Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
11-03-2006, 06:35 AM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,693
Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
How are you going to vote on Proposal 3 (doves)?
Also, what'll it be, Mr. Amway, or the commie Granhag?
It should be obvious I'm not voting for Granholm, and my vote will be yes on 3.
Also, what'll it be, Mr. Amway, or the commie Granhag?
It should be obvious I'm not voting for Granholm, and my vote will be yes on 3.
11-03-2006, 09:36 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: in the woods or on the water...
Posts: 4,832
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
I will not be voting because of my age, but here is my opinion.
I would not hunt doves, but vote yes on Prop. 3
I would vote for Devos as governor of our state.
I would not hunt doves, but vote yes on Prop. 3
I would vote for Devos as governor of our state.
11-04-2006, 01:47 AM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location:
Posts: 87
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
IMO this is not an issue of question --- The hsus is a threat to all hunting, and when they attack, as they are now, hunters need to support one another.
-----
The following piece is addressed towards the non hunter and those who are undecided on proposal 3, if you find it useful, pass it on, in full or in part, to freinds, family, relatives co workers, people you meet on the street, etc.
------
To the fine folks of Michigan,
Opponents of proposal 3 have been attempting to convince you that there is no good reason to shoot morning doves with commercials claiming that they are backyard songbirds, too small to eat, and are not nuisances.
I am now going to provide you with a couple of very good reasons to vote YES on proposal 3
To best exemplify these reasons, perhaps it might be beneficial to first provide some brief insight on hunting, especially for those who are not hunters and who may perhaps be mis-informed about hunting.
1) Vote YES ON 3 for the benefit of wildlife.
First of all this issue is not about dove shooting. It's about dove hunting. Please do not be misled. Shooting is obviously a part of hunting, however there is much more to hunting than just shooting. Most of us enjoy watching wildlife, including hunters. In fact a comprehensive 2001 federal wildlife service survey showed that 58% of Michigan hunters participate in non consumptive wildlife watching. So much for claims of this being a so called hunters vs bird watchers argument.
Approximately a century ago however many wildlife species common today were endangered, primarily from destruction of habitat and an activity, different from hunting as it exists today, called market hunting. Recognizing that something needed to be done, else risk losing several species forever a group of dedicated persons, hunters, including President Teddy Roosevelt set forth to preserve these species and began a process we know today as wildlife conservation. Market hunting was abolished, treaties were formed with our neighboring countries, wildlife preserves were created, and various other programs implimented.
Perhaps two of the most important wildlife conservation measures taken occurred in the 1930's.
In 1934 congress passed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, which requires hunters who pursue migratory game birds to annually purchase a special federal wildlife conservation stamp. Funds generated from this stamp have preserved over five million acres of essencial wetlands habitat for wildlife, including 1/3 of our nation's endangered species. While required for migratory game bird hunting, federal "duck" stamps may be purchased by anyone. In fact today 13% of "duck" stamps are purchased by non hunters who recognize the important benefits of this wildlife preservation program. Many, if not all, states also incur various similar stamps whose funds also benefit wildlife.
In 1937 the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed which attaches an excise tax on hunting equipment, with funds dedicated towards various wildlife benefitting programs such as habitat restoration, biological research, education, and the management of over forty million acres of wildlife management lands. Excise taxes on fishing equipment were added in 1950 through passage of the Dingell-Johnson act to increase wildlife benefitting revenues even more.
In fact when you combine license fees and excise taxes paid by sportsmen, along with direct voluntary donations, sportsmen contribute $1.5 BILLION in funding for wildlife conservation efforts annually.
As it pertains to proposal 3 the allowance of dove hunting will certainly help increase this type of wildlife beneficial funding.
-----------------------------------------------------
2) VOTE YES ON 3 to support the proper management of wildlife.
In conjunction with the previous section on hunters and their important contribution towards wildlife conservation, it means little unless wildlife is properly managed. Decisions for such management are best performed by qualified professionals. To briefly use an off topic analogy for a moment, when you seek medical care, I think it would be safe to assume that you would desire that it be provided by well trained doctors who specialize in addressing your specific needs. So why not give wildlife similar consideration and have decisions on its management be done by those best qualified. Experienced wildlife biologists and similar associated professionals?
As for how the process of hunting itself plays a role in wildlife management, it is important point to note here that in spite of insinuations by dove hunting opponents, hunting has never been restricted to those species which are overpopulated or to when a species becomes a nuisance.
Hunting serves different forms of wildlife in different ways. For certain species which can pose a threat of becoming overpopulated or becoming nuisances, hunting serves best when it is a proactive and preventive measure. Not as a reaction after problems have occured. Many locations where wildlife thrives are areas where hunting takes place. Species thrive because the culling of potential excess animals prevents many problems from occuring.
For other species where the potential for over population and nuisance problems to occur are reduced, hunting is still beneficial, but in a slightly different way.
Hunters are in essence an extra set of eyes and ears for wildlife officials often providing valuable information for biologists and their research. In Michigan and several other states many hunters participate in what is called the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP). This program augments migratory bird surveys by providing additional and more detailed data for biologists to use in their research.
One thing important to note here is that Michigan's DNR, nor any other state agency would allow the hunting of a species if it thought that the practice of hunting was a threat to that species. To better help ensure that dove hunting would not be a threat to doves in Michigan, after legislation was passed in 2004 to allow for a mourning dove season, the DNR decided not to go all out and open the entire state of Michigan to dove hunting but rather chose to establish a restrictive three year dove hunting experiment to better evaluate the effects of dove hunting before considering any potential expansion of dove hunting, whether it be its season time and/or length, its locations, and the number of birds that may be harvested. To me that represents proper wildlife management.
Finally, wildlife management however requires funding. Biologists, game wardens, researchers, and the various projects incured by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are not free. So where does this money come from ? Well the answer is hunters. In fact hunters fund 95 percent of the Department of Natural Resources' budget to pay for the many professionals, their projects, and for the land we protect for the benefit of wildlife. Lands that are available for use and enjoyment by all outdoor enthusiasts, hunter and non hunter alike. Dove hunting increases this revenue, and subsequential benefits to wildlife by providing additional DNR funding.
So there you have it. That good reason to vote YES on 3
For the benefit of wildlife and its proper management ---
PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSAL 3
Tim4Trout
-----
The following piece is addressed towards the non hunter and those who are undecided on proposal 3, if you find it useful, pass it on, in full or in part, to freinds, family, relatives co workers, people you meet on the street, etc.
------
To the fine folks of Michigan,
Opponents of proposal 3 have been attempting to convince you that there is no good reason to shoot morning doves with commercials claiming that they are backyard songbirds, too small to eat, and are not nuisances.
I am now going to provide you with a couple of very good reasons to vote YES on proposal 3
To best exemplify these reasons, perhaps it might be beneficial to first provide some brief insight on hunting, especially for those who are not hunters and who may perhaps be mis-informed about hunting.
1) Vote YES ON 3 for the benefit of wildlife.
First of all this issue is not about dove shooting. It's about dove hunting. Please do not be misled. Shooting is obviously a part of hunting, however there is much more to hunting than just shooting. Most of us enjoy watching wildlife, including hunters. In fact a comprehensive 2001 federal wildlife service survey showed that 58% of Michigan hunters participate in non consumptive wildlife watching. So much for claims of this being a so called hunters vs bird watchers argument.
Approximately a century ago however many wildlife species common today were endangered, primarily from destruction of habitat and an activity, different from hunting as it exists today, called market hunting. Recognizing that something needed to be done, else risk losing several species forever a group of dedicated persons, hunters, including President Teddy Roosevelt set forth to preserve these species and began a process we know today as wildlife conservation. Market hunting was abolished, treaties were formed with our neighboring countries, wildlife preserves were created, and various other programs implimented.
Perhaps two of the most important wildlife conservation measures taken occurred in the 1930's.
In 1934 congress passed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, which requires hunters who pursue migratory game birds to annually purchase a special federal wildlife conservation stamp. Funds generated from this stamp have preserved over five million acres of essencial wetlands habitat for wildlife, including 1/3 of our nation's endangered species. While required for migratory game bird hunting, federal "duck" stamps may be purchased by anyone. In fact today 13% of "duck" stamps are purchased by non hunters who recognize the important benefits of this wildlife preservation program. Many, if not all, states also incur various similar stamps whose funds also benefit wildlife.
In 1937 the Pittman-Robertson Act was passed which attaches an excise tax on hunting equipment, with funds dedicated towards various wildlife benefitting programs such as habitat restoration, biological research, education, and the management of over forty million acres of wildlife management lands. Excise taxes on fishing equipment were added in 1950 through passage of the Dingell-Johnson act to increase wildlife benefitting revenues even more.
In fact when you combine license fees and excise taxes paid by sportsmen, along with direct voluntary donations, sportsmen contribute $1.5 BILLION in funding for wildlife conservation efforts annually.
As it pertains to proposal 3 the allowance of dove hunting will certainly help increase this type of wildlife beneficial funding.
-----------------------------------------------------
2) VOTE YES ON 3 to support the proper management of wildlife.
In conjunction with the previous section on hunters and their important contribution towards wildlife conservation, it means little unless wildlife is properly managed. Decisions for such management are best performed by qualified professionals. To briefly use an off topic analogy for a moment, when you seek medical care, I think it would be safe to assume that you would desire that it be provided by well trained doctors who specialize in addressing your specific needs. So why not give wildlife similar consideration and have decisions on its management be done by those best qualified. Experienced wildlife biologists and similar associated professionals?
As for how the process of hunting itself plays a role in wildlife management, it is important point to note here that in spite of insinuations by dove hunting opponents, hunting has never been restricted to those species which are overpopulated or to when a species becomes a nuisance.
Hunting serves different forms of wildlife in different ways. For certain species which can pose a threat of becoming overpopulated or becoming nuisances, hunting serves best when it is a proactive and preventive measure. Not as a reaction after problems have occured. Many locations where wildlife thrives are areas where hunting takes place. Species thrive because the culling of potential excess animals prevents many problems from occuring.
For other species where the potential for over population and nuisance problems to occur are reduced, hunting is still beneficial, but in a slightly different way.
Hunters are in essence an extra set of eyes and ears for wildlife officials often providing valuable information for biologists and their research. In Michigan and several other states many hunters participate in what is called the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP). This program augments migratory bird surveys by providing additional and more detailed data for biologists to use in their research.
One thing important to note here is that Michigan's DNR, nor any other state agency would allow the hunting of a species if it thought that the practice of hunting was a threat to that species. To better help ensure that dove hunting would not be a threat to doves in Michigan, after legislation was passed in 2004 to allow for a mourning dove season, the DNR decided not to go all out and open the entire state of Michigan to dove hunting but rather chose to establish a restrictive three year dove hunting experiment to better evaluate the effects of dove hunting before considering any potential expansion of dove hunting, whether it be its season time and/or length, its locations, and the number of birds that may be harvested. To me that represents proper wildlife management.
Finally, wildlife management however requires funding. Biologists, game wardens, researchers, and the various projects incured by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are not free. So where does this money come from ? Well the answer is hunters. In fact hunters fund 95 percent of the Department of Natural Resources' budget to pay for the many professionals, their projects, and for the land we protect for the benefit of wildlife. Lands that are available for use and enjoyment by all outdoor enthusiasts, hunter and non hunter alike. Dove hunting increases this revenue, and subsequential benefits to wildlife by providing additional DNR funding.
So there you have it. That good reason to vote YES on 3
For the benefit of wildlife and its proper management ---
PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROPOSAL 3
Tim4Trout
11-04-2006, 08:41 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Waterford, MI.
Posts: 307
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
I probably will not dove hunt, but I will vote yes on 3 not because it is an attack on hunting and the first wave of anti assault on hunting. I will vote yes because many years ago we voted on Propostion G to allow the NRC and DNR manage our wildlife and game animals, this was in response to the closing of bear season (another assault)in Michigan. Proposition G was passed and I feel that the dove issue flies in the face of of Proposition G. What should be looked at is the Judge who placed the injunction on the dove hunts and allowed signatures to be gathered and this issue placed on a ballot. If he was elected to his post he should be recalled or lose in an election. If he was appointed to his post the elected offical that appointed him should lose in their next election.
11-04-2006, 02:27 PM
#5
Spike
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Byron Center, MI
Posts: 88
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
I will probably never be a dove hunter either, but I'll be voting yes on Prop. 3. Here's a quote from HSUS President Wayne Pacele. "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the U.S....We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped..." I want these animal rights nuts stopped now. They don't deserve a foothold in infringing our rights. I'll also be voting for DeVos. Because of these reasons: His name is not Jennifer Granholm,he is pro-gun, and he is pro-life.
11-04-2006, 11:05 PM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wayne Co. Michigan
Posts: 203
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
I probably wont be doing any dove hunting but I think as a sportsman I would be a fool not to vote for Proposal 3. Its not about dove hunting for me, its about hunting in general. I will vote yes for proposal 3. As for governor im still on the fence and really dont care for either candidate.
11-06-2006, 09:45 AM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,693
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
Tim, good info. Thanks for the post. Makes sense.
I would never hunt doves, but as pointed out by others, by voting against it would only be siding with the antis that want to ban hunting altogether.
As for the governor vote, neither candidate is ideal, but which one wants your guns? That alone is reason enough to vote against Granholm.
I would never hunt doves, but as pointed out by others, by voting against it would only be siding with the antis that want to ban hunting altogether.
As for the governor vote, neither candidate is ideal, but which one wants your guns? That alone is reason enough to vote against Granholm.
11-07-2006, 09:04 AM
#10
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hoosier Country, Baby!
Posts: 1,710
RE: Michiganders: Should we have dove hunting?
Well, I ain't in Michigan, I'm in Indiana, but all of my inlaws live in Michigan and I just returned from Saginaw on Sunday. There are a TON of proposal 3 signs up. I think the biggest message that needs to be gotten across is this isn't at ALL about dove hunting, it's about saving our sport. I was happy to hear all of the radio advertisements for this Proposal 3... Michigan is SATURATED with sportsmen, so it's a good time for them to use their right to vote to KEEP their right to hunt!
Good luck Michigan! We currently have dove hunting here in Indiana, and we do go for opening weekend. It's pretty fun, if you guys get passed, you should give it a go...
Good luck Michigan! We currently have dove hunting here in Indiana, and we do go for opening weekend. It's pretty fun, if you guys get passed, you should give it a go...