Here's why we lost...

[Linda G.]

From this morning's Free Press:

"The Free Press polling showed sharp differences between men and women, with 79% of women voting against dove hunting, compared to 56% of men, who said no."

I knew that most of the yes votes would be cancelled out by uninformed wives...

We are NOT reaching the women in this state, regardless of all the efforts with WITO programs, etc.

If we don't watch out, uninformed women will rule the world...perhaps sooner than we think. Jennifer's back...what's wrong with this state??? Watch out, Hillary's right around the corner.

In many ways, I think they do already. Being female, I can say all this, whereas, the guys will be accused of discrimination.

My thanks to Barbara, Chris, Sue and all the INFORMED women who fought so hard for Proposal 3.

We tried.

I am going duck hunting, right now, before they take that away because ducks have such pretty feathers and sweet calls.

[Gobblerman]

Well said Linda.

Just to prove a point I have a female manager who works for me and yesterday when I spoke with her she said she voted no for proposal 3, after I explained it to her she said "Oh if I knew that I would of voted yes".

Next up for the Human Society will be to get rid of Bow Hunting. Who knows what our future in the outdoors will be now. I can see it now, all of those who feed deer in their backyards will vote yes to cancel bow hunting because of the BAMBI effect.

Just a bad day. I did my venting.:mad:

[Shimmelfinny]

Your right, better hunt those ducks now, because I hear they are song birds!

What a depressing day.:sad:

[theredmission]

Sad day, but I don't see bow hunting being the first thing they'll be after. There is too much financial and historical evidence that backs up bowhunting. However I do see them going after trapping soon.

[Horseshoe]

It certainly is a sad day. I don't understand how voters support giving the DNR the right to manage game based on sound science, and then say "oh, not when it applies to doves". Purely emotional as far as I can see.
I did what I could with my own wife, as well as several at my work place. I was surprised when talking to some that they had heard the "pro" side at all. As far as they knew hunters just shot them and left them in the field to rot. I had a bad feeling when I got that response. As a sportsman I was pummelled with pro side information, but obviously it did not get out to the general public as well.

[part timer]

I know that we are frustrated about the results of the Prop 3 initiative. However, I do think it is unfair and perhaps ignorant to blame this on 'uninformed' voters. I personally spoke to several women and men who wanted to know the facts and science about doves and dove hunting. They appeared to carefully consider the data and yet some still determined they would vote 'No'. They simply didn't feel there was a compelling need to hunt doves. If we brand everyone that doesn't support our positions 'ignorant' or 'uninformed' (both terms I've read today) we do nothing to create understanding and shut down further dialogue.

[Linda G.]

perhaps you should have worked on them as to why we should even have a need...when did hunting come down to strictly food, predation, or crop depredation??

What happened to sport? Are we afraid to admit we LIKE IT???

Isn't it better than sitting in front of the TV, running the streets, turning into the vegetables that we are rapidly becoming??

[beer and nuts]

Lesson learned...Kinda think alot of the volunteers were "preaching to the choir" and I mean no disrespect to anyone...but handing out pamphlets at Cabelas, bass pro, jays and other sporting good stores was fine but targeting the wrong voters. And I think this was an organization problem, where we should have been was outfront supermarkets, Walmarts, banks, post offices, gas stations anywhere allowed that would have been rec'd by the general public. I do think a ton of support came from the anit's TV ads($$$) and of course poor and wrong media coverage(was there a fax campaign to media outlets??), it killed me everytime I heard "songbird" even if the story was neautral or positive for Prop. 3, the key word/catch-phrase in this was "songbird". Anyways, a big 'Thanks' to everybody that told 1000 people or just tried to talk to their co-workers....next time this can not happen...

[tdduckman]

When what we hunt and fish is based on "need" we will all lose


The following species do not Need hunting but do just fine with it.

Pheasants
Ducks
Quail
Woodcock
Grouse
Rabbits
squirrels

Please note that quail, teal, woodcock are all way to small to eat based on the HSUS formula.


:dizzy:



When we stop using population sustainabilty and replace it with Need to hunt criteria
We will end up with :

Whitetail does only hunt

Goose managment hunts (unless we oil eggs instead)

there is your NEED based hunting program:rant:


the fact that I have to explain this to a "Hunters" (used very lightly)

this was, and Is the problem

TD

[mparks]

Pretty well sums it up Linda. I don't think it's just uninformed women though.

Every non-hunter I know was voting no on 3. They fell that shooting a dove is like shooting a robin or some other song bird. I guess it's hard to educate them on the long tradition of doves being a sporting bird that so many other states have enjoyed for so long. Most of us read about dove hunting in other states in our national outdoor magazines and I think we have a little different view.

[tmanmi]

I was going say it was the city vote that caused this proposal to be defeated but I went and checked out the results for my county on http://www.electionmagic.com and discovered that it was defeated in every city or township in the county with about a 2:1 average across the board. I thought that it would pass in the rural farming townships. I don't think there is a 2:1 women to men ratio in the county so I'm not sure were the problem lies. One city had 112.31% percent of their registered voters vote on this proposal.:confused:

[ont-canuck]

I believe that Proposal 3 was lost for a few reasons:

1. The pro-3 groups concentrated on a "this is the end of hunting" gloom and doom campagin instead of the facts - the voters did not buy such pure propaganda and scare tactics. Ask John Kerry how well it worked for him in the last presidential election!

2. The pro-3 campaign wasted its resources and efforts by campaigning in areas where they had already won instead of targeting undecided, neutral voters where gains could have been made. A few radio commercials on country music stations, yards signs in rural areas, and a "get out to vote" campaign on hunting internet sites and magazines was simply preaching to the choir, compared to the opposition who had TV ads reaching almost every urban non-hunter undecided voter.

[Boscoboo]

I feel we lost because we had know leadership on this issue. We had over 2 years to prepare for this fight, yet MUCC kept saying you don't want to start to early. Well we waited & after a screwed up sweepstakes which was to be our fund raiser. We had know way to run ads to inform those uninformed women & men of our side of the issue. The arrogance of MUCC & the other organizations involved is terrible. They thought they'd ride in on there white horse & change everyones mind at the last minute. Well they were wrong. It takes time effort & leadership to accomplish changing peoples minds. I aggree we may never have changed the uninformed voters minds but when we don't even present our side of the story we can't expect to change anyones mind.

[bullcan]

I came into hunting later in life, about 30 when I started. I remember reading an article in a hunting magazine about dove hunting. I remember thinking why would you hunt a dove? Sounded dumb to me. Over time I have become more educated about it, but it took a bit for me to accept it. This was an uphill battle all the way.

[GVDocHoliday]

I know that we are frustrated about the results of the Prop 3 initiative. However, I do think it is unfair and perhaps ignorant to blame this on 'uninformed' voters. I personally spoke to several women and men who wanted to know the facts and science about doves and dove hunting. They appeared to carefully consider the data and yet some still determined they would vote 'No'. They simply didn't feel there was a compelling need to hunt doves. If we brand everyone that doesn't support our positions 'ignorant' or 'uninformed' (both terms I've read today) we do nothing to create understanding and shut down further dialogue.

Proposal 3 was to allow the DNR to find this data. We allowed housewives and old people to basically kick our ass in this prop race. Not to mention that douchebag in the Tigers hat on the TV commercials...anyone else just want to punch that guy? I mean what a retard...target practice? Give me a break, hell three doves in a crockpot stew will feed a family of 4. I can't believe that invalid fool dared to disrespect the great English 'D' in that add...dang I think that ticks me off more than anything.

[Rudi's Dad]

Lesson learned...Kinda think alot of the volunteers were "preaching to the choir" and I mean no disrespect to anyone...but handing out pamphlets at Cabelas, bass pro, jays and other sporting good stores was fine but targeting the wrong voters. And I think this was an organization problem, where we should have been was outfront supermarkets, Walmarts, banks, post offices, gas stations anywhere allowed that would have been rec'd by the general public. I do think a ton of support came from the anit's TV ads($$$) and of course poor and wrong media coverage(was there a fax campaign to media outlets??), it killed me everytime I heard "songbird" even if the story was neautral or positive for Prop. 3, the key word/catch-phrase in this was "songbird". Anyways, a big 'Thanks' to everybody that told 1000 people or just tried to talk to their co-workers....next time this can not happen...

I second that, putting a sign in your yard didnt change one mind. We all needed to talk to NON HUNTERS in a pleasant, non confrontational way and explain how dove hunting would happen.
Truth is, going from memory about a failed attempt 10-15yrs ago the DNR was going to NOT recommend dove hunting North of U.S. 10.

[Bunny]

I voted yes on 3 and I am a woman and a hunter. I was surprised it failed by such a large margin. I got my softball team to all vote yes on 3 by educating them. A woman I work with that deer hunts (gun only) she said she was going to vote no on 3. So I asked why, she said nobody should be allowed to hunt doves. Which really isn't a reason. But it's ok for her cats to stalk her bird feeders. We hear from her almost daily that her cat got a bird off her bird feeder. Go figure!

[TrailFndr]

This issue lost because of lousey planning, wrong advertising, and a simply mis-managed campaign. The locals went against the national spending of HSUS and lost. We were outspent, out manuvered, and out slicked in advertising. Over the past several months, I have heard perhaps 2 ads promoting Prop. 3. I have seen and heard Hundreds against it. That is why it lost. We failed to get the message out, they succeded.

Our message should have been to allow the manegment experts in the DNR to make these type of decisions based on science. I know we did that once...I still don't understand why this ever went to a vote, which overrides what prop G was supposed to fix.

This issue was not about a Dove hunt, and never was. It should have been about sound scientific manegement of our natural resources.

[tdduckman]

As someone who spent 2 of my hunting weekends speaking to people at cableas I would have to say that educating non-hunters was not the problem.


The problem was the vast majority of deer hunters did not care. if they had this would have passed.

I spoke to an unreal amount of "hunters" who siad they were voting no.


I had one guy wearing an MCGRO hat, who claimed to be a "hunter of 40 years" who called me a liar when I said that my family ate the doves we shot in indiana



so if this guy gun owner, hunter can't be shown the light, what chance did we have with non-hunters


We have met the enemy and he is us.



One thing is certain when we lost the swepstakes we lost the ability to raise money no money no TV.


No TV you lose

TD

[STEINFISHSKI]

I guess what really gets me is we have an unfounded ballot initiative to allow every uninformed voter to decide on the dove hunt issue. Meanwhile we have a paid staff of biologists who are experts and support dove hunting as a management tool. In actuality the monies would have improved habitat, food plots, paid these staffed bioligists, and we would have seen more doves, not less if the hunting were allowed. Not to mention the economic benefits which would help in a trying time in Michigan.

The people have spoken clearly.

[Whit1]

Sad day, but I don't see bow hunting being the first thing they'll be after.

Be a moderator in the whitetail forums and read the number of posts where members lament about wounding and not finding a deer going into far too much detail even for this hunter. A couple of those threads made me shudder in dismay as to why any bowhunter would post such apparently true comments in an open forum.

A member said it best, IMO when they commented..........to paraphrase........How the heck do you expect us to help you find that deer. We weren't there. We don't know the area. We have no idea what really happened (the shooter's eyes and description given are not the most reliable.

Am I turning a blind eye to the unpleasant side of bowhunting...and firearms hunting, certainly not. However there needs to be some caution and restraint about what's being posted on the site.

As for why the dove proposal failed it wasn't because of women's vote, poor campaign, lack of money, etc. it was doomed to failure from the outset due to the topic at hand. By putting that issue to a vote hunters have handed the antis a huge morale building and pointed victory. This isn't the end and we'll see more of these issues in the future. You can bet your last dollar on that. Hunters need to be smart and quite frankly, by putting the dove issue on the ballot we weren't smart.

[One Eye]

Where were "our" national organizations when they were needed? Local volunteers were left to battle better funded and better organized professional campaigners. It is time to take stock in the organizations you support with your money. Determine what their true mission is and then support as you see fit.

It was very hard to work on non-hunters when many of us HAD to spend time convincing hunters first. I talked a lot of women into supporting this once they understood what it was really all about.

I say that we need to take the fight to them with a state constitutional amendment transferring the management of all wildlife (game and non-game) to the DNR.

Dan

[7MM Magnum]

I just CAN'T beleive that this proposal did NOT pass !! :mad: :rant:

I just got off of work and picked up a paper to see what all happened. :16suspect

For my household I KNOW that both my wife and myself voted YES !

I'd like to find that so called "Hunter" who made that commercial that aired every so often on TV against Dove hunting,.... a piece of MY mind I'd give him !! :mad: :rant:

[Tim4Trout]

I'm working on my own response as to why we lost, but in the meantime I'd like to take a break and share a post from another forum.

Originally posted at BOWSITE by Autumnarcher........ ....... Date: 07-Nov-06


I've sat back and read most, but not all of this thread. Had an interesting conversation this morning with a couple of guys at work regarding Prop 3, Dove hunting and the way both sides have marketed their side of the arguement.

Both are non hunters. Not anti, just non hunters with little to no knowlege about hunting issues. Both, based on what they have heard in the media regarding Prop 3, voted no.

When I asked why, they resounded the usual reasons that they had heard repeatedly so often. target practice, not food, etc. After I had the chance to ecplain all that correctly for them, they both shook their heads and said if they knew that, they would have voted differently.

In further discussion, one told me he gets tired and doesnt buy in to the "sky is falling" tact taken that if we vote no on 3 then all hunting will fall next. He told me flat out that approach flat doesnt work, scaring him into a vote. He asked, why, if all the claims of HSUS and the rest were so baseless, why we didnt spend more time/money refuting that, instead of scare tactic campaigning. I didnt have an answer, otherthan to explain that we as a hunting community dont have the financial war chest the antis do. Like or not, the add with flopping dove, and the one with the "hunter" in the Tigers ballcap was also convinving enough to the non hunter to sway them against Prop3.

Heres my thoughts. And I'm not bashing those organizations that fronted our side on this issue, just merely making my observations on this issue. First,game management by ballot box is the worst place to make these decisions. We need to market our side of issues such as this without the doom and gloom tactics that the sky is falling and stick to facts. Our facts easily refute anti hunting rhetoric, we flat havent gotten it out enough. I still hold hope that common sense will prevail by the end of today, but I'm not sure it will.

One question I have, is how much money was put forth by the US Sportsmans Alliance on this one? We obviously need to look at how we can access the big media, TV, radio and newspapers better to get our facts before the 80% of the population that dont have a personal interest in hunting issues that ultimately will decide these issues for us.

I and my family voted yes, and hope we reached a lot more than it appears before this is over.

[mrblugil]

one single ad to refute the so called "hunter" that said doves were songbirds an shouldn't be hunted,seemed like it was left up to the individuals hunters to get their message across and that didn't work,to me the shooting an hunting fishing clubs in this state hung us out to dry,remember that the next time you pay your dues:confused: :mad: :fish:

[7MM Magnum]

one single ad to refute the so called "hunter" that said doves were songbirds an shouldn't be hunted,seemed like it was left up to the individuals hunters to get their message across and that didn't work,to me the shooting an hunting fishing clubs in this state hung us out to dry,remember that the next time you pay your dues :confused: :mad: :fish:


Ya' know,... neither did I ! :rant:

What happened to some supporting efforts from MUCC, SCI,... etc. to help blast some information regarding PRO Dove hunting. I don't recall seeing ANY ads in rebuttal to that so called "HUNTER" one !! :mad: :irked: I kept waiting to see one come on right after theirs (I'm assuming it was a H.S.U.S. ad)

I got so @#$^ pissed when I saw there wasn't any ad to rebut. :mad:

[Freestone]

I'll admit my wife voted no on 3. No matter how much time I spent explaining the issue to her she didn't seem to care. "You guys have enough animals to hunt" was all she said. So it isn't only some hunters who didn't care about the issue. I think most people who didn't have an opinion voted no on it.

[wally-eye]

Where the hell is the outrage against Gov. Granholm. It is entirely her fault that the dove bill was on the ballot to begin with.

If she would have signed the bill as presented to her it would have been up to the DNR to set a dove season. She only signed the bill WITH a caveat that it be placed on the ballot.

Why is no one talking about that????????????????

She is no friend of the sportsmen of the state.................

[7MM Magnum]

Where the hell is the outrage against Gov. Granholm. It is entirely her fault that the dove bill was on the ballot to begin with.

If she would have signed the bill as presented to her it would have been up to the DNR to set a dove season. She only signed the bill WITH a caveat that it be placed on the ballot.

Why is no one talking about that????????????????

She is no friend of the sportsmen of the state.................

I totally AGREE with you,... that's one of the MANY reasons I voted for the other guy! (her absconding over 1 MILLION bucks from the DNR account to help her balance the budget,... along with schools monies) :mad: :rant: :mad:

[Ranger Ray]

Hunters need to be smart and quite frankly, by putting the dove issue on the ballot we weren't smart.
Exactly!

[Tim4Trout]

Folks.

Hunters put the dove issue to the legislature

Anti hunters were the ones who put the dove issue on the ballot

[Tim4Trout]

My take ( or should I say My RANT )

Many previious posts have made some very good points. Now I'd like to add a few of my own.

How many people here besides me were involved in 2004 Maine bear campaign ?

A) --- When we won in Maine in 2004, we had the following plusses on our side.

1) Trapping, hound hunting, and especially bear baiting were already well entrenched. ---- If Maine hunters take 3,000, bears annually 80 percent will be taken over bait, often involving guides, many who make the bulk of their money from bears, and subsequently benefitting the rural local economy where hunting occurs. Thus you had businesses both directly and indirectly involved with much at stake rallying together to defeat the hsus.

In Michigan however with dove hunting having been limited to just a one year restricted location experiment, we simply did not have a solid local foundation behind us. ( The hsus likes to push their referendums where they feel there are easy targets. That is why they've gone after pig gestation crates in places like Florida and Arizona rather than places like Iowa or Nebraska. Places where they see little opposition. Heck their Florida campaign in 2002 closed down all of 2 facilities. ) Do you think that we would have done so poorly if dove hunting had been in Michigan for a decade with low income rural "farm" counties looking forward to dove season with hunters boosting the regional economy by spending money at local motels, shops and restaurants ?

2) In Maine, members of the MDIF&W ( Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ), including their leading bear biologist, were heavily involved in support of their wildlife management procedures. Several "town" meetings and "debates" were held across the state where the public could meet directly with wildlife officials and/or pose direct questions to parties fighting for both sides of the issue.

In Michigan, did anyone from the DNR speak on our behalf ?, either officially or individually ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the DNR take a neutral position, essencially leaving us to fend for ourselves instead of promoting the fact that dove hunting would have had many beneficial impacts, even if with a ripple effect, on wildlife and its management ? Were they prevented or something from speaking out by legal means?

B) We were up against a proverbial juggernaut

The hsus has pushed over 20 referendum campaigns against sportsmen, not to mention several other animal related venues. They have been at it for over 16 years. They have the experience on their side.

Since losing in 2004, they have absorbed both the fund for animals and doris day animal foundation to increase both their monetary power and clout.

For how many posting here, and those involved at MUCC and at CWCMI was this your first referendum battle with the hsus ? ( I know that some may have battled for bear baiting back in 1996 )

Like an expansion team in professional sports who often do not perform well the first season, some involved needed to get their feet wet.

The next time, even though we just got our butts kicked, the experience you've gained, along with the wake up call can be beneficial --- It is not a matter of "if" they will push another referendum against sportsmen, but rather when, where, and what. It may be in Michigan. But it may also be somewhere's else. It may involve doves, but it may also involve something like high fence hunting which often divides many hunters on issues of ethics and fair chase.

Will you be prepared?

Will you be there to help ? To provide insight to another group of sportsmen who may find themselves in a similar boat, up against a well oiled machine, hesitant to acts not knowing for sure just which way to proceed ? Even if that insight is simply to warn them from your experience about potential pitfalls to avoid.

Will you spend the next few years, brooding with doom and gloom waiting for the return of Satan Pacelle and his cronies, or will endeavor to learn more about the hsus, how they cleverly ply their evil trade and work to develop ideas and a contingency plan ahead of time on just how to defeat them ?

C) We failed miserably to promote our position to the people.

Sans lack of money, advertising, and too much preaching to the chior ( all viable problems ) there is another place where we perhaps could have done much better at promoting our position, and likely AT LITTLE OR NO COST :(

Right here on the internet. Using a simple thing called meta tags.

Basically a meta tag is a code placed into the html coding of a web page which search engines use to locate specific web pages on the internet.

Here is what I am talking about ... If you don't know html don't worry about the Greek, I'll endeavor to explain in a moment.

OUR HTML --- CWMCI

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" -->
<title>Citizens for Wildlife Conservation</title>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {
margin-left: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
.style1 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #566422;
}
.style2 {color: #003a78}
.style9 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; }
.style11 {font-size: 14px; color: #FFFFFF; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold; }
.style12 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;
color: #566422; }
.style13 {font-size: 12px}
a {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #003a78;
}
a:visited {
color: #003a78;
}
a:hover {
color: #003a78;
}
a:active {
color: #003a78;
}
.style14 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; }
-->
</style>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript1.2" src="stmenu.js"></script>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
<!--
function MM_openBrWindow(theURL,winName,features) { //v2.0
window.open(theURL,winName,features);
}
//-->
</script>
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" -->
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style18 {font-size: 14px}
.style19 {color: #FF0000}
-->
</style>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
</head>

THEIR HTML -- Stop Shooting Doves

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" -->
<title>Stop Shooting Doves Home</title>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" -->
<link href="master.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<meta name="Description" content="Vote NO on Proposal 3 to restore the more than
100-year-old ban on shooting Michigan mourning doves." />
<meta name="Keywords" content="Proposal 3, dove shooting, dove shooting ban, dove hunting ban, mourning dove shooting, dove hunt, dove hunting, mourning dove hunting, protect doves, protect mourning doves, Michigan doves, Michigan dove hunting, Michigan dove shooting, Michigan bird hunting, Michigan hunting, Michigan ban on shooting doves, Michigan ban on hunting doves, Michigan voter registration, register to vote in Michigan, NO on Proposal 3, Committee to Restore the Dove
Shooting Ban " />
</head>

HTML 101 --- In html, they use what are called tags very similar to how you might use a UBB tag here to make a quote, or make bold text , except that instead of ] and [ they use > and <


Within what is called the HEAD tag, they insert what are called meta tags.

meta name="Description"

meta name="Keywords"

As you can see from the above html, the enemy used such meta tags, especially the keyword tag with numerous words and phrases about the issue they were promoting.

Search engines like google and yahoo use these tags when you search the internet.

Go to google and do a search for Michigan Dove and see what comes up.

I don't know about you but I see stop shooting doves, but where is CWMCI ?

If it's missing it's because they used attention grabbing meta tags and we did not.

Thus when people searched the internet, their message was right there on page 1 of that google search where our message was who knows where.

Now I'm no html expert, nor am I an expert on meta tags, but perhaps with a few design changes to the CWMCI web site maybe we could have reached out and delivered our message to many more voters.

-----

I could go on, but I'll close by saying that if we stick together and work at it, next time the results could be quite a bit different.

Don't hope. Take action.

[contrary2ordinary]

My take ( or should I say My RANT )

Many previious posts have made some very good points. Now I'd like to add a few of my own.

How many people here besides me were involved in 2004 Maine bear campaign ?

A) --- When we won in Maine in 2004, we had the following plusses on our side.

1) Trapping, hound hunting, and especially bear baiting were already well entrenched. ---- If Maine hunters take 3,000, bears annually 80 percent will be taken over bait, often involving guides, many who make the bulk of their money from bears, and subsequently benefitting the rural local economy where hunting occurs. Thus you had businesses both directly and indirectly involved with much at stake rallying together to defeat the hsus.

In Michigan however with dove hunting having been limited to just a one year restricted location experiment, we simply did not have a solid local foundation behind us. ( The hsus likes to push their referendums where they feel there are easy targets. That is why they've gone after pig gestation crates in places like Florida and Arizona rather than places like Iowa or Nebraska. Places where they see little opposition. Heck their Florida campaign in 2002 closed down all of 2 facilities. ) Do you think that we would have done so poorly if dove hunting had been in Michigan for a decade with low income rural "farm" counties looking forward to dove season with hunters boosting the regional economy by spending money at local motels, shops and restaurants ?

2) In Maine, members of the MDIF&W ( Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ), including their leading bear biologist, were heavily involved in support of their wildlife management procedures. Several "town" meetings and "debates" were held across the state where the public could meet directly with wildlife officials and/or pose direct questions to parties fighting for both sides of the issue.

In Michigan, did anyone from the DNR speak on our behalf ?, either officially or individually ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the DNR take a neutral position, essencially leaving us to fend for ourselves instead of promoting the fact that dove hunting would have had many beneficial impacts, even if with a ripple effect, on wildlife and its management ? Were they prevented or something from speaking out by legal means?

B) We were up against a proverbial juggernaut

The hsus has pushed over 20 referendum campaigns against sportsmen, not to mention several other animal related venues. They have been at it for over 16 years. They have the experience on their side.

Since losing in 2004, they have absorbed both the fund for animals and doris day animal foundation to increase both their monetary power and clout.

For how many posting here, and those involved at MUCC and at CWCMI was this your first referendum battle with the hsus ? ( I know that some may have battled for bear baiting back in 1996 )

Like an expansion team in professional sports who often do not perform well the first season, some involved needed to get their feet wet.

The next time, even though we just got our butts kicked, the experience you've gained, along with the wake up call can be beneficial --- It is not a matter of "if" they will push another referendum against sportsmen, but rather when, where, and what. It may be in Michigan. But it may also be somewhere's else. It may involve doves, but it may also involve something like high fence hunting which often divides many hunters on issues of ethics and fair chase.

Will you be prepared?

Will you be there to help ? To provide insight to another group of sportsmen who may find themselves in a similar boat, up against a well oiled machine, hesitant to acts not knowing for sure just which way to proceed ? Even if that insight is simply to warn them from your experience about potential pitfalls to avoid.

Will you spend the next few years, brooding with doom and gloom waiting for the return of Satan Pacelle and his cronies, or will endeavor to learn more about the hsus, how they cleverly ply their evil trade and work to develop ideas and a contingency plan ahead of time on just how to defeat them ?

C) We failed miserably to promote our position to the people.

Sans lack of money, advertising, and too much preaching to the chior ( all viable problems ) there is another place where we perhaps could have done much better at promoting our position, and likely AT LITTLE OR NO COST :(

Right here on the internet. Using a simple thing called meta tags.

Basically a meta tag is a code placed into the html coding of a web page which search engines use to locate specific web pages on the internet.

Here is what I am talking about ... If you don't know html don't worry about the Greek, I'll endeavor to explain in a moment.

OUR HTML --- CWMCI

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" -->
<title>Citizens for Wildlife Conservation</title>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {
margin-left: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
.style1 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #566422;
}
.style2 {color: #003a78}
.style9 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; }
.style11 {font-size: 14px; color: #FFFFFF; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold; }
.style12 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold;
color: #566422; }
.style13 {font-size: 12px}
a {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #003a78;
}
a:visited {
color: #003a78;
}
a:hover {
color: #003a78;
}
a:active {
color: #003a78;
}
.style14 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; }
-->
</style>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript1.2" src="stmenu.js"></script>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
<!--
function MM_openBrWindow(theURL,winName,features) { //v2.0
window.open(theURL,winName,features);
}
//-->
</script>
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" -->
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style18 {font-size: 14px}
.style19 {color: #FF0000}
-->
</style>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
</head>

THEIR HTML -- Stop Shooting Doves

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" -->
<title>Stop Shooting Doves Home</title>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" -->
<link href="master.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<!-- InstanceEndEditable -->
<meta name="Description" content="Vote NO on Proposal 3 to restore the more than
100-year-old ban on shooting Michigan mourning doves." />
<meta name="Keywords" content="Proposal 3, dove shooting, dove shooting ban, dove hunting ban, mourning dove shooting, dove hunt, dove hunting, mourning dove hunting, protect doves, protect mourning doves, Michigan doves, Michigan dove hunting, Michigan dove shooting, Michigan bird hunting, Michigan hunting, Michigan ban on shooting doves, Michigan ban on hunting doves, Michigan voter registration, register to vote in Michigan, NO on Proposal 3, Committee to Restore the Dove
Shooting Ban " />
</head>

HTML 101 --- In html, they use what are called tags very similar to how you might use a UBB tag here to make a quote, or make bold text , except that instead of ] and [ they use > and <


Within what is called the HEAD tag, they insert what are called meta tags.

meta name="Description"

meta name="Keywords"

As you can see from the above html, the enemy used such meta tags, especially the keyword tag with numerous words and phrases about the issue they were promoting.

Search engines like google and yahoo use these tags when you search the internet.

Go to google and do a search for Michigan Dove and see what comes up.

I don't know about you but I see stop shooting doves, but where is CWMCI ?

If it's missing it's because they used attention grabbing meta tags and we did not.

Thus when people searched the internet, their message was right there on page 1 of that google search where our message was who knows where.

Now I'm no html expert, nor am I an expert on meta tags, but perhaps with a few design changes to the CWMCI web site maybe we could have reached out and delivered our message to many more voters.

-----

I could go on, but I'll close by saying that if we stick together and work at it, next time the results could be quite a bit different.

Don't hope. Take action.

Did you send that suggestion to the CWMCI? Seems like someone over there shoulda taken the ball and ran with it.

[Tim4Trout]

Did you send that suggestion to the CWMCI? Seems like someone over there shoulda taken the ball and ran with it.

If you are talking about the meta tag thing, Unfortunately my pc was screwed up and I didn't catch our potential error until VERY recently.

But since we can't travel back in time to amend our mistakes, it is something to perhaps consider as we work towards building an insurmountable arsenal for next time.

[contrary2ordinary]

If you are talking about the meta tag thing, Unfortunately my pc was screwed up and I didn't catch our potential error until VERY recently.

But since we can't travel back in time to amend our mistakes, it is something to perhaps consider as we work towards building an insurmountable arsenal for next time.

I think a lot of people are second guessing right now. Looking back, I thought I did enough. I guess not.

[fasthunter]

Folks.

Hunters put the dove issue to the legislature

Anti hunters were the ones who put the dove issue on the ballot
That is true.

[Whit1]

Let's see, Gov. Jenny gets raked over the coals by MI hunters, getting the blame for the failure of Prop3 and she gets raked over the coals by The Humane Society of The United States.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html (http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html)

"When Granholm signed HB 5029 into law, animal protection groups cried foul: "Governor Granholm has gone back on her word to veto dove hunting legislation, and has signed a death warrant for millions of gentle mourning doves in Michigan," said Fund for Animals President Michael Markarian, now also an executive vice president with The HSUS. "It is absolutely appalling that she has thumbed her nose at Michigan voters, and that she is personally responsible for allowing the bird of peace to be blasted into pieces."

HSUS CEO and President Wayne Pacelle spoke for many Michigan residents when he said, "We wanted Granholm to preserve the century-old policy of protecting doves not for any person's personal gain or profit, but simply because it's morally wrong for people to shoot and kill these gentle birds as a casual act of target shooting.""

[fasthunter]

Let's see, Gov. Jenny gets raked over the coals by MI hunters, getting the blame for the failure of Prop3 and she gets raked over the coals by The Humane Society of The United States.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html (http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html)

"When Granholm signed HB 5029 into law, animal protection groups cried foul: "Governor Granholm has gone back on her word to veto dove hunting legislation, and has signed a death warrant for millions of gentle mourning doves in Michigan," said Fund for Animals President Michael Markarian, now also an executive vice president with The HSUS. "It is absolutely appalling that she has thumbed her nose at Michigan voters, and that she is personally responsible for allowing the bird of peace to be blasted into pieces."

HSUS CEO and President Wayne Pacelle spoke for many Michigan residents when he said, "We wanted Granholm to preserve the century-old policy of protecting doves not for any person's personal gain or profit, but simply because it's morally wrong for people to shoot and kill these gentle birds as a casual act of target shooting.""
I just read it. It's very interesting. I still don't see many hunters leaving behind something they killed though. Also skeet is practice animals aren't. Also so what if the recipe calls for 16 dove breasts. I wonder if they knew how many bluegill I kill every year to enjoy on my palate. I'm just preaching to the choir though. As a matter of fact I think this is my last dove post for a while. Everyone on these pretty much feel the same way as I do. Just other way's of looking at it. Know what I mean.

[Tim4Trout]

Also so what if the recipe calls for 16 dove breasts..

There was something about that in one of the online news editorials the other day. In a response, after finding what I believe was it at MI dovehunt.com I wrote that it also called for 4 cups of uncooked rice and a pound of mushrooms.

[fasthunter]

Ok I can't help but respond now. That is some seriousl twisting and leaving out words isn't it!!(By the humane society) How conveinient to leave out 4 cups of rice and a whopping lb of mushrooms!! Oh well, we know who's always doing the twisting anyway.;)

[KalamazooKid]

Our message should have been to allow the manegment experts in the DNR to make these type of decisions based on science. I know we did that once...I still don't understand why this ever went to a vote, which overrides what prop G was supposed to fix.

Can someone tell us the answer here? It's what I could never understand. What's to stop their next "initiatives"?:confused:

[Whit1]

Can someone tell us the answer here? It's what I could never understand. What's to stop their next "initiatives"?:confused:

It went to a vote because in Michigan, as in most states citizens have the opportunity to put forth ballot proposals if they get enough signatures on a petition and if they petitions are validated. It's as simple as that.

Another reason it went to a vote is because we as hunters pushed, pushed, and pushed for a dove season here in Michigan. Once it became a reality that opened Pandora's Box which is the pitfall of far too many ballot/proposition propoasals.

Look at that long, long list of groups and individuals who supported a dove hunting ban that's in another thread. It is daunting to say the least. THAT'S a part of the opposition that we faced.

What's to stop the next attempt? Nothing! They can get signatures on a petition and put these things to a vote. That's the way the citizens of this state, and most others, want it done. Keep in mind I said "attempt". I am not implying that all such proposals will be successful.

What we need to avoid is giving those groups ready made victories like we did with the unbridled insistence that we have a dove season here in Michigan.

The complainnts about various national and state organizations, magazines, etc. that we belong to contributing little, if any money, to promote a "Yes" vote, while valid, fail to understand that those organizations do not toss their money into what they see as causes that are lost from the beginning. They would rather point their resources at targets where there is a snowball's chance in hell of surviving and quite frankly, Prop3 was not one of those as evidenced by the 2 to 1 margin of defeat as well as the above mentioned long list of opponents.

[Sib]

From this morning's Free Press:

"The Free Press polling showed sharp differences between men and women, with 79% of women voting against dove hunting, compared to 56% of men, who said no."

I knew that most of the yes votes would be cancelled out by uninformed wives...

Pretty silly hypothesis when you consider if you eliminated the entire female vote the proposal would still have failed. The male vote was cancelled out by other male voters, 20+% more males voted against the hunt than voted for the hunt.

[contrary2ordinary]

Pretty silly hypothesis when you consider if you eliminated the entire female vote the proposal would still have failed. The male vote was cancelled out by other male voters, 20+% more males voted against the hunt than voted for the hunt.


Maybe, but it does show where the HSUS targeted their campaign.

[LarryA]

There have been many fine ideas. One not often mentioned is a contest between two opponents involves two aspects. It involves a defense and an offense. We have no offense. What makes HSUS strong is their bank account. We should be aiming our attacks at their money sources. We should be pushing factual articles about HSUS and their fund raising tactics in mainstream publications. We should be educating the women with pets exactly what HSUS goals are. We need to make HSUS the bad guys. Let's make them use their resources for defense. If we don't discredit them for what they are they will keep whittling away a little bit at a time. They will evenyually win. No one since the beginning of time has won a war by only responding defensively.

Yes, that is right, we are in a war for our very way of life.


Larry Atherton

[pescadero]

It went to a vote because in Michigan, as in most states citizens have the opportunity to put forth ballot proposals if they get enough signatures on a petition and if they petitions are validated. It's as simple as that.

Another reason it went to a vote is because we as hunters pushed, pushed, and pushed for a dove season here in Michigan. Once it became a reality that opened Pandora's Box which is the pitfall of far too many ballot/proposition propoasals.

Look at that long, long list of groups and individuals who supported a dove hunting ban that's in another thread. It is daunting to say the least. THAT'S a part of the opposition that we faced.

What's to stop the next attempt? Nothing! They can get signatures on a petition and put these things to a vote. That's the way the citizens of this state, and most others, want it done. Keep in mind I said "attempt". I am not implying that all such proposals will be successful.

What we need to avoid is giving those groups ready made victories like we did with the unbridled insistence that we have a dove season here in Michigan.

The complainnts about various national and state organizations, magazines, etc. that we belong to contributing little, if any money, to promote a "Yes" vote, while valid, fail to understand that those organizations do not toss their money into what they see as causes that are lost from the beginning. They would rather point their resources at targets where there is a snowball's chance in hell of surviving and quite frankly, Prop3 was not one of those as evidenced by the 2 to 1 margin of defeat as well as the above mentioned long list of opponents.

One of the things that was done in Oregon in an attempt to limit the initiative process may be very successful toward preventing these out of state organizations from pulling these power plays.

In Oregon the initiative process works the same, but they outlawed paying signature gatherers - as well as required all petition signature gatherers to be state citizens.

--
lp

[brdhntr]

One of the things that was done in Oregon in an attempt to limit the initiative process may be very successful toward preventing these out of state organizations from pulling these power plays.

In Oregon the initiative process works the same, but they outlawed paying signature gatherers - as well as required all petition signature gatherers to be state citizens.

--
lp
I see the makings of our own petition, there.

[JAG]

Proposal 3 was to allow the DNR to find this data. We allowed housewives and old people to basically kick our ass in this prop race. Not to mention that douchebag in the Tigers hat on the TV commercials...anyone else just want to punch that guy? I mean what a retard...target practice? Give me a break, hell three doves in a crockpot stew will feed a family of 4. I can't believe that invalid fool dared to disrespect the great English 'D' in that add...dang I think that ticks me off more than anything.

Did anyone see one commercial in favor of the dove bill? I did not see one. I'm sure there must have been some money donated FOR Prop 3. We got our *****es kicked because we just didn't believe it would be defeated. Let that be a lesson to US. The hunters in this state better become better organized or this will not be our only defeat. It will just be our first. Anyone interested in buying 5 orange tee shirts?

[boehr]

My opinion of why we lost. Look at some of the different threads and posts being made. How does the none hunting public perceive these type of statements. Yea, there are not a bunch of the non-hunting public reading these forums but do you think hunters are not talking about this same subject matter in stores, coffee shops, etc. You don't need to worry about the anti's if you get the non-hunting public on our side. Problem is we can't get the non-hunting public on our side because of the illegal activities, trespass etc, and when they hear us talking in public. We come off bad. That's why the dove proposal lost.

[fishbuster]

last nignt i posted on the wrong thread ( if the anti's win ) i should have been here. i felt that we as michigan sportsman did not step up to the plate financialy. i stated that we number about 750000 . but we only came up with $50000.00. thats not even 1.00/ hunter. it takes lots of money to protect our passion these days.if we were to donate 2.00/ month X 750000 the next time this type of situtation came up we,d have the money

[Tim4Trout]

If ya wanna see what our side raised and how we spent it, try these links.


http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cfr/dumpimages/2632491.pdf


http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cfr/dumpimages/2785561.pdf

[Barbara]

I think everyone working on it knew it wasn't going to pass. But they worked anyway. We educated a lot of people. Not enough, but people that won't need to be told next time. And maybe next time, more people will step up. We didn't have the money to fight them, but we should have had the manpower to be out there spreading the word and we didn't. Everyone wants to find a scapegoat, but there isn't one but ourselves.

We move on..there will be other battles.

[Linda G.]

Look at the numbers. More women voted in this state than men.

[boehr]

An example of our image that I talked about in my post above.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160378

[Riva]

are sometime one and the same.

IMHO, there is a lot of false bravado and puffery that get's posted to these anonomous Internet chatooms. Still, I have to believe that much of what is posted here is actually the way people act in the field--you for one would know that Boehr. Until the reality changes, there is simply no way that the image can change.

[RichP]

One of the things that was done in Oregon in an attempt to limit the initiative process may be very successful toward preventing these out of state organizations from pulling these power plays.

In Oregon the initiative process works the same, but they outlawed paying signature gatherers - as well as required all petition signature gatherers to be state citizens.

I think it would be an excellent idea to have something similar in Michigan.

While I know a lot of us here supported Prop 2, the opponents are probably just as miffed about the out-of-state money being used for that as we are for the funds used against us on Prop 3. Now would be the perfect time to get people to support a measure for deterring outsiders.

[alex-v]

The reason for the lose is that so many just refuse to become united.

How many different theads about the lose and what can be done. If the reader does not like the suggestion in one thread he or she then goes and looks for one they can agree with.

Do you think that HSUS follows that line of thinking when they loose? I really doubt it. They unify and sit down and study why they lost and work to change that. We have to unify and work to change the situation around.

[William H Bonney]

As for why the dove proposal failed it wasn't because of women's vote, poor campaign, lack of money, etc. it was doomed to failure from the outset due to the topic at hand. By putting that issue to a vote hunters have handed the antis a huge morale building and pointed victory. This isn't the end and we'll see more of these issues in the future. You can bet your last dollar on that. Hunters need to be smart and quite frankly, by putting the dove issue on the ballot we weren't smart.
Best statement yet.


As I said in another thread,, this bill didn't have a chance in hell of passing. I was surprised it was even that close. It never should have been on the ballot. All types of hunting are at risk now with the exception of deer, IMO.
I have a funny feeling the reason more ads and money wasn't thrown at this is because the powers that be, knew it wouldn't pass and really didn't wanna draw undue attention to other types of hunting that the anti's could go after.

This was a fiasco from the get go.


The question that should have been asked,,, before this went on the ballot was,,,, " Would you be willing to risk all other hunting and fishing privledges in order to shoot doves"?? Probably woulda been answered the same way as Prop 3 ended up. :rolleyes:

[Buddy Ed]

Best statement yet.


As I said in another thread,, this bill didn't have a chance in hell of passing. I was surprised it was even that close. It never should have been on the ballot. All types of hunting are at risk now with the exception of deer, IMO.
I have a funny feeling the reason more ads and money wasn't thrown at this is because the powers that be, knew it wouldn't pass and really didn't wanna draw undue attention to other types of hunting that the anti's could go after.

This was a fiasco from the get go.


The question that should have been asked,,, before this went on the ballot was,,,, " Would you be willing to risk all other hunting and fishing privledges in order to shoot doves"?? Probably woulda been answered the same way as Prop 3 ended up. :rolleyes:

From what I've seen, this actually created the rallying call for people to have reason to be against hunting who weren't before. And now they are organized in this state where they weren't before.

[fishbuster]

parts of what we are all saying is true. the question is how do we how do we protect our passions? oregon law that PESCADERO mentioned is MEASURE 62 THE OPEN and FAIR ELECTION ACT. then we each write our reps and start from there. i have no idea how the legislative process Really works but its a start. also letters need to be hand writen, typed,respectful, and signed to get a letter back from your rep.they get thousand of email so they pay a little more attention to a personal letter. i have written plenty of letters on behalf of our gun rights and almost alway recieved a letter back, it took some time but i got one .

[Sargeyork]

Yeh, just for starters let's find that ball cap wearing SOB and throw him a blanket party, would make me feel better. LOL:D

[RichP]

parts of what we are all saying is true. the question is how do we how do we protect our passions? oregon law that PESCADERO mentioned is MEASURE 62 THE OPEN and FAIR ELECTION ACT. then we each write our reps and start from there. i have no idea how the legislative process Really works but its a start. also letters need to be hand writen, typed,respectful, and signed to get a letter back from your rep.they get thousand of email so they pay a little more attention to a personal letter. i have written plenty of letters on behalf of our gun rights and almost alway recieved a letter back, it took some time but i got one .

Yeah, I think most people probably glossed over pescadero's post earlier in this thread, but imo this type of deal might be *the* solution to these types of issues.

[fishbuster]

i think other SOB,s of the hunting nature are probaly very offended by being assoiated with him and his fake beard to protect his lieing ass

[Whit1]

Take a look at how distractive this thread is getting. The blame being put on "liberal Democrats", Michael Moore, the suggestion the election was "unfair", etc. Liberal Democrats are a minority even in their own party so how did the vote get to be almost 70% opposed to Prop3? Michael Moore, the vast majority of citizens take him for whatever he is. Unfair? Come on guys and gals, that's a kid's comment.

As for getting the way proposals are processed, campaigned for, and voted on that'll be a real stretch getting that changed. We had trouble enough getting the word out about Prop3 in an effective manner even among hunters and anglers and other group who might be in favor of any given issue.

This stuff is not hing more than blowing off steam which creates a lot of smoke. Remember the old song "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes"; when that happens we are blinded.

If we continue to stick our heads in the sand with simplistic finger pointing at our favorite and overused targets we'll lose again in the future on some far more important issue.

[Ranger Ray]

As a sportsman I do not see this prop 3 as a defining turn in my hunting rights. Sometimes we have to give as well as take. Consider this one a give and move on. Choose your battles wisely for to do otherwise means sure defeat.

[RichP]

As for getting the way proposals are processed, campaigned for, and voted on that'll be a real stretch getting that changed.

I disagree, at least for the "processed" part, for reasons already mentioned. I think there are a lot of people that have been upset over various proposals over the last few years, and if you can come up with a way to make the process more difficult, especially in a way to deter outsiders, I think that's an idea a lot of people will get behind, not just sportsmen.

The question is, how did Oregon do it?

[fishbuster]

find an oregon sports chat room and ask

[contrary2ordinary]

I disagree, at least for the "processed" part, for reasons already mentioned. I think there are a lot of people that have been upset over various proposals over the last few years, and if you can come up with a way to make the process more difficult, especially in a way to deter outsiders, I think that's an idea a lot of people will get behind, not just sportsmen.

The question is, how did Oregon do it?

Maybe they hired a consulting firm from California.

[pescadero]

I disagree, at least for the "processed" part, for reasons already mentioned. I think there are a lot of people that have been upset over various proposals over the last few years, and if you can come up with a way to make the process more difficult, especially in a way to deter outsiders, I think that's an idea a lot of people will get behind, not just sportsmen.

The question is, how did Oregon do it?

Oregon did it the same way they do all the other ballot proposals - they wrote a proposal, gathered signatures, got it on the ballot... and it passed.

--
lp

[Hamilton Reef]

Anti's Buy Election Victory in Michigan

http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1886

On November 7, Michigan voters defeated Proposal 3, a referendum that would have allowed mourning dove hunting, by a margin of 68 percent to 32 percent. Anti-hunters financed the multi-million dollar campaign.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s most powerful anti-hunting group, bankrolled the effort to ban the hunt with $1.6 million in contributions out of $2.3 million spent by the opponents’ campaign. Its contributions reveal a 250 percent increase over its previous record amount spent on a wildlife issue.

The HSUS and its puppet organization, the Committee to Restore the Dove Shooting Ban, purchased television airtime and ran anti-hunting messages throughout the final six weeks of the campaign.

This level of spending on a ballot issue is unprecedented for HSUS, and confirms sportsmen’s greatest fears about the retooled animal rights organization, which merged with the Fund for Animals in 2005. The merger put anti-hunting zealots in charge of more than $100 million that could be spent to take away hunting rights.

The sportsmen-led Citizens for Wildlife Conservation Committee, formed to defend the dove hunt, never truly got off the ground in its efforts to match the financial largesse of the anti-hunting campaign. The group raised less than $500,000, and was able to muster only a week-long radio campaign to combat the antis’ television ads.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance was one of the largest contributors to the campaign to protect the hunt, which had been established by the legislature in 2004.