Court rules Michigan wolf hunt law unconstitutional

LANSING, MICH. - Michigan's 2014 wolf hunt law is unconstitutional, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in an opinion released Wednesday.

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the court said the law providing for a Michigan wolf hunt violates the "title-object clause" of Michigan's constitution, which says "no law shall embrace more than one object," and that object "shall be expressed in its title."

The court said a provision of the law allowing for free hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for qualified members of the military is unconnected to the law's object of providing for scientific management of game, fish and wildlife habitat. The entire law must be struck down, because it isn't clear the law would have been approved if that provision had not been included, the court said.

The ruling in favor of the group Keep Michigan Wolves Protected overturns an earlier ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims.

In 2011, the federal government removed the gray wolf from its endangered species list in Michigan.

After earlier failed efforts to add wolves to the definition of "game" in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature in 2014 adopted a voter initiative backed by Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, which gave the Michigan Natural Resources Commission joint responsibility, with the Legislature, to name new game animals. The law, which took effect in March 2015, included a $1 million appropriation, making it immune from being challenged through another referendum.

Two wolf hunt laws that were on the ballot in 2014 were rejected by voters.

Keeping Michigan Wolves Protected challenged the law, alleging misrepresentations were made by petition circulators and violations of the state constitution. But the Michigan Court of Claims rejected those arguments.

In the new Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, the panel says that Keeping Michigan Wolves Protected essentially viewed the law as "a Trojan Horse, within which the ability to hunt wolves was cleverly hidden."

The court said that "however accurate the plaintiff may be in its assessment of why (the law) came into being, our analysis is not about policy," but "based on an analysis of the dictates of Michigan's constitution."

The court's panel consisted of Judges Donald Owens, Joel Hoekstra and Jane Beckering.

Detroit Free Press


JOIN THE CONVERSATION

To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the
Conversation Guidelines and FAQs

Leave a Comment