA stated anything that had to do with the actual purpose of the SFWCA other than a few comments about not arguing the merits of wolf hunting or not, or scientific management or not, or my favorite from I believe Rep. Vicki Barnett, House District 37, who started out by saying her husband and daughter hunt so she is not an anti-hunter, and then she proceeded to share the H$U$ misleading rhetoric that supports their anti-hunting agenda. No smart hunter will ever support H$U$.

This was all about partisan politics and emotion which led these outspoken politicians to support an out-of-state radical animal rights group known for spending much of the money it gets from people on things many of the people who donate do not expect their money to be spent on. They accused us of doing many of the very things they themselves actually did and Rep. McBroom made it clear he did not like it. I completely agreed with him and told him afterwards that I thought he gave one of the most honest, direct and accurate political speeches I've ever heard. I'm glad someone said it for everyone to hear.

The exact reasons the NRC was created in 1922, and Proposal G was passed by 63% of Michiganders in 1996 and Public Act 21 was signed into law in May 2013 were to keep people willing to allow things like emotion and partisan politics from destroying our natural resources for their own selfish, personal ends. Hunters and anglers have been the real stewards and supporters of our great natural resources, and we need to keep it that way as long as people can chose what they want over what's best for our fish and wildlife - the very things they always accuse us of even though we are the reason our resources our in such great shape NOT them.

Vote Yes on Proposals 1 and 2, and think hard about voting for anyone who would support the H$U$ and other radical animal rights agendas for ANY reason. The end result will be the same regardless of the excuses.

[jcox7]

Dan,
     I was wondering a few things first off on the frontage of the website it says the NRC still gets scientific fish and wildlife management back regardless of the outcome of the vote?  Why is this?  Secondly and this is no bash on anything I can not find the answer that explains this question enough why should we ever vote for anything that takes the power of the people by the way of voting away, the way I read the proposed prop is that the NRC would have complete authority over all when it comes to fishing and hunting and the legislation would have no power.  Without the legislation having power wouldn't we as citizens be putting all of our trust in the NRC which we have no power over.  I could be wrong I don't not understand why I or any voter would give absolute power to anyone or group that we have no power in controling?  I do not believe that this HSUS group are good and I agree they are using money to attempt to "scare" us but giving total power to a different group who says they are in our corner today is kind of scary if I am reading things right.  Thank for all the info you are putting out there most of it is helpful but kind of overwhelming.  Thanks!!