You’ve heard me talk about it. Apparently nobody else seems to care that somebody with a legal piece of property can suddenly be told by the DNR , You can’t have that anymore. Too bad for you. We’re taking it. No money for you, no recompense. And they’ve lost in court again and again, and yet they keep coming back. Most recently they spent taxpayer dollars to take their guys, put them undercover to sneak onto the game ranches under false pretenses, do a hunt so they could take the pigs and then get them tested to see whether or not they were really legit pigs or not. That’s what we’re paying for. We’re going to get more officers to do more of that really super-duper important work, apparently. And you know, the study they’re using for the genomic test? You probably don’t but we’ve looked at it. They’ve got some guy who sampled a couple hundred pigs, and supposedly now they have a genetic base to determine what’s a legal pig and what’s not. It’s complete bullocks, complete, unscientific drivel.
This is what this department is hanging its hat on to persecute people and steal their private property. When they finally get their butt handed to them for the last time in court, who’s going to have to pay for all of those damage lawsuits? We are. And yet we’re going to, right now, foist a huge fee or tax increase on sportsmen and women in this state to fund a department that won’t then use the dollars to do the thing they said they’re going to do, which is to enhance hunting opportunities, enhance fishing opportunities. Instead, they’re going to be running off chasing some coyote or fawn or farmer with some pigs. I can’t believe we’re doing this today. Giving money to this department that’s out there doing such a terrible job in this state, they have no faith, no confidence from sportsmen and women around this state. People are up to their ears in frustration with this department. They’re shouting about it, and we’re not listening. Instead, we’re going to give them more money? It’s unbelievable. It’s shameful.
That’s my “no” vote explanation, and I want it printed in the Journal with all the anger I have too.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 277, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” by amending section 25 (MCL 205.75), as amended by 2023 PA 20.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Bumstead offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: