Media Coverage - Proposal to restore dove shooting ban
Published September 7, 2006. Editorial. South Bend Tribune.
In the spring of 2005, the people of Michigan got what Gov. Jennifer Granholm had said in 2003 that they should have: a chance to vote on whether the mourning dove is a song bird or a game bird.
Granholm had promised to veto any bill to lift the ban on shooting mourning doves that didn't provide for a referendum on the question. Then she disappointed a lot of songbird protection advocates by signing a bill that allowed shooting doves in southern counties, on an experimental basis. There was a 2004 mourning dove hunting season in Michigan -- the first one in more than 100 years.
The dove protection lobby needed 159,000 petition signatures to get a song-bird/game-bird question on the ballot. It collected more than 275,000. The shooting ban was reinstated pending a referendum this November.
A majority "no" vote on Proposal 3 would reinstate the ban permanently. Momentum was strong. But the opposition wasn't giving up without a fight. With a goal to raise $3.2 million for an advertising blitz, the pro-dove hunting group Citizens for Wildlife Conservation staged a lottery. Problem is, it is illegal in Michigan for anyone but the state to conduct a lottery, and Michigan law expressly forbids running lotteries to support or oppose ballot proposals.
After investigating for two months -- while the lottery continued -- Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox declared it illegal. But instead of requiring that the ill-gotten gains be returned, the agreement Cox reached lets the group keep the money unless ticket-buyers ask for it back by Sept. 30.
The other side, the Committee to Restore the Dove Shooting Ban, is considering its options: to seek action from the Michigan Secretary of State or to seek criminal charges at the county level.
With the election just two months away, the shenanigans surrounding both of these proposals need to be addressed thoroughly and quickly. Moreover, the system for conducting ballot initiatives in Michigan bears a close examination. There is something very wrong when it is possible to break the law, get caught and, as seems likely in these two cases, get away with it.
South Bend Tribune Editorial Board
