Organizations have anti-hunting agenda

EDITOR:

I must take issue with Catherine Parker’s Letter to the Editor titled “Restore our right to vote on wildlife management issues”

First of all, Ms. Parker claims that the organizations pumping millions into the State of Michigan are “animal protection groups.” This is intellectually dishonest. The HSUS and many other “animal protection groups” are actually admitted anti-hunting organizations. George Soros’ HSUS being the most blatant.

After reviewing the Constitution of the State of Michigan I’ve also had difficulty finding the “right” to vote on wildlife management issues Ms. Parker was referencing in her letter. The state wildlife management is a function of the DNR at the direction of the NRC. Which was confirmed in Proposal G of 1996 (ref. of PA 377 of 1996).

Unfortunately, the “adults” in the room rarely prevail in contentious matters like this.

You would like to frame this issue as “a disagreement in how to handle wolves in Michigan. In fact this is a serious test of the power of an anti-hunting lobby against long-standing established practice and sound science. The assertion that someone in Detroit should have a “vote” on how to deal with an issue, which likely has no impact on them, is absurd. Do we get to vote on how to deal with Detroit’s half century of irresponsible fiscal policy? Nope, but you can bet that some of our tax dollars will go to bail out their pensions.

The facts of this test by the anti-hunting crowd are as follows: If they are successful in circumventing the scientific management of wildlife species in this state, all other game species would be vulnerable targets for this same, emotionally based campaign.

Wolves are having a significant impact on the deer herd right now. An apex predator, unchecked will eventually be a detriment to its own species. Which is why hunting was the first and is the best method of wildlife management.

You ask who is threatening hunting in this state? I would submit that anyone who thinks a voter knows better than a professional, non-partisan wildlife manager is threatening hunting. Evidently that would include you Ms. Parker.

I would urge all who truly care about wildlife to sign the petition for the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Act. This will clarify a few grey areas in Proposal G and permanently eliminate the potential for another attack on our heritage, and established best practices of scientific wildlife management.”

Matthew Gay

Gladstone