Wednesday, November 6, 2019

I bet they didn't see that coming

Michigan House Bill HB 4687 greatly modifies Proposition G which was passed in 1996. Part of the text in Proposition G reads: grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game.

The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.
After the passing of Proposal G, the Natural Resources Commission engaged in a series of tone-deaf prat-falls. They heard "exclusive authority" as not being accountable to anybody or anything except their vision of "science".

Adherence to game laws depends on peer pressure and on having laws simple enough for the average guy to memorize and understand them. There are not enough game wardens in the world to enforce hunting laws without the majority of the citizens "buying into" those laws.

I think the coupling of "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" and "sound scientific management" caused something in the Republican's heads to snap.

Honestly, how many times have the self-appointed elites used the word "science" as a smoke screen for a power grab? Do you automatically grab your wallet when a person with an IQ of 95 starts lecturing you on "science"?

They had a "...hey, wait a minute..." moment.

And now the "scientists" are wailing a thousand tears.


  1. Good to see them working to improve the law. proposal G was originally passed to stop the anti-hunting crowd from banning hunting by referendum, and put it in the hand of what were supposed to be a responsible sane and science-based commission rather than by emotionally driven antis. It was not a complete success but not a bad start.

  2. I do not have much confidence in the DNR. They just came out a couple months ago, and said that they confirm 40 sightings of cougars in Michigan, only 1 of which was in the lower peninsula.
    Just a couple of years back, my son walked within 10 yards of a cougar that was stalking a wild turkey, near Hesperia. Another friend has a trail cam picture of a cougar seen near Bitely. My son actually went inside, got his California born wife, and a gun, and took her out to see the cougar, which had not moved. When they got close, it finally took off. I of course warned him to not do anything like that again. But the DNR for some reason wants to deny that there are cougars in the lower peninsula. I suspect it has something to do with tourism. They said the same thing about black bears, when there have been black bears near Hesperia since I graduated high school from there, in 1978. Now, there are many of them in the lower peninsula, as sighted by friends of mine. Yet the DNR says that they are relatively rare. Politics should never get in the way of wild animals and the public safety, especially when the animals are those that have been rare in the past.

  3. Heh, you wrote " having laws simple enough for the average guy to memorize and understand"; well, news flash: the laws are NOT simple, the average guy never sees the actual law but only a "summary" of the law in the guidebook, and the purpose of the "guide" is to be sure revenue can be extracted in the form of fines from the outdoor sporting populace.

    The NRC is made up of elitist "scientists" with political aspirations. They were never supposed to make things better for us deplorables.

  4. ERJ, I could put them to good use.

  5. Email me at


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.