Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum, Proposal 1 (2014)
- 1 Election results
- 2 Text of measure
- 3 Background
- 4 Support for "yes" vote
- 5 Opposition to "yes" vote
- 6 Polls
- 7 Controversies
- 8 Path to the ballot
- 9 Related measures
- 10 See also
- 11 External links
- 12 Additional reading
- 13 References
The Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum, Proposal 1 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Michigan as a veto referendum, where it was defeated. The measure would have upheld Public Act 520, which allowed for establishing wolf hunting seasons and designated the wolf as a game animal.
While the "no" campaign sought to overturn Public Act 520, the act was superseded by Public Act 21 in May 2013. This supersession rendered the referendum practically moot and merely symbolic, since the referendum was attempting to overturn PA 520 and not PA 21. Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, the group supporting Proposal 1, placed another referendum, known as Proposal 2, on the ballot to overturn PA 21. However, a pro-wolf hunting indirect initiative was approved by the legislature, rendering Proposal 2 moot as well. Neither Michigan Proposal 1 nor Proposal 2 had any long-term practical effect due to these events.
A "Yes" vote on a veto referendum was to uphold the law, and a "No" vote was to reject the law. Therefore, the referendum's supporters were campaigning for a "No" vote.
|Michigan Proposal 1|
Election results via: Michigan Department of State
Text of measure
The official ballot text was as follows:
Public Act 520 of 2012 would:
Should this law be approved?
Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the 2012 Public Act 520 on December 31, 2012. The statute established wolf hunting seasons in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Normally, a law would be suspended from measure certification until the statewide election. However, this was not the case when veto referendum supporters turned in valid signatures. Due to PA 21, the state's hunt was no longer designated by the legislature and thus the referendum was an attempt to overturn a law that had been superseded. Proposal 1, therefore, was rendered moot in practice.
State Senator Tom Casperson (R-38) sponsored PA 21, which made Proposal 1 moot. PA 21 empowered the Natural Resource Commission to declare game animals and establish hunting seasons without legislative action. Prior, game animals needed to be declared in law, which subjected them to potential referendums. In 2006, for example, Michiganders overturned Public Act 160. PA 160 would have allowed for the hunting of mourning doves. Gov. Snyder signed the law on May 8, 2013. Snyder justified his signature by noting, “This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan.” Referendum supporters initiated the Natural Resources Commission Referendum, also known as Proposal 2 to overturn PA 21. Proposal 2 was certified for the ballot on May 6, 2014.
Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management
Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management (CPWM), a group supporting wolf hunting, decided to fight Proposal 2 with their own indirect initiated state statute, the Natural Resources Commission Initiative. The indirect initiative was one in which the initiative did not go straight to the ballot following signature verification, but to the legislature. The legislature could either agree to adopt the initiative as law or place the initiative on the ballot. On May 27, 2014, the campaign group filed signatures with the Michigan Secretary of State. The measure was certified, and the legislature reconvened to vote on the matter. On August 13, the Michigan Senate approved the initiative. The Michigan House of Representatives approved the measure on August 27, 2014. The initiative rendered Proposal 2 moot.
Neither Michigan Proposal 1 nor Proposal 2 had any practical long-term effect due to these events.
Following pro-hunt initiative's approval
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), the campaign group sponsoring the measures, had planned to initiate litigation against the pro-hunt Natural Resources Commission Initiative, arguing that the initiative's content was too broad. The organization still encouraged people to turn out and vote "no" on November 4, just in case the pro-hunt initiative was overturned by a court in the future. As Jill Fritz, director of KMWP, said, "If those referendums are overturned in November, and the initiative is overturned in court, wolves could not be hunted for trophies." KMWP could not initiate a third veto referendum, however, as the pro-hunt initiative contained appropriations for the DNR to battle invasive Asian Carp, a matter unrelated to wolf hunting. In 2001, the Michigan Supreme Court determined the state constitution protected all laws making appropriations from veto referendums.
Opponents of the wolf hunt, realizing they could still send a message of disapproval to lawmakers, continued their campaign. Also, the two measures, which overturned the two laws, blocked the wolf hunt until the pro-hunt initiative went into effect in late-March or April 2015. Since the veto referendums were on the table and the pro-hunt law wasn't yet in effect, the state did not schedule a wolf hunt for 2014.
Support for "yes" vote
- Note: Opponents are those against the veto referendum and who were campaigning for a "yes" vote.
Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management led the "yes" campaign for Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 and was the group responsible for the Natural Resources Commission Initiative, which allowed the legislature to render Proposals 1 and 2 moot.
- Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC)
- Erin McDonough, executive director of MUCC, said, "The fact that HSUS was able to collect the required number of signatures tells us nothing about the issue other than if you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and target areas of the state without a wolf population and refuse to educate the public about the issue, you can collect a lot of signatures. MUCC believes that HSUS has vastly underestimated the intelligence level of Michigan's residents and has grossly overestimated this state's tolerance for out-of-state extremists attempting to buy election results."
| Total campaign cash |
as of October 27, 2014
As of October 27, 2014, Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management committee had received $827,926 in contributions. Virtually all of the following contributions were expended on Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management's own initiative—the Natural Resources Commission Initiative—and not on directly supporting Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.
|PAC||Amount raised||Amount spent|
|Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management||$827,926||$755,816|
|MI Bear Hunter Conservation Association||$110,000|
|Safari Club International, Lansing Chapter||$55,000|
|Safari Club International, SE MI Bowhunters Chapter||$55,000|
|Safari Club Intentional, Flint Region||$40,000|
|Michigan United Conservation Clubs||$27,446|
|Safari Club International, Michigan Chapter||$26,000|
|Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation||$25,000|
|MI Hunting Dog Federation||$20,000|
|UP Bear Houndsman Association||$20,000|
Opposition to "yes" vote
- Note: Opponents are those who initiated the veto referendum and were campaigning for a "no" vote.
- Detroit Audubon Society
- Wolfwatcher Coalition
- Animals and Society Institute
- Michigan Animal Shelter Rescue Network
- Companion Cats
- Free Roaming and Feral Cat Coalition of SW MI
- Songbird Protection Coalition
- Audubon Society of Kalamazoo
- Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust
- Humane Society of the United States
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
- Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA)
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Wolf Haven International
- No Kill Michigan
- In Defense of Animals (IDA)
- Keep Michigan Wolves Free
- Gratiot Lake Conservancy
- Saving Animals In Our World, Inc.
- American Sanctuary Association
- Animal Aid Foundation
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
- Chakchiuma Sektchi Nation
- Iggy Pop
ASPCA President Matthew Bershadker said the following against wolf hunting in Michigan:
- "Yes, there are now more than 650 wolves in Michigan. But charges that wolves have ventured onto residential porches or daycare centers -- or are killing livestock frequently -- are not passing the truth test. In some cases, entire stories about wolf incidents are being retracted. What is true: Michigan farmers, ranchers and other landowners are already permitted to kill wolves to protect livestock or dogs, even though cases of wolves killing livestock are relatively rare. Ranchers are also compensated for livestock losses from wolves. There has also never been a single record of a wolf attack on a human in Michigan. In fact, wolves are fearful of people, and avoid them. (Rightfully so.)"
- Bershadker claimed that no empirical evidence existed related to wolf attacks or intrusions in Michigan. Therefore, "This leaves only one motive: killing wolves merely for sport, thrill, out of hatred, and for trophies -- which is what brought wolves to the brink of extinction in the first place."
- “In the end, these wolves are not nearly the threat to humans as some of us humans are to our own humanity. Too often -- as in this case -- the truth is deliberately obscured by individuals and institutions guided solely by self-interest and profit. When that happens, animals are not the only ones who pay the price. We all do.”
Colleen Pace, owner of Riverbank Farm in Davison, President of the American Association of Riding Schools and member of the Michigan Horse Welfare Coalition, responded to yes vote supporters' claim that wolf hunting should be decided by the Natural Resources Commission. She argued:
|“||Michigan voters are routinely asked to make decisions about complex social and economic issues, elect judges and school board officials, and decide which legislators will represent us in Lansing. We voters are also qualified to weigh in on such important decisions as whether a small and fragile population of a species recently removed from federal endangered status should be killed for trophies, or out of fear and hysteria. The wildlife of Michigan is held in the public trust, and all voters have the right to decide their fate…
The NRC is not a panel of “experts” on this issue. In fact, there is not one biologist, ecologist, or resource scientist among them. They are business owners and hunting enthusiasts that have ignored testimony from two of the world’s most renowned wolf experts — John Vucetich and Rolf Peterson — opposing a wolf hunt, and instead solicited input from the big-game lobby group Safari Club International and Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association to authorize a trophy hunt on wolves…
One can approve hunting game for meat without supporting pure blood-sport. Wolves play a significant role in the U.P. ecosystem by reducing deer, beavers, and smaller species. Scientists understand that, when we remove the predators by hunting and trapping them indiscriminately, we upset the entire food chain. 
Other arguments in favor of the referendum included:
- Reviewing statistics from the state’s first wolf hunt, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected’s Jill Fritz said, “But when 1,200 hunters get out in the woods looking for wolves, they discover what scientists and many people in the U.P. have been saying all along: that wolves are shy, elusive animals who want to avoid human contact.”
|PAC||Amount raised||Amount spent|
|Keep Michigan Wolves Protected||$3,169,948||$1,542,326|
|Humane Society of the United States||$1,373,874|
|Humane Society Legislative Fund||$1,117,212|
- See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
Marketing Resource Group, Inc. issued a poll in late March 2014. They read the following statement and question to respondents:
|“||Hunting wolves was declared against the law when they became an endangered species in Michigan several years ago. Now, however, the number of wolves has gotten large enough that claims are being made that the wolves are attacking other animals and pose a threat to people in small rural areas and should be reduced in number. With this background, do you support or oppose legislation that would allow a limited hunting season on wolves?||”|
—Marketing Resource Group, Inc. 
Note: "Support" is the category for those who oppose the wolf hunt and "Oppose" is the category for those who support the wolf hunt.
|Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum (2014)|
|Poll||Support||Oppose||Undecided||Margin of Error||Sample Size|
|Marketing Resource Group, Inc.|
3/24/2013 - 3/28/2014
|Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to|
Fictional wolf story
State Sen. Tom Casperson (R-38) utilized a fictional account of a supposedly real-life incident involving wolves in a daycare’s yard to argue that gray wolves should not be considered an endangered species. His comments received national attention. Casperson admitted his mistake in November 2013, saying, “Words matter. Accuracy matters. Especially here, with a topic that is so emotional and is so important to so many, especially those whose way of life is being changed in my district. A decision here of whether or not we use sound science to manage wolves, as with all decisions this body makes, should not be based on emotions, agendas or innuendo, but rather on facts.” Supporters of the referendum argued that this incident demonstrates that the law’s advocates are the one’s basing their stance on emotions, not science, rather than them.
Path to the ballot
Supporters submitted a reported 253,705 signatures on March 27, 2013. This was 64 percent more than the 161,304 signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot. On May 22, 2013, the Board of State Canvassers determined that sufficient signatures had been filed and certified the measures for the November 2014 ballot. Normally, a law would be suspended from measure certification until the statewide election. However, due to PA 21, the state's wolf hunt is no longer designated by the legislature and thus the referendum is an attempt to overturn a law that had been superseded.
- Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum (2014)
- Michigan Natural Resources Commission Initiative (2014)
- Michigan Dove Hunting Referendum, Proposal 3 (2006)
- 2014 ballot measures
- Michigan 2014 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan
- MLive, "Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt," November 3, 2013
- Michigan Secretary of State, "2014 Statewide Ballot Proposals Status," accessed January 13, 2014
- MLive, "Debate over possible Michigan wolf hunt enters new phase with signature submission," March 27, 2013
- MLive, "Keep Michigan Wolves Protected launching second petition drive after new law blocked original effort," July 2, 2013
- MLive, "Wolf hunt law approved by Michigan House after heated debate, Capitol protest," August 28, 2014
- Michigan Secretary of State, "Proposal 14-1," accessed September 5, 2014
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Michigan Legislature, "Senate Bill 1350 (2012)," accessed January 16, 2014
- Michigan Legislature, “Senate Bill 0288 (2013)”," accessed January 13, 2014
- Detroit Free Press, “Gov. Rick Snyder signs off on gray wolf hunt in the U.P.”, May 8, 2013
- MLive, "Another anti-wolf hunt proposal approved for Michigan ballot," May 6, 2014
- CBS Detroit, "Pro-Wolf Hunting Group Submits 374K Petition Signatures; Detroit Zoo Objects," May 27, 2014
- MLive, "Michigan wolf hunt ballot proposals: Will your vote matter?," October 7, 2014
- MLive, "Michigan Election 2014: How Asian Carp money makes new wolf hunt law immune to referendum," October 8, 2014
- Toledo Blade, "Mich. voters can to make statement on wolf hunts," October 9, 2014
- The Detroit News, "Ballot language approved for wolf hunting referendums," September 4, 2014 (dead link)
- Detroit Free Press, "Want to hunt Michigan wolves? You'll have to wait until at least 2015," September 11, 2014
- Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, "Homepage," accessed October 27, 2014
- Michigan Secretary of State, "Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management Committee Statement of Organization," accessed October 27, 2014
- Keep Michigan Wolves Protected
- Michigan Radio, "Referendum campaign will try to block wolf hunts," January 14, 2013
- Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, "Endorsements," accessed January 13, 2014
- Wolfwatcher Coalition, "Michigan Wolves," accessed February 27, 2014
- Huffington Post, "Michigan Wolves Don't Need to Die," February 17, 2014
- MLive, "Guest column: You, voter, are qualified to decide on wolf hunts," September 30, 2014
- Battle Creek Enquirer, "First Michigan wolf hunt falls short of quota," January 4, 2014
- Michigan Secretary of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization," accessed April 2, 2014
- Marketing Research Group Michigan, "Michigan Poll: Michigan residents favor a limited hunting season on wolves," April 3, 2014
- MLive, “Michigan Senator apologizes for fictional wolf story in resolution: 'I am accountable, and I am sorry’”, November 7, 2013
State of Michigan
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor General | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture and Rural Development | Director of Natural Resources | Director of Labor and Economic Growth | Chairman of Public Service Commission |