HB4350 amends Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to revise the state’s rules on wildlife feeding, specifically the existing deer and elk feeding provisions. The bill would replace the current deer-and-elk-focused language with a broader definition of “wildlife and bird feeding,” while still preserving the commission’s authority to issue an order governing deer and elk feeding after consulting with the Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Under the bill, a person could feed wildlife or birds only if the feed is within 300 feet of a residence and the total amount of feed present within that area does not exceed 2 gallons. The bill also clarifies what does not count as prohibited feeding, including baiting under commission order, normal logging or agricultural practices, agricultural feed used or stored in ordinary ways, and feeding birds or other wildlife in a manner that prevents deer and elk from accessing the feed.
Impact
The bill would amend MCL 324.40111a in the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, broadening the statutory language from deer-and-elk feeding to wildlife and bird feeding while keeping the deer and elk regulatory framework in place. It would create a narrow exception allowing limited feeding near residences and would preserve exemptions for agricultural operations, livestock feed, and certain bird-feeding practices. The practical effect is to adjust enforcement standards for wildlife feeding and clarify when feeding activity is lawful versus regulated baiting or prohibited feeding.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received. It was reported from committee without amendment on a 13-0 vote and then passed the House on third reading by a substantial margin, 82-24, with immediate effect. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates broad support with some opposition.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on balancing wildlife management, nuisance prevention, and property-owner or agricultural interests. Supporters appear to favor a limited, residence-based allowance for feeding birds and other wildlife, while opponents may be concerned about loosening restrictions in ways that could attract deer and elk, complicate disease control, or undermine existing baiting and feeding enforcement. Agricultural exemptions and the precise scope of the new wildlife-and-bird-feeding definition are also likely areas of concern because they affect farmers, livestock operators, and enforcement agencies.