(File Photo)
LANSING, MI -- Wolf hunting remains on indefinite hold in Michigan, but an opposition group is seeking to overturn a new law that could pave the way for future hunts if federal protections are lifted.
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed a lawsuit in the state Court of Claims last week. The complaint contends that a "citizen-initiated" law approved by the Legislature last year violates the Michigan Constitution in three distinct ways.
The Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, sent to lawmakers via petition drive as wolf hunting opponents worked to overturn two other laws, affirmed the ability of the Natural Resource Commission to name game species and establish hunting seasons.
The act violates the "title-object" requirement of the Michigan constitution by failing to reference wolves or the NRC, according to the lawsuit. It also violates the "single-object" rule by including highly diverse provisions, per the complaint, and does not include the full text of other laws it amended.
"It was passed for the sole reason of circumventing a citizen referendum on the issue of wolf hunting and to allow the unelected Natural Resource Commission to designate wolves as a game species so they could have their hunt."
Michigan lawmakers approved the wildlife management act in August prior to a statewide referendum on two separate wolf hunt laws, which voters chose to repeal in November. The new act took effect in March.
Drew YoungeDyke, a spokesperson for the Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management committee that led the petition drive for the new law, said his group fully expected the suit -- and fully expects it to fail.
"We knew they would attack it this way from the beginning," YoungeDyke said. "We've analyzed it pretty thoroughly, and we don't think they have much of a claim."
The funding to fight invasive species and the provision offering free licenses to military members serve the "primary goal" of the law, he said. And if a judge does strike down any part of the law, YoungeDyke noted that it includes a "severability" clause designed to keep other provisions in place.
"It was only about the wolves for the anti-hunting groups," he said. "For us, this was never just about wolves. It was about managing our fish and wildlife populations with sound science."
Michigan held its first -- and only -- wolf hunt in late 2013, a year after the federal government removed the Great Lakes population from the endangered species list. There was no hunt in 2014, when voters chose to overturn enabling laws.
Wolf hunting was put on indefinite hold in December, when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell reinstated federal protections for wolves, putting them back on the endangered species list and essentially blocking local control efforts.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appealed the ruling, and legislation introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to delist the gray wolf by reinstating earlier decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michigan Republican Reps. Dan Benishek and Tim Walberg are among the co-sponsors.
Other federal lawmakers, including several Michigan Democrats, have joined calls for the USFWS to "down-list" grey wolves by reclassifying them as a threatened species, which would give states some flexibility to kill or remove nuisance wolves.
Michigan's Upper Peninsula is home to slightly more than 600 wolves, up from just six in the 1970s. Hunting advocates argue the growing population warrants stronger management to reduce conflicts with livestock and comfort levels around humans, but critics argue that hunting could reverse recent gains.
While Michigan wolves currently enjoy federal protections, Fritz said the federal legislation underscored her group's decision to fight the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act in court.
"This is not just about wolves," she said. "It's a power grab to eliminate public participation in decisions regarding wildlife management. It could also allow the Natural Resource Commission to designate any number of other non-game species as game."
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed a lawsuit in the state Court of Claims last week. The complaint contends that a "citizen-initiated" law approved by the Legislature last year violates the Michigan Constitution in three distinct ways.
The Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, sent to lawmakers via petition drive as wolf hunting opponents worked to overturn two other laws, affirmed the ability of the Natural Resource Commission to name game species and establish hunting seasons.
The act violates the "title-object" requirement of the Michigan constitution by failing to reference wolves or the NRC, according to the lawsuit. It also violates the "single-object" rule by including highly diverse provisions, per the complaint, and does not include the full text of other laws it amended.
PDF: Read the full legal complaint from Keep Michigan Wolves Protected"Nowhere did it say, 'Sign here so that the wolf hunt will be able to continue,' which is exactly the purpose of this act," said Jill Fritz, head of KMWP and state director of the Humane Society of the United States.
"It was passed for the sole reason of circumventing a citizen referendum on the issue of wolf hunting and to allow the unelected Natural Resource Commission to designate wolves as a game species so they could have their hunt."
Michigan lawmakers approved the wildlife management act in August prior to a statewide referendum on two separate wolf hunt laws, which voters chose to repeal in November. The new act took effect in March.
Drew YoungeDyke, a spokesperson for the Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management committee that led the petition drive for the new law, said his group fully expected the suit -- and fully expects it to fail.
"We knew they would attack it this way from the beginning," YoungeDyke said. "We've analyzed it pretty thoroughly, and we don't think they have much of a claim."
The funding to fight invasive species and the provision offering free licenses to military members serve the "primary goal" of the law, he said. And if a judge does strike down any part of the law, YoungeDyke noted that it includes a "severability" clause designed to keep other provisions in place.
"It was only about the wolves for the anti-hunting groups," he said. "For us, this was never just about wolves. It was about managing our fish and wildlife populations with sound science."
Michigan held its first -- and only -- wolf hunt in late 2013, a year after the federal government removed the Great Lakes population from the endangered species list. There was no hunt in 2014, when voters chose to overturn enabling laws.
Wolf hunting was put on indefinite hold in December, when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell reinstated federal protections for wolves, putting them back on the endangered species list and essentially blocking local control efforts.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appealed the ruling, and legislation introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to delist the gray wolf by reinstating earlier decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michigan Republican Reps. Dan Benishek and Tim Walberg are among the co-sponsors.
Other federal lawmakers, including several Michigan Democrats, have joined calls for the USFWS to "down-list" grey wolves by reclassifying them as a threatened species, which would give states some flexibility to kill or remove nuisance wolves.
Michigan's Upper Peninsula is home to slightly more than 600 wolves, up from just six in the 1970s. Hunting advocates argue the growing population warrants stronger management to reduce conflicts with livestock and comfort levels around humans, but critics argue that hunting could reverse recent gains.
While Michigan wolves currently enjoy federal protections, Fritz said the federal legislation underscored her group's decision to fight the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act in court.
"This is not just about wolves," she said. "It's a power grab to eliminate public participation in decisions regarding wildlife management. It could also allow the Natural Resource Commission to designate any number of other non-game species as game."
No comments:
Post a Comment