|
Sportsmen’s HeritageMUCC has been the first voice in defense of Michigan’s rich outdoor heritage throughout our 70-year history. There are constant attempts to weaken the land ethic and outdoor heritage that MUCC has aggressively defended. Recent attempts such as internet hunting, the use of tranquilizers to take game, and anti-hunting ballot proposals have threatened what we have fought for over the years. MUCC will continue to defend our outdoor heritage against these and upcoming threats.Sportsmen’s Heritage Legislative Priorities:License FeesThe MDNR Game and Fish Protection Fund, a restricted fund which consists of revenue generated from license sales, is projected to have a budget shortfall of over $8 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2008. By law, the MDNR is prohibited from entering a fiscal year in the red, thereby requiring the department to cut staff, programs, research, equipment and management activities to make up the $8 million deficit. MUCC is concerned that program reductions of that scale will jeopardize the MDNR’s ability to protect, manage, and conserve the natural resources of our state. To increase revenue in the state’s Game and Fish Protection Fund proposals have been discussed that would incrementally raise hunting and fishing license fees over the course of the next six years. Status: Proposed increases for hunting found in House Bill 4624 will begin in 2007 and be phased in gradually over four years until 2010. Proposed increases for fishing contained in Senate Bill 406 begin in 2008 and would be phased in gradually over four years until 2011. The legislation also authorizes a 5 percent inflationary increase in license fees for 2012 and 2013. In both bills, the current 60 percent discount that hunters and anglers age 65 and older receive remains at that rate until 2010, when the amount of the discount is reduced by 5 percent each year until 2013, at which time the senior license discount will have been reduced to 40 percent of the corresponding resident license. Action: Work to implement H.B. 4624 and S. 406 to help bring the DNR’s budget out of the red and ensure that the programs Michigan’s hunters , anglers and conservationist care about are funded. Michigan’s Range Act (MRA) MUCC was instrumental in the passage of the MRA in 1989 (PA 269) and its subsequent revision in 1994 (P.A. 250). Public shooting-ranges, in order to continue providing a recreational venue for Michigan’s sporting public, must have the flexibility to be able to change their range layout and shot-fall zones in order to adapt to potential encroachment by new neighborhood development. Action: Support legislation which modifies the existing act in order to allow Michigan’s ranges the ability to adapt to an ever changing landscape. Funding Michigan’s Natural Resources MUCC is committed to finding a sustainable and equitable funding mechanism for natural resources management in Michigan that spreads the burden of funding management beyond traditional user groups. General Fund support for the management of Michigan’s natural resources has dwindled from funding 25 percent of the MDNR’s programs and activities in 1996 to below 9 percent today, with all indications trending towards a complete lack of General Fund support for Michigan’s natural resources and environmental protection. Numerous options have been discussed regarding an equitable funding mechanism which is sustainable and tracks with inflation, and MUCC will continue to support legislation aimed at solving this issue. Action: Develop a sustainable and equitable funding mechanism for Michigan’s natural resources
Sportsmen’s Heritage Policy Priorities:Hunting ClosuresEvery year, MUCC receives calls and letters from distressed members who are concerned about proposed local ordinances that will affect their ability to hunt in their communities. Currently, if a community wants to institute a hunting closure within their local unit of government the law says they must petition the Department of Natural Resources. This process requires a mandatory public hearing. The Department then evaluates whether or not the local municipality meets the requirements under the law necessary to move forward with its proposed ordinance. Usually, ordinances are brought forward because of perceived safety risks to residents posed by area hunters. This system is being challenged by the City of Saginaw. The city wanted to institute a firearm and archery control ordinance in order to limit hunting within their jurisdiction. The ordinance was initially denied by the department after the completion of the public hearing and associated investigations. However, when the city took the case to court, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Saginaw did not have to comply with the MDNR decision because firearm control is different than hunting regulation. If this decision is allowed to stand, MUCC believes it could open the door for any local unit of government in Michigan to simply enact firearm and bow discharge prohibitions without initiating a MDNR investigation, thus leading to increased hunting bans across the state. At the 2006 Convention, delegates passed a resolution calling for MUCC to fight any attempt to limit or eliminate hunting in any local government, including townships, villages and cities. MUCC has filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme Court in opposition to the ruling on the City of Saginaw case, arguing that a local unit of government should not be able to ban the discharge of firearms or bow and arrows, effectively stopping all hunting, without having MDNR’s support. MUCC will continue to fight for the rights of hunters and gun owners. This decision could have a devastating impact on hunting and fi re arm ownership in the state of Michigan and must be stopped. |
