The motion prevailed.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
I guess I really like the sound of an Upper Peninsula Department of Natural Resources. Maybe I should get a bill to do that—stay tuned.
I want to just try to help members understand—this panel is simply an advisory panel. The panel has no authority, it does not get to make decisions or policy, it simply makes recommendations to the Natural Resources Commission and the department. The Natural Resources Commission is tasked with the management of game species in this state and is a panel made up of a majority of people from below the bridge. Interestingly enough, the law does actually mandate, though, that there be somebody from the Upper Peninsula on that panel because if it were purely just done by population, there probably wouldn’t be anybody from the Upper Peninsula. You can look at the Agriculture and Rural Development Commission, same thing; look at the Certificate of Need Commission, which demands representation from around the state, not from just one area of high population.
This panel that this bill impacts is purely advisory and believe me, we have plenty of people opposed to wolf hunting in the Upper Peninsula to populate the seats on the panel. It’s not going to be a problem, we have people who support hunting, we have people who oppose it, we have almost 300,000 people, I guarantee you we can efficiently populate the panel. We have a very large and active section of tribal nations in the Upper Peninsula who can take a seat on this panel. I’m simply saying in this bill, Why should that panel currently have all of its membership but one from the Lower Peninsula where they don’t have the wolves? How would Belle Isle feel if the board that oversees that was all people from the Upper Peninsula? How would the people who care about elk—which aren’t in the U.P.—feel if their management was done by all people in the Upper Peninsula? How would the Pigeon River Country Advisory Council feel if we put all people from the Upper Peninsula on their panel? This is how the people of the Upper Peninsula currently feel about the wolf advisory panel. Right now, only one person is from the U.P., as if we had a shortage of tribal representation in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of animal rights folks in the U.P., as if we had a shortage of conservationists or pro-hunting people in the U.P. We don’t have a shortage of them. Why couldn’t we have those selected?
To the good Senator from the 7th District’s fear about the current membership being changed, this panel’s job is supposed to be ending in just a few months. This bill isn’t going to be passed for several months yet; it’s got a long way to go, so it’s not going to impact the currently-selected panel, and if people were really worried about that, why didn’t somebody come to me with an amendment to say, Hey, let’s not make it change the current panel, let’s make it effective for future panels. Why didn’t somebody come with an amendment that says, You know, maybe out of the five, you guys should have three or four, but we still want—fine, but nobody’s even come up with an amendment. Nobody’s even come and suggested some sort of compromise. It’s just a lot of Sturm und Drang about how this is just going to somehow disenfranchise the people or create bad wildlife policy. What kind of patronizing thoughts are you having about people from the U.P.? That we’re incapable of providing some decent advice on this issue, that our animal rights representative or tribal representative are so in the tank for one side that they’ll falsely represent themselves on the panel? Come on. That’s not how it’s going to be.
Members, I implore you, help out my district with this so we can participate in a more robust way on this issue that only impacts the residents I represent.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 507, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 1a, 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 306a, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k (MCL 257.1a, 257.216, 257.226, 257.255, 257.301, 257.306, 257.306a, 257.309, 257.312f, 257.312k, 257.314, and 257.801k), sections 216, 226, 255, 301, 306, 309, 312f, 312k, 314, and 801k as amended by 2020 PA 304 and section 306a as amended by 2020 PA 376, and by adding section 205a.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: