The truth behind asking the crossbow question again

[retch sweeny]

[font=arial]This thread IS NOT a crossbow thread to debate the merits of crossbows in WI . (enough of those threads already exist for you to post your opinions) In April, there will be a question on the spring hearing ballot that will be of interest to WI bowhunters and gun deer hunters. The question deals with allowing anyone holding a WI archery deer license to use a crossbow during the archery deer season. This not about crossbows but WHY the question is coming back (see the video link below) and to correct some bogus info printed in the papers. This question was asked in WI in 2005 and rejected by 70% of voters. It was rejected in 94% of WI counties. It was asked again by the DNR within the bowhunter mail-in survey they conduct every 4 years. Both times, the concept was rejected by the majority. If you read the recent Wisconsin outdoor news story you will remember a mention of the last DNR mail survey but they got the numbers wrong. [/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial][font="times new roman"][size=100]The paper listed the results of the DNR survey as 52% opposed and 48% in favor. This is of course an error. The results were 59% opposed and 41% in favor. The results are available on the DNR web site which makes me wonder why they would print false data that is easy to review. The crossbow question has been asked multiple time and the opinions are widely known but this thread is not so much about crossbows as it about WHY the question is being brought back again.[/font][/size][/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]This thread IS NOT meant to be a debate the merit of crossbows in WI as there is really nothing to debate (see the other crossbow threads for that) This thread is more for information purposes meant to inform WI hunters on how we got here and why you should turn out on April 11. This story cant be told without explaining what happened and how and why but I DID NOT create this thread to bash. To understand why the question is being asked again, view the you-tube video at this link.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBDlrmkBEo[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]After viewing the video, you will realize that it was done to manufacture controversy to boost attendance. [font=arial][size=2]When this situation was created, there was some concern by those in the room. This is reflected in the meeting minutes (see the last page)[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/minutes/2010/Big%20Game%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf[/font][/size][/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Again this thread IS NOT meant to debate the merits of crossbows in WI or to bash any person or group. (enough of those threads already exist) This is meant to inform, WI deer hunters of WHY the question is coming back another time. Its been suggested by those that did not know of this situation that the question is coming back because there is a need to ask again or that "Somebody" must want crossbows. After reviewing the video, you will understand why the question is coming back and it has nothing to do with crossbows. It was done to manufacture controversy for the sake of boosting attendance at the hearings. For those planning to attend the hearings, here is a list of locations by county.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/2011Locations.pdf[/font][/align]

[Dan Salmon]

So making this noticed by more people, for the sole purpose of defending your (WBH) interests, that the CC is posing questions only to boost it's spring hearing attendance and keep themselves and the democratic rules creation system viable helps sportsmen and women in WI how? 

If a big enough deal is made out of this, especially with the winds of smaller government and budgets that are blowing currently in the state, the administration will have to do something.  And in the end, the average deer hunter in WI, with no special interest political lobby, loses.  I sincerely hope that the atrocity about to be committed to a grand old tradition and 2 billion dollar industry in this state by a group that touts its existence defense of tradition does not fall on deaf ears.

Really good show WBH, throw the Congress under the bus because they won't do your bidding. 

There you have it folks, politics as usual!

[retch sweeny]

[font=arial]Now I predicted that this site's resident non-bowhunter (some would say anti-bowhunter) would attempt to distract away from the core message and I was spot on. I also predicted that there would be no comments critical of what took place and why the question was manufactured (zealotry will cause one to act that way) Everything you need to understand about "Why" the question is coming back again was provided by the CC. Educating sportsmen and letting them know that they are being manipulated is the only proper thing to do and is a matter of public record. No need to hide it under a bushel basket. It is what it is. I've been saying for months that the reason the question is being brought back is more interesting than the question itself. The CC threw itself under the bus in this "Jump the shark" moment.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]I wonder how you will react if next year a question is manufactured that will effect a sport you enjoy (like gun deer hunting) just to pull people in. Lets say they agree that a controversial question would pull in a lot of gun hunters if they manufacture questions like.[/font][/align] [/align][font=arial]Antler restrictions of 6 points on a side min for the whole state.[/font][/align] [/align][font=arial]Shotguns only state wide.[/font][/align] [/align][font=arial]Move the 9 day gun season [/font] [font=arial]to December like Iowa.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Make every other year of the gun season an antlerless only season. [/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Or some such other question simply to create controversy to boost attendance. I'm guessing you would embrace those questions as those that "need" to be asked and have no problem with manufacturing controversy just to fill seats.[/font][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]But since you support crossbows, you are more than happy to look the other way because a question was created to manufacture controversy.[/font][/align]

[Dan Salmon]

Who is doing the manipulating?  There's red paint on WBH hands too.

This has now gone way past being a bow hunting issue Ron, now it's a complete attack from within on hunting in this state.  THAT'S THE ISSUE AT HAND.

[retch sweeny]

ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon

Who is doing the manipulating?  There's red paint on WBH hands too.

Distract as you see fit. The data is all there for your reading and viewing pleasure.

ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon

This has now gone way past being a bow hunting issue Ron, now it's a complete attack from within on hunting in this state.  THAT'S THE ISSUE AT HAND.

Distract and try to twist as you see fit. You are correct that this has gone past a bowhunting issue. That happened on Dec. 18, 2011 at the meeting where the question was manufactured. If you think simply pointing out what took place is an attack, then what they did must be pretty bad in your eyes. Even members of the committee disagreed with what was taking place. Its a shame they had to come to this to boost attendance but this is a situation they created. Your unhappy that public record is public record.

I can also see your point that what they did is an attack from within on hunting in this state and it falls right on the shoulders of those that created the situation NOT those that mention it. You are very predictable.

[Dan Salmon]

ORIGINAL: retch sweeny

ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon

Who is doing the manipulating?  There's red paint on WBH hands too.

Distract as you see fit. The data is all there for your reading and viewing pleasure.

ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon

This has now gone way past being a bow hunting issue Ron, now it's a complete attack from within on hunting in this state.  THAT'S THE ISSUE AT HAND.

Distract and try to twist as you see fit. You are correct that this has gone past a bowhunting issue. That happened on Dec. 18, 2011 at the meeting where the question was manufactured. If you think simply pointing out what took place is an attack, then what they did must be pretty bad in your eyes. Even members of the committee disagreed with what was taking place. Its a shame they had to come to this to boost attendance but this is a situation they created. Your unhappy that public record is public record.

I can also see your point that what they did is an attack from within on hunting in this state and it falls right on the shoulders of those that created the situation NOT those that mention it. You are very predictable.

The only reason you mention it is for your own selfish gain.  That in itself is pretty unethical in the eyes of most.

It's fitting that those that want to exclude will be the ones hitting the final nail in the coffin.

[retch sweeny]

[font=arial]"Selfish and unethical in the eyes of MOST." LOL Really?, MOST? or actually just you? Not unlike you to call names and to want to kill the messenger. I understand that this puts the CC in a very negative light but it is not a situation I created. [/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]Dan, a few questions for you. (I'll assume you watched/listened to the video)[/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]1. Was this proper use of CC authority (align with their mission statement) to manufacture controversy to fill seats?[/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]2. Is this a legitimate reason to bring the question up again? [/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]3. Do you blame me, or is it my fault that they are manufacturing controversy to raise attendance?[/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]4. Do you think WI sportsmen will want to know about why the question is coming back again?[/font]



[/align][/align][font=arial]5. Would you rather that the fact they created the question to manufacture controversywas was never made public?[/font]
[/align][/align][/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]6. Do you watch the news and do you get upset with the news channel or the reporter when they report issues that raise public awareness or expose impropriety by those elected to serve the public?[/font]

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial][/font] 

[/align][font=arial]You seem to have a desire to sweep this under the rug and make it go away or to change the subject to be about me rather than the topic at hand because what was done in committee was wrong and inappropriate. You would rather nobody know about this so you blame me for the situation that I did not create. [/font]

[/align]

[Dan Salmon]

Maybe you should just change your login name to "Judas". 

That would be quite fitting under the circumstances.

[retch sweeny]

[font=arial]I didnt think you would want to answer those questions as it would lead you to make public what you already know (and so do we). A spine is a terrible thing to waste. Thus far we have seen nothing but name calling and distraction and attempts to defelct and change the subject by you in a desire to avoid the situation they created.Based on your post, its clear that in the arena of ideas, you are unarmed and just needed to type something even if it exposed you and made you look silly. The questions are not difficult. You have always feared questions. Time to get over that. I look forward to your answers.[;)] [/font]

[/align]

[Dan Salmon]

[font="arial"][size="2"]1. Was this proper use of CC authority (align with their mission statement) to manufacture controversy to fill seats?[/size][/font]

No, I don't agree with it. 

[font="arial"][size="2"]2. Is this a legitimate reason to bring the question up again? [/size][/font]

No, just because it is controversial is not a legitimate reason.  The last time it was brought up however it was a close margin and over time, minds change.  That is a legitimate reason. 

[font="arial"][size="2"]3. Do you blame me, or is it my fault that they are manufacturing controversy to raise attendance?[/size][/font]

No, I don't blame you for the controversy.  

I blame you for spinning one man's opinion on why the question should be included on the ballot with out having statements from the seven others that also voted yes for it.  You are clearly making a controversy without any substantial evidence that anyone else agreed with the statements made.   For your own benefit you are making false conclusions and forwarding them to the public solely for WBH's benefit and clearly at the expense of the common WI hunter. 

[font="arial"][size="2"]4. Do you think WI sportsmen will want to know about why the question is coming back again?[/size][/font]

I don't truly think most care one bit why some of the questions are on the ballot or not.  I think most who go to the meetings, go to give their input one way or another.  Some vote for things and some vote against things.  Do most people care why some of the fishing questions show up on the ballots? No.  Do they vote on them anyway? Yes.  Does it affect them in any way?  Not most, but it is the process.

[font="arial"][size="2"]5. Would you rather that the fact they created the question to manufacture controversywas was never made public?[/size][/font]

One guy stood up and made the speech that has been recorded and now put on the internet and distributed by WBH out of context.  In that speech, the one guy claimed they (CC) needed a controversial question on the ballot to boost attendance.  I didn't hear any reasons given by any of the others that voted for the measure that claimed they agreed with this one man's opinion.  Who's to say they didn't think it a legitimate question to be asked again 5 years after the last time it was asked?  Can anyone listening to the little excerpt of the meeting that was recorded make the assumption that any of the others that voted yes for the measure believed the same? 
 
[font="arial"][size="2"]6. Do you watch the news and do you get upset with the news channel or the reporter when they report issues that raise public awareness or expose impropriety by those elected to serve the public?[/size][/font]

Yes, I do.  And I also believe that there is a lot of crap that is made up to benefit specific special interest groups.  Doesn't make it right, does it?  The man that made the speech will get his judgment at the next elections.  But for WBH to throw out speculation and misinformation solely to discredit the CC for not carrying their water is traitorous to the WI hunter as a whole and is the reason for the Judas reference that I will not apologize for.

 
So, there are your answers, no fear here.