By Louise Knott Ahern lkahern@lsj.com

Current Michigan law would allow for a wolf hunt in 2015.

Proposals 14-1 and 14-2 will have no authority unless current law overturned via legal challenges.

There will be no Michigan wolf hunt in 2014.

Michigan voters who care whether the state should allow wolf hunting can have their say next week on the general election ballot.

Sort of.

Two proposals are on the Nov. 4 ballot that would either allow or prohibit state officials from holding another public hunting season for wolves. However, both proposals are essentially null and void -- regardless of how Michiganders vote on them -- because of action taken by the Legislature over the summer.

Advocates on both sides of the issue want voters to have their say because the proposals could become important in the future.

The proposals are the result of a complicated political chess match between those who oppose public wolf hunting and those who think it's an important tool for managing the former endangered species.

To help you understand what you're voting on, we talked to the non-partisan Citizens Research Council to put together a primer on both proposals and why they may not matter until the future.

The history

First, Wolves are native to Michigan but were nearly wiped out in the 19th and early 20th centuries by hunting and state-sanctioned bounties.

In 1973, when Congress created the federal endangered species list, only six wolves were known to still exist in the Michigan wild.

Under federal protection, wolf recovery was slow. But starting in 1989, the numbers began to rise in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, along with the hope that one day the animals would rebound enough to return to state control.

To prepare for that possibility, the state convened a task force in 2005 to create a wolf management plan. Members of the task force included all stakeholders in wolf management, including biologists, representatives of Michigan's Indian tribes, sporting groups and wolf advocates.

An overview of wolves in Michigan

By 2007, the wolf population in the Upper Peninsula topped 500 -- far exceeding the recovery benchmark of 100 set by the federal government, making the Great Lakes gray wolf one of the most successful recovery stories in the history of the endangered species list.

At the same time, however, some Upper Peninsula residents began to complain that wolves were edging too close for comfort. Some farmers reported that wolves were killing livestock, and U.P. citizens reported wolves encroaching on towns and yards.

In 2007, U.S. Fish and Wildlife sought to remove Great Lakes gray wolves from federal protection, but the Humane Society of the United States sued to delay the move. A federal court ruled in favor of the Humane Society, and wolves remained under endangered species protection for several more years.

Finally, in 2012, Great Lakes gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list, putting the state of Michigan back in control of its wolf population.

The conversation - or the debate

Michigan's wolf management plan highlighted several methods for controlling the wolf population once they were removed from the endangered species list, including a potential public wolf hunt.

Read the wolf management plan

In December 2012, less than a year after wolves were removed from the list, the Legislature passed a bill designating wolves game animals. It was signed by Gov. Rick Snyder and became Public Act 520.

The new law cleared the way for the Natural Resources Commission -- a seven-member body appointed by the governor -- to establish a hunting season for wolves.

Proponents, including the state Department of Natural Resources, cited several reasons for backing wolf hunts. The DNR told lawmakers at a hearing that hunting would be one of many tools used by wildlife officials to control the wolf population.

"While the wolf population offers benefits, it also poses significant costs and concerns to some Michigan residents," Trevor VanDyke, the DNR's legislative liaison, told a Senate committee. "This would be another tool that would allow for proper management and implementation of the wolf management plan, and we think we'd use this as a tool to reduce those negative impacts and conflicts with livestock and humans."

Opponents believed it was too soon to talk about a hunt. At the same hearing, wolf advocate Nancy Warren of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition questioned the scientific need for hunting as a management tool.

"There is no scientific evidence or research to support the need for a recreational hunting season," Warren told the committee. "The DNR already has many tools to manage conflicts. We allow lethal control by wildlife services, when nonlethal are ineffective. Livestock producers get compensation for verified losses. Landowner permits allow landowners to kill wolves if they have suffered depredation. It's only been nine months. Let's give the plan time to work."

Moves and countermoves

Wolf hunting opponents such as Warren and the Humane Society of the United States quickly organized against the law, gathering signatures to place a citizen referendum on the November 2014 ballot that would overturn Public Act 520.

In March 2013, a group called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected succeeded. It turned more than 253,000 signatures that were verified by the Secretary of State's office, putting Proposal 14-1 on the ballot for November 2014.

The measure would suspend implementation of the wolf hunting law. Wolf hunting proponents who had hoped to hold the state's first wolf hunt in 2013 were not pleased.

A month later, in April, state Sen. Tom Casperson, an Escanaba Republican, introduced a bill to grant the Natural Resources Commission the authority to designate animals as game species without legislative approval.

That bill cleared the Legislature and was signed into law in May 2013 as Public Act 21. It basically circumvented the wolf hunt opposition's initiative by putting in place a law that that could pave the way for another wolf hunt even if voters overturned Public Act 520.

And, that's what happened. The NRC in July 2013 independently declared wolves a game species and established guidelines for the state's first wolf hunt based on recommendations from the Department of Natural Resources.

The hunt was held in November and December in three areas of the Upper Peninsula. Twenty-two wolves were killed.

The chess match continues

Organizers once again began collecting signatures to try to prevent future hunts. Keep Michigan Wolves Protected turned in signatures early this year for a second ballot proposal -- this time, to overturn Public Act 21.

The measure was placed the issue on the November 2014 ballot as Proposal 14-2. Meantime, the law that allowed the wolf hunt was suspended, killing a 2014 wolf hunt.

Wolf hunting proponents responded with a campaign would force the Legislature to act again through a process called citizen-initiated statute.

With more than 250,000 signatures backing them up, the group called Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management successfully pushed a bill through the Legislature that basically did the same thing as Public Act 21. But it also included a $1 million appropriation for the DNR to fight invasive species. That appropriation meant the bill could not be overturned through a public referendum.

The new law does not go into effect until March or April 2015 -- whichever comes 90 days after the end of the current legislative session.

But even without being implemented, the new law effectively stops wolf hunting opponents from seeking any kind of ballot proposal to overturn wolf hunting in Michigan after March 2015 through a public vote.

It also meant that no matter how voters vote on Proposals 14-1 and Proposals 14-2, there is a law on the books that will allow the Natural Resources Commission to establish a wolf hunt in the future.

So, why vote on something that basically has no power?

Both sides of the issue say it is important for voters to make their opinions known at the ballot because anything could happen in the future.

Leaders of the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected coalition are considering a lawsuit that would block the citizen-initiated law. If they do so and win, they want to make sure the other two laws -- public acts 520 and 21 -- are overturned, as well. That would eliminate all avenues for establishing a wolf hunt.

"Voters have to exercise their right to vote on this issue," said Jill Fritz, Michigan state director for the Humane Society of the United States. "And, they have to reject both referendums in order to maintain that right, because if those laws are upheld, the citizens of Michigan will no longer have a say in any wildlife management issues. It will be taken out of their hands completely, and that's not acceptable. The wildlife of this state belongs to all the people of this state and not just the special interests intent on hunting and trapping them."

At the same time, supporters of public acts 520 and 21 want at least one of the proposals to be reaffirmed by voters in case the citizen-initiated law does face legal challenges in the future.

"Our message has been pretty consistent throughout the entirety of this," said Matt Evans, legislative affairs manager for the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, which supports wolf hunting. "We would like to see the Natural Resources Commission retain the ability to regulate game and fish seasons in Michigan. They have been doing a great job of that for long time now using input from the public and by listening to DNR biologists, not just on wolves but other species. We would like to see them retain that ability to regulate the seasons and not have it go into the hands of voters who are uneducated on these issues for the most part."

Proposal 14-1

What it says:

A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 520 OF 2012, ESTABLISHING A HUNTING SEASON FOR WOLVES AND AUTHORIZING ANNUAL WOLF HUNTING SEASONS

Public Act 520 of 2012 would:

· Designate wolf as game for hunting purposes and authorize the first wolf hunting season.

· Allow the Natural Resources Commission to schedule annual wolf hunting seasons.

· Provide criminal penalties for the unlawful possession or taking of wolves, but shield a person who lawfully captures or destroys a wolf from prosecution.

· Require a person who wishes to hunt wolves to obtain a wolf hunting license.

· Create a Wolf Management Advisory Council for the purpose of making nonbinding recommendations to the legislature regarding the proper management of wolves.

Should this law be approved?

What a yes vote means: That you want to uphold Public Act 520 and maintain wolves as a game species through actions of the Legislature.

What no vote means: You don't want the Legislature's actions naming wolves a game species to be upheld, either because you don't think wolves should be a game species or you don't think the Legislature is the proper place for that action to be taken.

Proposal 14-2

What it says:

A REFERENDUM OF PUBLIC ACT 21 OF 2013, GRANTING THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION THE POWER TO DESIGNATE WOLVES AND CERTAIN OTHER ANIMALS AS GAME WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Public Act 21 of 2013 would:

· Allow the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to designate certain animals as game for hunting purposes and establish the first hunting season for game animals without legislative action.

· Continue the NRC's designation of wolves as game and allow the NRC to set a wolf hunting season.

· Grant the Legislature sole authority to remove a species from the list of designated game animals.

· Eliminate the $1.00 hunting and fishing licensing fee for members of the military, whether stationed inside or outside of Michigan, subject to any lottery.

· Give the NRC sole authority to regulate fishing.

Should this law be approved?

What a yes vote means: That you want to uphold Public Act 21 and allow the Natural Resources Commission to have the independent authority to decide which animals should be listed as game species.

What no vote means: You want to overturn Public Act 21, either because you don't think wolves should be a game species or you don't think the Natural Resources Commission should have the authority to act without Legislative approval.