Bob Stout wrote:The majority of Wisconsin's deer hunters voted FOR lowering the age limit for crossbow hunting from 65 to 55. The archery hunters did not want gun hunters using crossbows during their archery season in their deer woods.
Again, you falsely hope to create a situation that is not grounded in reality. Since you are operating under a flawed premise, I will explain what happened and why the concept of lowering the age has not advanced and who you should be blaming (since you like to blame). Since your into this who “Blame” thing, you will want to be educated so you don’t keep getting it wrong. Since you seem to care, you will want to read the entire time line. If you just want to bash bowhunters, none of this will matter since you don’t care about the facts. Either way, I will explain it to you.
He is how this went down.
1. In 2009 a citizen from Waupaca County wrote a resolution to lower the age of crossbow usage in WI for the annual conservation Congress spring hearing (resolution 690309) 55 folks at that county meeting supported his idea and 40 opposed it. Because it passed, it went to the Outdoor heritage committee of the CC to determine if it should be asked state wide. The outdoor heritage committee voted and enough members supported adding the question to the 2010 statewide spring hearing.
2. In April 2010, the question to lower the age to 55 was added to the CC side of the questionnaire and offered statewide to anyone that would bother to take the time to attend the spring hearing in one of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. The concept was supported by 52% and opposed by 48%.
3. While it was a slim margin, the question passed and the DNR had the option of offering the question on the DNR side of the questionnaire for the 2011 spring hearings. The Conservation Congress reworded the question and it was asked again to the sportsmen that bothered to attend the spring hearings. This time, the result was 56% in favor and 44% opposed.
4. In May, at the meeting of the Natural Resources Board, the Conservation Congress presented the results of all the questions from the spring hearing. At the same meeting, the DNR brought its list of items they wanted the NRB to enact. They did not ask for a change of the crossbow law that would lower the age from 65 to 55. The board takes the data and recommendations from the CC and DNR and votes on those matters. The DNR decided not to pursue the age change.
5. Of the matters taken to the NRB, those that are administrative rules, are voted on by the members of the NRB and if approved, the admin code is changed once lawyers in Madison determine they can legally be made. (lowering the crossbow age to 55 is NOT and administrative rule change but is instead a statutory change requiring legislation)
So there you have it. Do you see “Bowhunters” or WBH fingerprints on any of this?? Of course not.
Now, lets say that the DNR had taken the matter of lowering the crossbow age to 55 to the NRB. It would be up to the NRB to vote in favor or opposition. If they say no, its dead right there. If they were to support the change, they have the option of adding the change to a legislative wish list because such a change is a statutory change (as opposed to a change of the administrative code as described above). That list is presented to both parties to determine if any member of the legislature cares to draft a bill and champion a piece of legislation from the wish list. If not, the matter is dead right there.
If a legislator picks an item from the wish list and he/she is from the minority party, you can kiss that bill goodbye as most minority party bills never see the light of day (regardless of who the majority party is).
If all the planets align and a majority party legislator picks an item from the wish list and brands the matter as his own, he then crafts the legislation and shops it around for co-sponsors that also want to put their name on it and make this matter their own. If he cant muster support, the issue dies. If he is able to muster enough support from the majority party, the draft becomes a bill. That bill is then read and assigned to a legislative committee. The bill author then has to hope his bill will get a hearing in that committee.(some bills never get past this point and certainly a 50/50 matter would be iffy at best)
If the bill gets a hearing, everybody and their brother has the opportunity to testify at the hearing in an effort to persuade the committee to vote in favor or against the bill. Hunting orgs and private citizens would be expected to show up to support or oppose the bill. If the bill does not get enough support, it dies in committee (be it an Assembly Committee or a Senate Committee). If it gets enough support, it may get a full floor vote of that house. If not, the bill dies on the floor. If it gets a floor vote, other legislators have the ability to amend the bill. The bill either passes or dies on the floor (be it the Assembly or the Senate) In either case, the other house has to also vote in favor of the bill (this presents a challenge if the Assembly is Rep. and the Senate is Dem). It requires a majority vote in both houses.
Should both houses vote in the affirmative, the bill is either signed by the Governor and becomes an “act”. 10 days later, it is published in the newspaper of record and it becomes law. If the Governor should veto the bill, its dead. If the Governor does neither (sign or veto) the bill simply becomes law after 20 days. The road from 50/50 issue (like lowering the age from 65 to 55) to law is a tough one. As such, most lawmakers wont waste their time and will stick with likely winners that are worthy of their effort. For those that still don’t get it, this might help.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
Bob Stout wrote:Why are the archery hunters making the rules for all of Wisconsin's deer hunters?
As you can see, that is not the case at all. I hope this helps correct the erroneous view you held of how this happened and who you incorrectly want to blame for this not changing.