Respose from comitee chair!

[bhugo]

Hi all,

I can see that all the e-mails have been flying Rep. Sheltrown has contacted me with this. I think he is on the sportsporsons side.

Brian,

I will not be able to continue to reply to the e-mails because of other demands on my time. Can you please include a post on the forum that indicates I do not support the bill, will not be bringing it up in committee, and that is not necessary to contact me by e-mail?

Thanks,

Joel Sheltrown

[tallbear]

Thanks for the post Brian. And thanks to all that contacted Rep. Sheltrown.

[Birdhuntr1]

Judy Emmons of District 70 responded to my email & phone call saying she would not support this or any other issue that infringes on hunter's rights.

[boehr]

It would be interesting to see a response from Wenke.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

It would be interesting to see a response from Wenke.

I would say that is where the pressure needs to be directed to at this point in the process.

I will draft a email and see if he would like to respond. ;)

[Conservationist]

I've got a meeting scheduled with him tomorrow...

Be certain that I will bring with me the things that have been discussed...we'll just have to wait and see what kind of response they will garner.

Jason.

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

I've got a meeting scheduled with him tomorrow...

Be certain that I will bring with me the things that have been discussed...we'll just have to wait and see what kind of response they will garner.

Jason.

Thanks Jason.

Let us know how it goes.

[bawplank]

I got a automated response from him saying they will be answered as received, if your not in his district he refers to your own rep the auto response said. I am in his area so well see if he responds.

[QuakrTrakr]

Thanks Jason!

[Conservationist]

Just got back from a meeting with the bill sponsor(Wenke) a little while ago. The meeting was with the Rep and one of his LAs (Andrea).

While the Representative assured me that the bill was "dead in committee", and that he assumed that it would be soon after drafting it, I had greater concern that it was ever introduced at all.

I am not sure if it has been posted yet...but we also discussed the contributing factors which "forced" him to introduce the bill. (I've also been told this by the Department)

A woman was "walking" her dog off-leash in Fort Custer State Park. The dog was "caught" by a foothold trap. The dog was terminally ill (cancer or something) and ended up dieing a couple of days earlier. Reportedly the owners blame the "trauma" involved with the trap incident as resulting in the dogs eventual death. JUST FYI...

After a very lengthy discussion it was very apparent that, beyond the Fort Custer incident, the Representative was very concerned (meaing somewhat against) about the continued use of foothold traps in Michigan.

Most of the Representative's (and Andrea's) questions
revolved around issues of "humaneness", "prolonged suffering", effective enforcement of existing wildlife conservation orders (WCO), Have-a-Heart alternatives (and general alternatives to foothold), etc...

I've been working in Lansing with MUCC for 5 years and this is the first time that I can remember this Representative's name coming up...he is new to this arena.

Upon leaving I made mention of our interest that his office call upon us for this issue or others that affect sportsmen within his district before the introduction of dangerous legislation. If he was only hoping to get a line of communication established with the introduction of 4497 then we were only a phone call away.

Thanks again for everyone's letters and calls...they really make a difference.

Jason.

[Shlwego]

Thanks for the info, Jason. And thanks for all your efforts on behalf of the rest of us.

Wenke's explanation seems somewhat lame. It sounds like he's saying that if the dog's owners had been responsible in the first place and kept their pet on a leash, the event that precipitated this wouldn't have occured and this legislation might not have been introduced. Imangine that. Once again some imbecile fails to take responsibility for his/her own failure and wants to blame someone else. Bunk.
Even so, it looks more like a smoke screen to me. It seems more likely that PETA has been waiting for something like this to occur and they just jumped on the first case that came up.
At least it appears that we got thru to the committee chair and this POS is dead in committee. Still, I think we're just starting down the road to defending trapping in this state. This was just the first round, mark my words...

[swampbuck]

It would never have gotten past Sheltrown. As I said before Joel has been a great Rep. as was his brother who proceeded him. He supports sportsmens rights, he has stood up to the dnr, he has consistently stood up for the little guy. And he is very approachable.

Unless you own lakefront property on Higgins Lake then you probably wouldnt like him much.:lol:

[QuakrTrakr]

Unless you own lakefront property on Higgins Lake then you probably wouldnt like him much.:lol:
Why? Just curious. My friends relative has property on that waterfront.

[CL-Lewiston]

Ill bet more could be accomplished by showing him that filmstrip (name escapes me) and show him the 'other side of the story'.

Probably sent enough emails.

Could switch to HB 4490 and HB 4491-to eliminate handgun registration (nonSAFETY inspection).

[Bow Hunter Brandon]

Ill bet more could be accomplished by showing him that filmstrip (name escapes me) and show him the 'other side of the story'.

Probably sent enough emails.

Could switch to HB 4490 and HB 4491-to eliminate handgun registration (nonSAFETY inspection).


The Video is Destroying the Myth:
Here is a streaming video of it.
http://www.nationaltrappers.com/video/DestoryingtheMyth.wmv

[swampbuck]

Why? Just curious. My friends relative has property on that waterfront.

Its a really long story but basically, The way higgins lake was originally plotted was that there are many roads that end at the shorline. For about 100+ years the people who owned property on the streets ending at the lake(backlotters) had the right to moore boats at the roadend(DEEDED RIGHTS). and the public could use the roadends also for anything except the boat mooring. For over 100 years everyone got along no problem.

then starting in the late 80's Alot of people started coming up here and buying lakefront property,tearing down the cottages and building McMANSIONS. THEN THEY ALL GOT TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO STOP THE PUBLIC FROM USING THOSE ROADENDS EVER,FOR ANY PURPOSE.

There have been all sorts of legal,verbal, physical and legislative battles including all the way to the mich. supreme court.some rights have been lost and some have been saved. and the legal rulings apply state wide. It is nowhere near over yet.

As far as Sheltrown and his brother who was the previos rep. he has been solidly on the side of preserving public access rights. And without him the public access rights probably would have been lost.

I want to note that many other people have fought hard to preserve those rights and should not be forgotten. But Rep. Sheltrown has been a big stick in that battle.

[QuakrTrakr]

My buddy's relatives own one of the McMANSIONS. He's kinda an ****. More money/attitude than humility. I definately see what's going on. NOW, back to the topic......................

[drev]

Having contacted the rep in the area I live, I got a "numb" response.

The question I have is:

Isn't there a few more pressing items the suits in Lansing need to address first, instead of some the "other" issues?:sad:


Mainly a budget, jobs, a outflow of residents.......................

[boehr]

a outflow of residents.......................Easy, quit taxing people to death for things that don't pertain to them. It is cheaper here in Florida. Example Florida drivers license cost me $25 and its good until 2015.