Why Was It Developed?

Natural resources have helped to define Michigan throughout history. Both the native peoples of Michigan and more recent residents have understood the value of these natural resources and the need for management of Michigan's wildlife and habitats.

Beginning as early as 1859, laws were enacted to protect wildlife in Michigan (Petersen 1979). Enforcement of these laws was the first step toward recovery of wildlife populations that had declined or disappeared due to loss of habitat or over-exploitation. The Michigan Fish Commission was established in 1873, the State established the nation's first conservation officer corps in 1887, and it first required hunting licenses in 1895.

Early wildlife management efforts focused on restoration of game species and their habitats. In 1937, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to support State efforts in wildlife restoration. In 1950, the U.S. Congress adopted companion funding under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (commonly known as the Dingle-Johnson Act) to support sport fish restoration. In 1984, the Wallop-Breaux Amendment enhanced this earlier action.

For nearly 40 years, these programs, along with State hunting and fishing license revenues, provided the primary financial support for wildlife conservation and restoration in Michigan. During this period, habitat degradation caused by poor lumbering practices and failed agricultural attempts in the late 1800s and early 1900s began to heal, and water quality began to improve due to the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act (1972) and other environmental legislation. Collectively, these positive changes contributed to successful restorations of fisher, moose, Canada Goose, white-tailed deer, Wild Turkey, walleye, and yellow perch. These successes were possible through partnerships between public agencies, private organizations, and individuals.

Conservation actions directed toward game species also benefited many nongame species by improving habitat conditions. Although these programs have had successes, some species have continued to decline. Limited resources, specifically limited funds and restrictions on the use of funds, have constrained the conservation and management of the full diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species in Michigan.

Additional funding sources provided some assistance with this problem. For example, in 1973, the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, providing funding to focus on recovery of federally threatened and endangered species. In 1983, the State passed legislation to create the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund. Monies donated to this fund through a State income tax check-off and the sale of specialty vehicle registration plates have supported projects specifically directed toward nongame wildlife conservation, education and recreation. This additional funding has been used to restore the peregrine falcon, trumpeter swan, and American marten and to assist the ongoing recovery of the Kirtland's Warbler. Other species, such as the gray wolf, which have naturally reestablished themselves, have benefited through educational efforts.

However, even with the addition of these funding sources, Michigan, like other States, has struggled to comprehensively conserve and manage the diversity of its wildlife. In general, the availability of funding for nongame wildlife conservation and management has remained insufficient and unpredictable. Uncertainty of funding has resulted in conservation efforts that are opportunistic rather than strategic, especially for declining species which are not yet listed as threatened or endangered, and for taxonomic groups that remain relatively unstudied, such as some snails and insects. Coordination and strategic planning for the conservation and management of the entire range of wildlife diversity in Michigan, with consideration of long-term goals and broad scales, is needed.

To help address unmet wildlife conservation needs, the U.S. Congress began appropriating Federal funds in 2001 through the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program. Michigan has embraced this program by developing a comprehensive strategy that will serve as a coordinated plan of action for all partners working toward conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats across the State.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), as the designated trustee of the State's natural resources, has been coordinating this planning effort in compliance with its legal mandate to protect and conserve the State's natural resources, including all wildlife species. However, the action plan's development has been, and its successful implementation must be, a collective endeavor of Michigan's conservation partners, which include State, Federal and tribal agencies, local governments, conservation organizations, academic institutions, private landowners, and other interested individuals.

The goal of Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) is to provide a common strategic framework that will enable Michigan's conservation partners to jointly implement a long-term holistic approach for the conservation of all wildlife species.

This action plan:

• provides an ecological, habitat-based framework to aid in the conservation and management of wildlife;
  
  
• identifies and recommends actions to improve habitat conditions and population status of species with the greatest conservation need (SGCN), which are those species with small or declining populations or other characteristics that make them vulnerable;
  
  
• recommends actions that will help to keep common species common;
  
  
• identifies and prioritizes conservation actions, research and survey needs, and long-term monitoring needed to assess the success of conservation efforts;
  
  
• complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and legally mandated activities;
  
  
• incorporates public participation to provide an opportunity for all conservation partners and Michigan residents to influence the future of resource management;
  
  
• provides guidance for use of SWG funds; and
  
  
• provides a clear process for review and revision as necessary to address changing conditions and to integrate new information as it becomes available.