Pinefarm
01-24-2002, 10:27 AM
ERIC SHARP: Dove hunting allowed in Wisconsin; will Michigan be next?
January 24, 2002
BY ERIC SHARP
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Pssst, Michigan legislators. Don't look now, but Wisconsin just won a court decision that will let our neighboring state hold its first dove hunt next fall.
Now that Wisconsin is the 33rd state to allow its citizens to hunt the nation's most popular game bird (and one of the tastiest), maybe Michigan legislators can figure out that we're long overdue for a dove season.
Doves already are hunted in our neighbors to the south, Indiana and Ohio. Several thousand Michigan hunters travel to those states just to shoot doves. I go nearly every fall and can assure you that a lot of Michigan money winds up in places like Mongo, Ind.
With Wisconsin now in that group, don't you think we should add doves to our list of game birds as well? Or maybe you would prefer to see several thousand more hunters from the Upper Peninsula drive across our northwestern border to spend Michigan dollars in Wisconsin.
Make no mistake -- dove hunting would prove a windfall for small towns all across Michigan, probably on the same scale as turkey hunting, which has become a wonderful spring revenue-producer for places like Mio, Fairview and my own home of Grayling.
The dove season in most northern states opens Sept. 1, two weeks before Michigan's usual small-game season. But unlike grouse and duck hunting, which usually improve as the season goes on, most dove hunters go out only for the first couple of days.
The easiest way to establish a dove season would be to pass the House bill sponsored by Rep. Cameron Brown, R-Sturgis, which would transfer from the Legislature to the Natural Resources Commission all decisions about which critters should be game animals.
Complaints from animal-rights activists about transferring game status decisions to the politically liable NRC are disingenuous. Animal-rights groups just want to keep the decisions in the politically liable Legislature, where they have more clout.
Hunters who worry about giving such power to the Natural Resources Commission, which could be dominated by an anti-hunting governor, aren't thinking clearly. First, there are enough hunters in this state to prevent the election of an anti-hunter. And second, look at the situation we're facing now. Do you think it's easier to sway more than 100 elected legislators than seven appointed officials? The first time a governor appointed an anti-hunting type to the NRC, hunters would be all over him or her.
And for all you non-hunters out there who are concerned about anything happening to the doves that come to your backyard feeders, forget it. A huge number of those doves will be dead by the next spring whether we hunt them or not, killed by hawks, foxes, house cats, each other and bad weather. And yet because they have two to six broods a year, there will be just as many doves the next season.
Animal rights isn't about conservation or the science of ecology. It's a religion whose adherents don't want to see anyone kill any animal for any reason. What they really want is a ban on the sale of all animal proteins in supermarkets and on the use of animal skins for clothing.
They whine about those things on occasion, but they realize that the vast majority of Americans aren't about to give up meat and leather. So the animal rightists carry on a running battle with hunters because that gets them attention from the "Film at 11" crowd, which is more interested in what news looks like on film than in its relative importance.
The people of Michigan passed Proposal G in 1996 to give the NRC management authority over all game species despite a full-court press against it by the animal-rights groups. The voters passed the proposal because they recognized that the NRC and the Department of Natural Resources would base their decisions not on religious grounds but on principles of sound scientific management.
The animal-rights activists are worried about Brown's bill because they know that even if a majority of people oppose dove hunting when asked their opinions in a poll, that same majority will simply shrug it off if the Legislature votes to give the NRC power to decide what animals are game species.
Something that really bothers me is the hunters who oppose a dove hunt. From the phone calls and e-mails I get, most seem to be deer hunters. State Rep. Susan Tabor, R-Delta Township, who almost got a dove-hunting bill passed last year, said hunters need to recognize that the animal-rights people use a divide-and-conquer strategy against the hunting community.
"Hunters need to support each other," she said. "The animal-rights people don't really care about protecting mourning doves. What they care about is stopping a new form of hunting. If hunters are worried about the NRC becoming anti-hunting, they need to understand that Rep. Brown's bill gives the Legislature veto power over the NRC's decisions.
"Hunters need to realize that every time the animal-rights people win, we lose a little. Hunters who say we don't need to hunt doves should remember that we don't need to hunt pheasants or turkeys or ducks, either."
If Brown's bill doesn't pass, Tabor said, she's still prepared to introduce a bill to make the mourning dove a game bird.
"It's ridiculous," she said, "that a bird that's listed as a songbird in Michigan becomes a game bird as soon as it flies over the border on its way south for the winter."
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.
January 24, 2002
BY ERIC SHARP
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Pssst, Michigan legislators. Don't look now, but Wisconsin just won a court decision that will let our neighboring state hold its first dove hunt next fall.
Now that Wisconsin is the 33rd state to allow its citizens to hunt the nation's most popular game bird (and one of the tastiest), maybe Michigan legislators can figure out that we're long overdue for a dove season.
Doves already are hunted in our neighbors to the south, Indiana and Ohio. Several thousand Michigan hunters travel to those states just to shoot doves. I go nearly every fall and can assure you that a lot of Michigan money winds up in places like Mongo, Ind.
With Wisconsin now in that group, don't you think we should add doves to our list of game birds as well? Or maybe you would prefer to see several thousand more hunters from the Upper Peninsula drive across our northwestern border to spend Michigan dollars in Wisconsin.
Make no mistake -- dove hunting would prove a windfall for small towns all across Michigan, probably on the same scale as turkey hunting, which has become a wonderful spring revenue-producer for places like Mio, Fairview and my own home of Grayling.
The dove season in most northern states opens Sept. 1, two weeks before Michigan's usual small-game season. But unlike grouse and duck hunting, which usually improve as the season goes on, most dove hunters go out only for the first couple of days.
The easiest way to establish a dove season would be to pass the House bill sponsored by Rep. Cameron Brown, R-Sturgis, which would transfer from the Legislature to the Natural Resources Commission all decisions about which critters should be game animals.
Complaints from animal-rights activists about transferring game status decisions to the politically liable NRC are disingenuous. Animal-rights groups just want to keep the decisions in the politically liable Legislature, where they have more clout.
Hunters who worry about giving such power to the Natural Resources Commission, which could be dominated by an anti-hunting governor, aren't thinking clearly. First, there are enough hunters in this state to prevent the election of an anti-hunter. And second, look at the situation we're facing now. Do you think it's easier to sway more than 100 elected legislators than seven appointed officials? The first time a governor appointed an anti-hunting type to the NRC, hunters would be all over him or her.
And for all you non-hunters out there who are concerned about anything happening to the doves that come to your backyard feeders, forget it. A huge number of those doves will be dead by the next spring whether we hunt them or not, killed by hawks, foxes, house cats, each other and bad weather. And yet because they have two to six broods a year, there will be just as many doves the next season.
Animal rights isn't about conservation or the science of ecology. It's a religion whose adherents don't want to see anyone kill any animal for any reason. What they really want is a ban on the sale of all animal proteins in supermarkets and on the use of animal skins for clothing.
They whine about those things on occasion, but they realize that the vast majority of Americans aren't about to give up meat and leather. So the animal rightists carry on a running battle with hunters because that gets them attention from the "Film at 11" crowd, which is more interested in what news looks like on film than in its relative importance.
The people of Michigan passed Proposal G in 1996 to give the NRC management authority over all game species despite a full-court press against it by the animal-rights groups. The voters passed the proposal because they recognized that the NRC and the Department of Natural Resources would base their decisions not on religious grounds but on principles of sound scientific management.
The animal-rights activists are worried about Brown's bill because they know that even if a majority of people oppose dove hunting when asked their opinions in a poll, that same majority will simply shrug it off if the Legislature votes to give the NRC power to decide what animals are game species.
Something that really bothers me is the hunters who oppose a dove hunt. From the phone calls and e-mails I get, most seem to be deer hunters. State Rep. Susan Tabor, R-Delta Township, who almost got a dove-hunting bill passed last year, said hunters need to recognize that the animal-rights people use a divide-and-conquer strategy against the hunting community.
"Hunters need to support each other," she said. "The animal-rights people don't really care about protecting mourning doves. What they care about is stopping a new form of hunting. If hunters are worried about the NRC becoming anti-hunting, they need to understand that Rep. Brown's bill gives the Legislature veto power over the NRC's decisions.
"Hunters need to realize that every time the animal-rights people win, we lose a little. Hunters who say we don't need to hunt doves should remember that we don't need to hunt pheasants or turkeys or ducks, either."
If Brown's bill doesn't pass, Tabor said, she's still prepared to introduce a bill to make the mourning dove a game bird.
"It's ridiculous," she said, "that a bird that's listed as a songbird in Michigan becomes a game bird as soon as it flies over the border on its way south for the winter."
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.