Crossbows gain steam in the CC voting

[retch sweeny]

ORIGINAL: umpiremark Sounds to me like you're trying real hard to defeat this before it can get to the majority of hunters who could/will vote, one way or another.

[font=arial]Hunters did vote. They did so at t[/font]he Statewide crossbow inclusion vote at the 2005 statewide Congress spring hearings, I will fill you in. It failed by 70% of the vote of those that bothered to participate. (that is a blowout) Of the 74 questions on the ballot that year, only one failed by a larger margin. On another note, percentage wise, the crossbow question failed by a bigger margin than the one to end T-zone hunts and to end EAB in WI. (both are hated by hunters) That clear mandate came from rank and file sportsmen that bothered to show up and vote. Those who don't participate (like those that don't turn out to vote for regular elections) have given up their voice for lack of participation. Nobody was excluded from voting. No different than a general election day. The legislature is very sensitive to public opinion especially when there are multiple statewide orgs that oppose the idea coupled with a clear mandate from sportsmen. This is after all a legislative matter. Only they can decide. Either way, this matter comes before the CC executive council tomorrow. I will be on hand to see how it goes.

[wisbooner3932]

I'm going to play devil's advocate, Retch.  The numbers you presented were from 2005, wouldn't you agree that EAB is hated now more than ever?  I don't see that comparison being relevant the least in 2011 considering the devastation that has been recognized the last couple years due to EAB.  I'd say EAB is at right at, or near the top of every hunters (crap) list right now. 
 
Also, don't you think the 70% that opposed crossbow in 2005 will diminish every year until it gets passed and is accepted among all hunters?  Although I'm opposed to them myself, I regret you inform you that they will be passed sooner or later.  History shows us that certain issues will eventually get passed and be accepted.  Just look at sufferage (or compound bows for that matter) for example; many people strongly opposed it but now you will be hard pressed to find a single soul against it.  I commend you for fighting it but I also realize the day will come when they are used by able-bodied 20 year olds, I just hope it's later rather than sooner.

[umpiremark]

"Hunters did vote. They did so at the Statewide crossbow inclusion vote at the 2005 statewide Congress spring hearings,"

I voted in the 2004 presidential elections and George W. Bush is no longer the President, today. Your analogy of "what was" 6 years ago is weak, at best. Times change, people change, opinions change.

"That clear mandate came from rank and file sportsmen that bothered to show up and vote. Those who don't participate (like those that don't turn out to vote for regular elections) "

Again, you missed the point of the difference between conclusive data and supportive data ... people who choose to vote (or not vote) in a general election are afforded the opportunity to do so, by ballot, in every township, village and city via polling stations, with little effort to attend. The DNR "listening sessions" are few and far between, NOT affording every individual equal opportunity to cast a ballot without great effort. DNR "listening sessions" are non-binding, if I recall correctly. No mandate can be set if 70% of the eligible voters are not given the opportunity.

"The legislature is very sensitive to public opinion especially when there are multiple statewide orgs ..."

Then the legislative body should solicit opinion from the entire body of the hunters, not a select few. If you say the DNR has these "listening sessions" for that, see above.

You see Ron, you and your bow hunting non-friendly association are mis-informed. I neither advocate nor oppose the crossbow idea here in WI, I just feel there are neither enough facts, figures nor sentiments to sway my opinion one way or another at this time. But what I cannot stand is an individual like yourself (or the group you represent) swaying public opinion on data and/or facts that are unsubstantiated. Again, you lose the argument when your data compares to supportive data rather than conclusive data. My point on all these threads is to open the eyes of the casual reader that perhaps, just perhaps, you are toting information that appears clear cut, but is mostly smoke and mirrors.

In the real world of Statistics, your data is called "illusive conclusive" data. One can draw a random conclusion by the supporting data you provide, but there is little evidence that the data itself is totally conclusive.

Until the DNR, the CC and the legislature arrive at a decision via conclusive data from all parties, I will continue to disregard your data as any evidence whatsoever, and also continue to shoot down your random conclusions, because I truly believe you have nothing. Nothing but supportive data, that is.

[retch sweeny]

[font=arial]Actually you remain incorrect. You hope to sell the statewide hearings a "listening sessions" when in fact they are state hearings held in every county in the state and properly noticed per law. Those interested will want to know that if you read the hearing ballot you will see this:[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[size=1][align=left][font=arial][size=100]BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]WM-01-10 [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]FH-03-10 [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 23.09(2)(b), 29.014, 29.053(3), 29.059, 29.089, 29.192 and 29.193 Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to chs. NR 10, 11, 12 and 19, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to hunting, trapping, closed areas and game refuges. [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]After those questions that are preceded by[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 

[font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014(1), 29.039, 29.041, 29.053, 29.531and, 29.533, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to chs. NR 20, 21 and 26, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to fishing on the inland, outlying, and boundary waters of Wisconsin. [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]Followed by[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[align=left][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. The Department’s Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at SmallBusiness@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department’s consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 12, 2010, the Wisconsin Conservation Congress will hold its election of county delegates in each county. Upon completion of the delegate elections, the joint Spring Hearing/Conservation Congress meeting will convene to take comments on the foregoing rule modifications and Conservation Congress advisory questions. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on Monday, April 12, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the following locations: [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]And you will certainly be intereseted in this[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[align=left][font=arial]NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Kari Lee-Zimmermann at (608) 266-2952 with specific information on your request by April 5, 2010. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]The proposed rules and fiscal estimates may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed hunting and trapping regulations may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Written comments on the proposed fishing regulations may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Joe Hennessy, Bureau of Fisheries Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Written comments shall be postmarked not later than April 13, 2010. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will be summarized for the Natural Resources Board, however, they will not be tallied along with the responses received at the county hearings. [/font]

[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]These state hearings are properly notice according to state law. While at the hearings, partisipants engage as in every other state hearing the DNR holds that has the effect of change to administrative code. in the ballot you will see the new wording will exist in the states administrative code (which has the effect of law). Hear is a portion of the spring hearing ballot from last year.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[align=left][font=arial]ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]REPEALING, RENUMBERING AND AMENDING, AMENDING, REPEALING AND RECREATING AND CREATING RULES [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to repeal ss. NR 10.01(1)(g)1.d. and i., 10.01(1)(g)2.c. and h., 10.01(1)(g)3.c. and h., 10.01(1)(g)4.c. and h., 10.01(3)(bm), 10.01(3)(f)2., 10.06(6)(r), 10.31(b) and (e), and 11.01(2); to amend ss. NR 10.001(9w), 10.01(2)(f)4.a., 10.01(2)(f)3., 10.01(3)(b), 10.01(3)(e)2., 10.01(3)(es), 10.01(3)(ev), 10.07(2)(b)6., 10.09(1)(c)1.a., 10.104(7)(b), 10.105(4), (5) and (6), 10.11 (4) and (5), 10.13(1)(b)5. and 6., 12.35(4), 12.36(3)(b)7., 19.025(2)(d) and 19.60(3)(a)4.; to repeal and recreate ss. NR 10.01(3)(f), 10.106(1), 10.13(1)(b)16 and 10.29; and to create ss. NR 10.001(2p), 10.001(5v), 10.001(19b) and (19c), 10.01(3)(e)2.i., 10.01(3)(et)1.cv., 10.09(1)(c)1.f., 10.105(7), 19.001(8t) and (8v), and 19.025(3)(title)(dm) relating to hunting and trapping regulations, wildlife damage and nuisance control, closed areas and game refuges. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]WM-01-10 [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial][/font] [/align][align=left][font=arial]Statutes Interpreted and Explanation of Agency Authority[/font][font=arial]: The department has interpreted the following statutes as providing the authority to promulgate rules regarding hunting, trapping, closed areas and game refuges: ss. 23.09(2)(b), 29.014, 29.053(3), 29.059, 29.089, 29.192 and 29.193 Stats. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial] [/align][/font][align=left][font=arial]Statutory Authority and Explanation of Agency Authority[/font][font=arial]: Statutes that authorize the promulgation of these rules include: ss. 23.09(2)(b), 29.014, 29.053(3), 29.059, 29.089, 29.192 and 29.193 Stats. These statutes specifically provide the department with authority to establish game refuges, maintain open and closed seasons and other regulations to conserve fish and game and ensure opportunities for hunting and trapping, provide additional hunting opportunities for persons who are physically disabled, report the number and kind of animal taken by hunters and trappers and authorize and regulate hunting on land in state parks. All rules promulgated under this authority are subject to review under ch. 227, Stats. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial] [/align][/font][align=left][font=arial]Related Rule or Statute[/font][font=arial]: There are no state rules or statutes that directly relate to the provisions that are proposed in this administrative order. [/font][/align][align=left][font=arial] [/align][/font]

[font=arial]Plain Language Analysis: [/font][font=arial]The department has recommended modifications to chapters NR 10, 11, 12 and 19, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to hunting, trapping, closed areas and game refuges. These rule changes are proposed for inclusion in the 2010 Spring Hearing Questionnaire. Specifically, these proposals do the following: [/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]_________[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
[font=arial]I'm sorry to inform you that these are legal state hearings, properly noticed. If you or others dont care to turn out, oh well.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 
Likewise, the DNR also asked the full crossbow usage question in the last 2 DNR bowhunter surveys. In both cases, the clear majority of partisipants opposed the idea. Every time the full usage of crossbow question is asked, it fails by a long shot. That point is not lost on legislators. Can anybody produce a valid poll in which WI hunters have supported full crossbow usage for all in the WI archery deer season? (not some goofy internet poll where I can vote 20 time after clearing cookies or vote from multiple computers or have people from other states (or countries) vote in the poll. I look forward to your data. There is nothing about the WI archery deer season that is broke or needs fixing. It is the bright spot in WI hunting license sales (perhaps becasue nobody is excluded)


[/size][/size]

[umpiremark]

I'm making the assumption even you are intelligent enough to know the difference between a "hearing" and a vote.

[umpiremark]

"I look forward to your data."

As I have looked forward to you, producing conclusive data that all WI hunters have been afforded an opportunity to vote, not hear.


"There is nothing about the WI archery deer season that is broke or needs fixing."

And I have not suggested anything to the contrary. I do not believe use of a personal choice weapon (i.e. a crossbow) has been proported to be a "fix" for anything. It is merely that simply, a personal choice of ethical weapon. You and your cronies on the other hand, view it as a threat to the common way of life around here. This perceived threat cannot be supported by any of your illusive conclusive data.

[Dan Salmon]

Retch, I know you mean well and believe in what you do, but you are starting to sound like one of the guys you work around.  You're constant regurgitation of the same scripted answers and data that is 5 to 10 years old, makes it look like you think most of us are too dumb to understand. 

Have the question on a statewide ballot as a referendum question and bring back that data and we'll truly see what the common hunter wants or doesn't want. 

[deojee1414]

While somewhat off topic, I'm wondering why, in this age of the internet we need to have these questionnaires only be available to those able to attend a meeting in person. Why can't they be made available on the DNR's website? You enter your DNR customer number and you answer the questions. They already have this option for other surveys? Seems like they would get a lot more responses, which is what they should be after if they're trying to guage public sentiment. And those who wish to personally attend the meetings to hear and/or speak on the subjects would still be able to do so. Am I crazy?

[Dan Salmon]

Nope, and a very good idea.

[umpiremark]

deojee1414 .... this is exactly what the WBH does not want ... a full representation of interest (or non-interest) of the crossbow subject. By polling the entire population, the WBH would lose credibility in saying for years they were right (about the public not wanting crossbows), when the totality of final numbers may prove them wrong.