Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2012 Senate Bill 1350: Authorize gray wolf hunting season

Public Act 520 of 2012

  1. Introduced by Sen. Tom Casperson (R) on October 17, 2012, to authorize a gray wolf hunting season.
    • Referred to the Senate Natural Resources, Environment & Great Lakes Committee on October 17, 2012.
      • Reported in the Senate on November 27, 2012, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Howard Walker (R) on November 29, 2012, to create a state "wolf management advisory council". The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on November 29, 2012.
  2. Passed 23 to 15 in the Senate on November 29, 2012.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on November 29, 2012.
    • Referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on November 29, 2012.
      • Reported in the House on December 4, 2012, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on December 11, 2012. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 11, 2012.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Frank Foster (R) on December 11, 2012, to add to a declaration in the bill that “the wildlife populations of the state and their habitat are of paramount importance to the citizens of this state” a clause asserting that this is also important to the state’s native American tribes. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on December 11, 2012.
  4. Passed 66 to 43 in the House on December 12, 2012, to authorize a gray wolf hunting season.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D) on December 14, 2012.
  6. Passed 27 to 11 in the Senate on December 14, 2012, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on December 28, 2012.

Comments

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 1350 (Authorize gray wolf hunting season )  by normmackey on December 1, 2012 
If you like SB 1350, you'll love the original version of SB 996.

Before committee it would have reimbursed coyote and wolf hunters for injury to dogs being used to hunt coyotes and wolves.

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 1350 (Authorize gray wolf hunting season )  by normmackey on December 1, 2012 
Is a net loss better than no revenue generated? And if someone funds a referendum that wins, they've helped Michigan's voters with their right to be heard, haven't they? Still who pays? Taxpayers or from hunting fees, is it offensive to ask?

And what do you mean manage by science? I know a little of animal breeding at least, and unless I hear an explanation, it sounds fishy.

Wolves breed in packs. you shoot them at random out of all the packs you make the packs all smaller. You get almost as many litters of new hungry pups that the adults feed. Arithmetic says if you remove a third of the wolves you just increase the number of litters and pups per adult next spring by a third.

Remove the third of the wolves in the smallest packs you get the minimum number of packs and reproduction rate, good I think. Remove the whole third in the largest packs and you still have reduced the number of packs some.

Can you tell me why hunting isn't the worst, most unscientific way of picking which wolves to remove?

Worse, Sen Casperson has changed the usual "sound scientific management" wording in HB5834, and specified in Proposal G for all game, and as specified for bear, etc, to simply "sound management" in SB1350. The DNR cannot tell me what the legal effect of this change is, whether it overrides Proposal G and specifies a particular kind hunt as sound management instead of whatever the NRC decides the science says. I can't get a straight answer, while it is pushed through in a lame duck session.

All so we can produce as hungry as possible and "desperate" wolves as quickly as possible?

Every once in a while you have to not do something just because it's the wrong thing to do. Not morally, just incorrect. And expensive too.

There is already a $10million nongame wildlife fund that could pay for needed directed removal of wolves with $6million in an interest bearing trust. All they have to do is not declare them game animals.

(Are you saying that Democrats are city people and Republicans represent the U.P.? I'm shocked)

Anyway, the wolf hunt proposal seems to be an openly promoted policy of Boone and Crockett and Safari Club International calling for wolves to be considered game animals throughout their North American range, in Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota and western states. They are not outside groups or special interests?

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 1350 (Authorize gray wolf hunting season )  by John450 on November 30, 2012 
The current program of wolf management doesn't generate any revenue at all so this would be an improvement.

"does it include costs of court challenges and a likely referendum vote"

So what you're saying is that because out-of-state special interests and animal rights groups might sue us or fund a ballot initiative, we shouldn't manage our wildlife based on science? Every once in a while- you have to do something simply because its the right thing to do.

Also, its kind of interesting that the "No" votes are all city people and the senators that actually represent the folks are dealing with having wolves in their backyards supported it. Maybe the Yoopers are right- they'd be better off if they could cut themselves off from the Lower Peninsula. Then they wouldn't have people who know nothing about their world controlling their lives.

View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.