Thoughts on MUCC/michigan out of doors.

[TLWOODS]

I have been alittle disappointed with the quantity/quality of the magazine over the past year or so. Specifically the so called "double" issue in the summer and now the same for the Jan/Feb issue. I am wondering what some of you think.

Tony, Gabe, & Jimmy, I know that you may read this and I know what your opinion is and I don't want to hear it. this is for the rest of us.You can maybe use this as creative criticism.

[Blueump]

I have been alittle disappointed with the quantity/quality of the magazine over the past year or so. Specifically the so called "double" issue in the summer and now the same for the Jan/Feb issue. I am wondering what some of you think.

Its bright, colorful, informative and covers local topics of interest. I like it.

Tony, Gabe, & Jimmy, I know that you may read this and I know what your opinion is and I don't want to hear it. this is for the rest of us.You can maybe use this as creative criticism.

Maybe you should re-state this to say..."If I want to hear your opinion, I'll give you one!" Is it that you only want to hear from those that support your opinion, or do you simply want to exclude those that actually have the inside information about the changes made to the magazine? You really don't have to get MOOD magazine...a simple "please drop my subscription" letter is easy to write! I'm sure you'll miss them more than they miss you!

[ih772]

Its bright, colorful, informative and covers local topics of interest. I like it.



Maybe you should re-state this to say..."If I want to hear your opinion, I'll give you one!" Is it that you only want to hear from those that support your opinion, or do you simply want to exclude those that actually have the inside information about the changes made to the magazine? You really don't have to get MOOD magazine...a simple "please drop my subscription" letter is easy to write! I'm sure you'll miss them more than they miss you!

An attitude like that isn't a good way to retain your customers.

[dogwhistle]

i think it's pretty much "white bread"' journalism. the same warmed over articles that are published in all outdoor magazines. i dont recall reading any of the in depth critical and investigative articles that you might read in other types of magazines.

[cityslicker]

I am a Life Member of MUCC and have been since 1988. I am concerned about the downhill slide of MUCC that seems to be turing into an avalanche.
First - Sell Out-Door-Ama They had to do Big Buck Night on the runway for the Dog Jump Show not on a "NICE" stage
Second - Sell Michigan Out of Doors T.V. I hear Jimmy G. is buying the show. Kelly Gotch came out to the club I belong to and did a taping of our youth archery program. Never did see it on the show.
Third - Over 500 affiliated clubs in MUCC, but do not know much about any of them. Todays society is not "WHAT have you done for me" but "WHAT have you done for me lately." There is a lot of wisdom from the elder statesmen in an organization.
Fourth - Eliminate Wildlife Encounters program. This past weekend the club I belong to celebrated our 53rd Annual Winter Carnival. For 2 shows of Birds of Prey on Saturday we had over 200 in attendance and for Woodlands Program on Sunday we had standing room only. What a great opportunity to promote our club and MUCC Wildlife Encounters. But, NO ONE TO BE SEEN. Not of interest for the show or the magazine. TOO BAD because the KIDS lose.

Michigan Hunters and Anglers do not support the organization that represents them in Lansing (MUCC) Like gun owners do not support the NRA which represents us in Washington. TOO BAD because we all lose.

What are YOU going to do to try and solve this problem?:confused::confused:

[solohunter]

I dropped my subscription last year. they seem to just be a mouthpeice for the DNR, I am waiting for jimmy to have to eat his words again on the CWD problem like he did on the license increase. After the reply I got from tony hanson via e-mail I will never give them another dime!

[cad679]

I like it.

Brett

[DEDGOOSE]

havent read one in two years, dont care too ever again

[rockman]

If your a member of MUCC for the magazine subscription then you are a member for the wrong reasons. MUCC is a voice in Lansing (whether you agree with them 100% of the time or not) and a good source of information for what is going on in Lansing. The new electronic communications regarding legislative updates, etc. are very informative and provide a quick reference for what is going on/coming up in Lansing.

[Zeboy]

Do I agree with everything MUCC does. NO WAY

Do I get sick of Tony Hansen's Turkey and Bow Hunting articles - ABSOLUTELY!

Do I think past Executive Director Sam Washington was a bumbling idiot - YEP!


Do I belong to and support MUCC 100% - YES I DO!

GOD help the sportsmen of Michigan if MUCC does not get the support that it needs and goes under, because no one else will be there to help. MUCC is our voice in Lansing, to keep our interests in front of the politicians. The problem is with dwindling membership, the "political muscle" of MUCC is in jeopardy.

This isn't a "Chicken or Egg" scenario. MUCC did not come first. Sportsman clubs and organization formed MUCC to represent our interests. If you do not like the MUCC position on something, then get involved and change their (our) position. MUCC has to represent the interests of something like 500 clubs and organizations. There is NO WAY to keep everyone happy on every issue. There are way too many differing opinions on every topic.

Sportsmen must realize that at times they will disagree with MUCC. However, there is no other organization that is committed to conserving Michigan's natural resources and protecting the heritage of sportsmen.

The NRA isn't going to protect our natural resources. Habitat organizations like DU, PF, & RGS will not get involved in "right to hunt" conflicts. There are more sportsman organizations than ever before. They all have their seperate agendas which often times directly conflict with other sportsman's organizations.

MUCC, though far from perfect, is a very necessary and worthwhile organization. I can only hope that it isn't gone before people wake up and realize this.

[Linda G.]

Although I agree that Michigan needs a strong organization to uphold the outdoor heritage for us, I don't think MUCC can do it anymore unless they change over their entire staff...from the top down.

The only people there in touch with the people these days is the staff of the TV show, and that's not how it should be. Everyone in that building should be in sync with the sportsmen and women-and I betcha half the people in that office, what's left of it, don't even hunt and fish.

It only worsened with the dove situation and MUCC's refusal to take a strong stance in favor of it, as they did for bear hunting in 1996 (which did the organization a WHOLE lot of good), and I don't think a lot of us are willing to forget that.

Although quiet in this state of late, I saw a lot more promise in the USSA group on that issue, there's a group that's willing to fight for us.

We need a strong, LOUD organization that will stand up for us...and MUCC appears to be so caught up in the political machine that they simply can't do that anymore.

Have you been to a board or state meeting lately? Are any of the directors under the age of 65?

[Trophy Specialist]

The Magazine

In my opinion, the current editor is doing a good job but it’s apparent that the magazines budget it shrirking as each issue seems to get smaller and smaller and it also seems like the editor is now writing a good portion of the magazine himself. The content is much better since Tony took over (at least since Ken Lowe passed away). Still, I see Tony falling into the trap of vehemently backing some of MUCCs controversial stances on issues which is a big mistake as it just causes people to get POed and drop their membership. I’d just stick to reporting on issues and not editorialize everything into a position one way or the other.

MUCC

MUCC used to have a membership of well over 100,000 and now they are just a small fraction of that once powerful voice of sportsmen. The reason for the precipitous drop is MUCCs ability to tick off their membership by taking stances on every controversial issue out there. A classic example is the baiting issue. They have waffled back and forth on it and managed to PO just about everyone on both sides in the process. Now they are against it again and active on the issue and of course their membership will ultimately suffer as a result. I'm a solution guy though and not just a complainer. They need to change their bylaws to require a heavy (say 75%) majority of ALL membership before taking up the cause on an issue. If they did that then they just might stave off their demise. I’m doubtful that they will save themselves though, which is very sad for the sportsmen of MI.:sad:

[ESOX]

MUCC lost me when their official stance on the crossbow issue was (sic) "What ever MBH wants." With no thought to how prejudiced and discriminatory MBH's stance on the issue was.

[Trophy Specialist]

MUCC lost me when their official stance on the crossbow issue was (sic) "What ever MBH wants." With no thought to how prejudiced MBH's stance on the issue was.

See what I mean. That was another looser issue for MUCC that cost them membership.

[ESOX]

MUCC

MUCC used to have a membership of well over 100,000 and now they are just a small fraction of that once powerful voice of sportsmen. The reason for the precipitous drop is MUCCs ability to tick off their membership by taking stances on every controversial issue out there. A classic example is the baiting issue. They have waffled back and forth on it and managed to PO just about everyone on both sides in the process. Now they are against it again and active on the issue and of course their membership will ultimately suffer as a result. I'm a solution guy though and not just a complainer. They need to change their bylaws to require a heavy (say 75%) majority of ALL membership before taking up the cause on an issue. If they did that then they just might stave off their demise. I’m doubtful that they will save themselves though, which is very sad for the sportsmen of MI.


I agree, a poll of the membership would have saved them a lot of members on the crossbow issue, baiting issue etc... for sure.

[cityslicker]

The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.:)
The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.:dizzy:

The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:

[ESOX]

This is quite revealing about the MUCC in the minds of Michigan's sportspeople. This thread has less than half the views of most threads started about the time this one did. MUCC is dropping off the radar. They will either have to do something to change their ways, or they will disappear. Hopefully if they do disappear, they will be replaced with a more member friendly organization, that recognizes the needs of all sportspeople, not the vociferous few.

[Zeboy]

See what I mean. That was another looser issue for MUCC that cost them membership.

ESOX wrote "MUCC lost me when their official stance on the crossbow issue was (sic) "What ever MBH wants." With no thought to how prejudiced and discriminatory MBH's stance on the issue was. "

see what I mean. . . You don't agree with me on THIS topic therefore I won't belong. I'll show you MUCC, I'll let our outdoor heritage go down the tubes because I didn't get MY way on this particular topic. I don't care if the antis divide us and conquer us, I don't care if our environment gets destroyed, I don't care if we have no habitiat left . . . at least I'll go to my grave knowing I was right on the crossbow . . . or the baiting . . . or the CWD. . . or the mining . . . or the ______ issue. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

To paraphrase Joni Mitchell:

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

[ESOX]

You don't agree with me on THIS topic therefore I won't belong. I'll show you MUCC, I'll let our outdoor heritage go down the tubes because I didn't get MY way on this particular topic.

What on earth could I possibly gain by backing an organization whos official stance is one that is effective at keeping me out of bow season?

[Trophy Specialist]

The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.:)
The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.:dizzy:

The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:
Again, this goes to the heart of MUCCs problem. If MUCC would have backed the expansion of crossbows into all seasons, then they would have lost a bunch of membership from the aniti-crossbow group. It was a loose/loose issue and yet another one MUCC should never take a policy stance on. MUCC gets weaker and weaker on each of those issues to the point where if/when a real major issue does come up where sportsmen need a strong statewide organization, they won't have the clout or membership to have an impact. With a victory on the dove issue, anti-hunters will certainly be back again hit us again and who's going to stop them?

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.:)
The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.:dizzy:

The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:

theres a simple fix to that problem. petition to change the bylaw to majority of the vote not 2/3. we did that at the club i belong to. hell its hard enough to get 2/3 of the membership to vote on anything, how in the hell will you ever get 2/3 of the vote. another reason i/we don't belong to mucc.

[ESOX]

The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.:)
The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.:dizzy:

The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:

Brilliant. If we can't get 2/3 to vote for an issue we will help the minority set policy.

[Topshelf]

The club I shoot at is affiliated and so I'm a member of MUCC. So we as members get the magizine each month. I still read some of the articles but have noticed that it has been watered down and sort of generic for quite some time.
No, I dont agree with all their stances or like all their writers. Nor do I agree with all the NRA's stances but still support both in principle.

[Whit1]

I have been alittle disappointed with the quantity/quality of the magazine over the past year or so. Specifically the so called "double" issue in the summer and now the same for the Jan/Feb issue. I am wondering what some of you think.

Tony, Gabe, & Jimmy, I know that you may read this and I know what your opinion is and I don't want to hear it. this is for the rest of us.You can maybe use this as creative criticism.

If you post such a thread then you should expect to hear from both sides of the issue including the particulars. Give and take, agree and disagree are going to happen. Both sides of these issues are open for discussion with retort and retorts given and taken.

As far as MUCC goes I've never been a member and I'm not sure why that is. As a kid Harry Gaines was a neighbor. I was and still am, good friends with his grandson. Of course Harry was one of the founders of MUCC. Not being a member and not having spent a lot of time over the years paying a lot of attention to MUCC, other than on the crossbow issue, I can't pass judgement.

TS/Mike is correct, I believe when he says that no matter what side of the issue MUCC takes they will make x% of their membership.....and others........unhappy.

I do have a question for those of you in the know and it does concern the issue of crossbows as discussed.....ad nauseum I heard from someone who was there.......at the convention last fall. Was a vote taken to change the stance of MUCC in this matter? (I believe there was). If a vote was taken was it by ballot or hand/voice count at a meeting?

One thing that I must say and of course can point a digit straight at me is that the only way to change an organization is from within.

[Barry]

I like a good healthy debate but clearly, the motivation of the original post that started this thread was not to get input about a the MUCC magazine, IMO. If MUCC does not continue to speak for sportsmen with one voice, no other single organization will, IMO. If someone does not like an MUCC policy, either join them to change policy or start a competing organization with the same broad based mission.

I belong to at least five hunting and fishing dues supported organizations. Among them is MUCC for which I have been a member for 30 plus years. MUCC will continue to get my dues because I don't believe another organization can or will form to successfully replace their mission of speaking for Michigan sportsmen and women with one voice.

MUCC is not perfect but I appreciate that the organization is not afraid to facilitate solutions to controversial issues. It would be a sad day if MUCC stops taking risks on public policy issues. It will be the same day the anti's step forward to put a couple more nails into the coffin of our hunting, fishing and gun rights.

[Munsterlndr]

The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?

[hitechman]

The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.:)
The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.:dizzy:

The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:


What in the he!! does this have to do with the quality/quantity of the MUCC magazine. Talk about getting off topic. :lol:

Steve

[ESOX]

If MUCC does not continue to speak for sportsmen with one voice
Hell, apparently they don't even speak for the majority of the members wishes. Why would people support someone who ignores their wishes, even worse, works against the majority of the members wishes?
I used to think that MUCC worked to expand our hunting and fishing rights. That they would act in a manner that was best for the resources. Time and again they have proven me wrong.

[Spartan88]

MUCC lost me when their official stance on the crossbow issue was (sic) "What ever MBH wants." With no thought to how prejudiced and discriminatory MBH's stance on the issue was.

:yeahthat:

[swampbuck]

The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?

Hell, apparently they don't even speak for the majority of the members wishes. Why would people support someone who ignores their wishes, even worse, works against the majority of the members wishes?
I used to think that MUCC worked to expand our hunting and fishing rights. That they would act in a manner that was best for the resources. Time and again they have proven me wrong.

THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT, They have become a tool of a special interest group because that special interest group has a member on mucc's board. THEY HAVE LOST ALL CREDABILITY IN MY OPINION.

They will not see another cent from me and I will not hesitate to spread the message.:rant:

[ESOX]

One thing that I must say and of course can point a digit straight at me is that the only way to change an organization is from within.

That assumes one has the time, energy, and desire to somehow break into the "good old boys club" that has obviously taken over and is running the MUCC into the ground.

[Whit1]

That assumes one has the time, energy, and desire to somehow break into the "good old boys club" that has obviously taken over and is running the MUCC into the ground.

Yup!

The problem with me is that I have one of those.

[cityslicker]

STEVE THE HITECHMAN MR. CHARTER MEMBER you crack me up:lol::lol:

You complain about my second post, when I was trying to help another poster be brought to light on MUCC and Crossbow issue from the convention.

You obviously only read small bits and pieces then type away.

MY sincere apologies for going "OFF" topic for you.:lol::lol:

Typers on this forum crack me up.:lol:

[ESOX]

when I was trying to help another poster be brought to light on MUCC and Crossbow issue from the convention.

And I appreciated it. I had heard that before. So how were these votes counted? Was it a ballot, a raise of hands? How narrow was the margin to a supermajority?

[November Sunrise]

And I appreciated it. I had heard that before. So how were these votes counted? Was it a ballot, a raise of hands? How narrow was the margin to a supermajority?

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240062&highlight=mucc

[Rasputin]

I've been a MUCC member for over 20 years. I'm not happy about how MUCC reacted to the baiting ban. I enjoy hunting over bait (so I've recently learned that makes me a Cretan), but I can live without it. I would have appreciated better timing on the announcement, but I'll adapt just fine. My issue with MUCC is not because they supported it, but because they didn't make it apparent that they even looked into the science of the ban. Hook line and sinker what the state said, and from this forum, you can at least grudgingly agree that it is a topic that merits debate. I don't feel like MUCC held the State's feet to the fire to be convinced it was necessary. At least you can't tell that from MOOD magazine. I don't have to agree with them, but when a large segment of who they suppossedly represent have an opinion, it should be presented, pro and con. All four issues of MOOD that have come out since the bait ban have been practically silent about the issue except for one negative letter to the editor by a guy who thinks he can jump over the moon. All other comments were Tony telling us to be united. Easy to say when you get your own way! I agree with some of the others that MUCC should provide a forum for discussion and stop being in such a hurry to have opinions. Maybe they should rename MOOD magazine the "Tony Hansen Journal" since it seems to be about him and his opinions more than anything else.

[Whit1]

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240062&highlight=mucc

I looked through that thread Jeff, but the voting process isn't really described.

[cityslicker]

At the MUCC convention only clubs with representation have votes. When I was President of the club I belong to, I went to the convention. The year was 2002 and I held 3 votes representing the 300 club members.
You can be sure with the Michigan Bow Hunters knowing about the crossbow resolution being brought to the 2008 convention they tried to bring "ALL" involved that would vote with them.
If I remember correctly, the majority was in favor of ALL inclusive, but not by 2/3rds majority.
Most of the problem arises when over 500 clubs are affiliated with MUCC, but not nearly that many are represented at the convention.
If it was done the same as 2002 you raised a color coded card which represented the number of votes you held and all were counted.
Hope this helps.:help:

[Splitshot]

I was also president of a club in Lansing and the way the conventions are run are out dated. Lots of politics. MUCC should get a web-site and only allow members. The members should vote so MUCC can see what the membership really wants instead of being controled by the good old boys network.

MUCC has made mistakes and gone against my wishes, but they are sportsmen and women and they fight for our rights. Anyone can do what they wand, but if I didn't support them because they didn't always agree with me that would make me a pretty shallow person. As sportpeople we should be able to look at the big picture.

[ESOX]

MUCC has made mistakes and gone against my wishes, but they are sportsmen and women and they fight for our rights. Anyone can do what they wand, but if I didn't support them because they didn't always agree with me that would make me a pretty shallow person. As sportpeople we should be able to look at the big picture.

Nice. So if I don't support an organization that not only supports arbitrary benchmarks of how disabled is disabled enough to be able to crossbow hunt, but does so against the majority of it's members wishes, I am a shallow person? Should I send them a check to assist them in making sure I only get a late season bow hunt? I am being discriminated against. I don't qualify for a crossbow permit under the arbitrary guidelines as they are, yet I can't use my old archery equipment anymore. The MUCC isn't taking up the fight for my rights, they are assisting the MBH and it's drive to keep as many hunters out of the woods as possible. The guidelines established have nothing to do with reality., they are a negotiated point, set so as to exclude as meny people as possible, with the aid of the MUCC and an afilliate. Someone sounds shallow, but I don't think it's me.
Consider This post if you will:

The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?
THAT is not the way an organization that is looking out for the interests of sportspeople behaves. Ignoring the wishes of the majority of it's members, and working against them. They are supposed to SUPPORT and EXPAND opportunity, not assist in the arbitrary discrimination against sportspeople.
So, alas we are closing in on the point where the NRC will deny me the right to hunt Oct. 1. Will the MUCC be there to aid me? No, the good old boys club will be steadfast in it's desire to keep me excluded. I will end up taking other means of adressing this issue that will cost me time and money, just as going through the application process costs Dr's visits, office call expenses, and paperwork shuffling. And Splitshot thinks me not supporting MUCC just because we don't agree on an issue make me shallow. Yea, whatever Ray.:rolleyes:

[Zeboy]

Nice. So if I don't support an organization that not only supports arbitrary benchmarks of how disabled is disabled enough to be able to crossbow hunt, but does so against the majority of it's members wishes, I am a shallow person? :

To answer your question – YES! After rereading this thread and seeing 20% of the posts are yours with the same basic message – I didn’t get MY way on the crossbow issue, therefore I will never support MUCC and I hope they go under; I have to answer YES. I compare it to the little boy on the playground who didn’t get his way so he took his ball and went home.

Ironic that just last night I received my MUCC magazine. The editorial was about a proposal that came up in the lame duck session of Congress to divert funds from the Natural Resources Trust fund and apply them to transportation projects. Naturally MUCC helped fight that legislature from passing. This was similar to what happened at the end of the Engler administration when legislatures raided millions from the fund created by boat registrations. They diverted the money to the general fund to help balance the budget. MUCC then initiated and passed proposal 2 in 2006 to insure that this couldn’t happen again.

My point being, even though I do not agree with everything MUCC does and know they have made numerous “screw ups” in the past, I cannot discount the good that they do. Don’t kid yourself, no other organization is going to step up and take their place to represent the sportsman of Michigan. Do they need to change with the times – heck yes! If you don’t like they way they operate then get involved and help them change for the good of the sportsman of Michigan.

Every issue involving sportsman will be controversial to someone. If MUCC is going to avoid controversial issues like a few have suggested for fear of upsetting membership then pity us all. We are sportsman. . . we should be able to see the forest through the trees.

In 6 days Barack Obama becomes our President. I didn’t support him during the campaign and I didn’t vote for him. Now he will be my President and I will support him. I hope to God he does a fantastic job and turns out to be our best President ever. There is a time to voice our opinions and a time to “suck it up” and do what’s best for the greater good.

[CL-Lewiston]

The magazine will soon be available in electronic form to all members as part of membership. The hard copy will be 'extra'.

Also for the affiliate clubs-all members will have to be MUCC members but dues will be $5. Thiese policies will be phased in shorthly.

Didnt answer question but have not seen this here.

[ESOX]

If you don’t like they way they operate then get involved and help them change for the good of the sportsman of Michigan.


I have neither the time nor desire to try to change the way that organization operates. It's not upon me to change them to my liking. It's upon them to make the organization desirable to join, one that works for the majority of sportsman, not for the wishes of those in command. That would greatly aid in recruitment and retention.

[Trophy Specialist]

Esox, you claim that somehow MUCC is preventing you from deer hunting during the bow season so I'm assuming you have some physical problems that prevent you from shooting a conventional bow. Just for the record, MUCC and MBH were instrumental in getting crossbows legalized for disabled hunters in MI in the first place. Also, MUCC also helped to streamline those regulations in 2008 to allow more people to qualify to use crossbows that could not use conventional archery equipment due to imparements. As the law reads now, if you can’t pass a functional draw test due to phisical disablility that equals 35 pounds of resistance and hold it for four seconds then you will qualify for a crossbow permit. Also, if you have impaired range of motion, extension or other listed problems involving the elbow or shoulder you can qualify for a crossbow permit too. There are also other impairments that qualify hunters to use a crossbow as well. People that are still falling through the cracks are also being addressed by the DNR and to the best of my knowledge, every person that I’ve heard of that can’t shoot a bow due to physical impairments are now getting permits. So, to say that MUCC is trying to keep people out of the woods is disingenuous at best. Esox, have you gone though the new process to try to obtain a crossbow permit since the regulations were changed in 2008? Were you turned down in 2008? If you or anybody else knows of someone that can’t shoot a bow due to physical impairments was turned down for a permit, and then let me know and I’ll research it and write a story on the subject. MOOD would likely even publish the article.

[Shoeman]

To answer your question – YES! After rereading this thread and seeing 20% of the posts are yours with the same basic message – I didn’t get MY way on the crossbow issue, therefore I will never support MUCC and I hope they go under; I have to answer YES. I compare it to the little boy on the playground who didn’t get his way so he took his ball and went home.

This isn't the only issue. They had also dropped the ball during the worm bill debacle. When confronted the answer was that it didn't fit their criteria.

What portion of the outdoors shouldn't be???? And yes the opinion of the membership should be considered when they lean one way or the other, not just one mouth piece or special interest that filters monies into MUCC's coffers

[ESOX]

So, to say that MUCC is trying to keep people out of the woods is disingenuous at best.

Please, don't give me disingenuous........
MUCC has been instrumental in aiding MBH in it's fighting retreat on the issue, all the while ignoring the wishes of the majority of it's members.
The "relaxing' of the standards still requires one to be at an arbitrarily set level of disability to qualify for a permit. What science was used to set this level of disability? None, it was simply the lowest that special interests could get through.

If you or anybody else knows of someone that can’t shoot a bow due to physical impairments was turned down for a permit, and then let me know and I’ll research it and write a story on the subject.

If you want to write a story about the issue, try doing a little research. Look at the Americans With Disabilities Act for starters. As for my story, it will unfold in due time.

[Splitshot]

Paul,

I think you misunderstood what I said. Currently I am not a member partially because I disagree with them on issues and secondly because of the way they make decisions.

What I meant to say is if you or anyone decides not to be a member because of a single issue that is pretty shallow.

Ralf mentioned the worm bill and I’ll add they didn’t show up on the chumming ban either.

If you belong to a club and have nothing better to do, you can work within the club to be a delegate. If you don’t do that, you can let the delegates know your concerns and how you feel on an issue, but it is like talking to your congressman or state senator. They just don’t give a chit and pursue their own agenda. (The good old boys way)

This is not representative of sportsmen and that is why I said they need to change the way things are run. The Internet is the perfect way to get input from members. They could have a forum just like we have here. They could list the issues they are considering or get ideas from the members.

Everyone could chime in and present their arguments and after some time limit all the members interested could vote. Then all you have to do is count the votes. I think they should have some percentage like 2/3 of the voters before taking a stand or spending resources.

Suppose 2/3 of the members voting were against crossbows. MUCC management should then use their resources to prevent full inclusion. On the other hand if 2/3 of the members voted for full inclusion, MUCC should commit themselves to work for full inclusion.

If the vote were lest than 2/3 then they should make available to the DNR and other organizations which way the members were leaning but take no overt action one way or the other.

The idea that MBH or any other club could lobby for what they want is not conducive in my mind to being representative to the overall best interest of the organization or me personally.

If MUCC wants to know what their membership really wants it is a very simple thing to do. If this idea hasn’t occurred to them before, it is about time it did, that is unless they want to keep power to those who “know” what is best for all of us. If I am going to be a member, I should at least get one vote and if I don’t, I won’t belong.

It is a power thing and as usual those who have power don’t want to relinquish it. With a web-site like this one only open to members they can’t cheat either as every members name can be listed as to how they voted just like in some of the polls on this thread.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions Paul as I believe we are on the same page.

[Whit1]

Paul,

I think you misunderstood what I said. Currently I am not a member partially because I disagree with them on issues and secondly because of the way they make decisions.

What I meant to say is if you or anyone decides not to be a member because of a single issue that is pretty shallow.

Ralf mentioned the worm bill and I’ll add they didn’t show up on the chumming ban either.

If you belong to a club and have nothing better to do, you can work within the club to be a delegate. If you don’t do that, you can let the delegates know your concerns and how you feel on an issue, but it is like talking to your congressman or state senator. They just don’t give a chit and pursue their own agenda. (The good old boys way)

This is not representative of sportsmen and that is why I said they need to change the way things are run. The Internet is the perfect way to get input from members. They could have a forum just like we have here. They could list the issues they are considering or get ideas from the members.

Everyone could chime in and present their arguments and after some time limit all the members interested could vote. Then all you have to do is count the votes. I think they should have some percentage like 2/3 of the voters before taking a stand or spending resources.

Suppose 2/3 of the members voting were against crossbows. MUCC management should then use their resources to prevent full inclusion. On the other hand if 2/3 of the members voted for full inclusion, MUCC should commit themselves to work for full inclusion.

If the vote were lest than 2/3 then they should make available to the DNR and other organizations which way the members were leaning but take no overt action one way or the other.

The idea that MBH or any other club could lobby for what they want is not conducive in my mind to being representative to the overall best interest of the organization or me personally.

If MUCC wants to know what their membership really wants it is a very simple thing to do. If this idea hasn’t occurred to them before, it is about time it did, that is unless they want to keep power to those who “know” what is best for all of us. If I am going to be a member, I should at least get one vote and if I don’t, I won’t belong.

It is a power thing and as usual those who have power don’t want to relinquish it. With a web-site like this one only open to members they can’t cheat either as every members name can be listed as to how they voted just like in some of the polls on this thread.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions Paul as I believe we are on the same page.


There's some solid and salient points brought up in that there post above.

[ridgewalker]

Splitshot stated exactly why I no longer belong to that organization or suscribe to their magazine.

[ESOX]

I hope this clears up any misconceptions Paul as I believe we are on the same page.

I must have misunderstood Ray. :)

[ESOX]

If you or anybody else knows of someone that can’t shoot a bow due to physical impairments was turned down for a permit, and then let me know and I’ll research it and write a story on the subject.

Here, I will help you get started on your story. Lets take this little exerpt:
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 126 - EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Sec. 12101. Findings and purpose

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that

(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm#Anchor-Sec-49575


If you need more help in your research just ask. I have reams of it.:)
Looking forward to your article.
Don't forget to include how our current crossbow permit standards were arrived at.

[swampbuck]

I was doing some research on current and past board members of the mucc, mbha, nrc etc. Keck,Lindquist,Garner etc. The good ol'boys network looks pretty entrenched. At one time I thought prop g and the NRC was a good idea, NOW I think it has been corrupted and needs to go.

[Trophy Specialist]

Please, don't give me disingenuous........
MUCC has been instrumental in aiding MBH in it's fighting retreat on the issue, all the while ignoring the wishes of the majority of it's members.
The "relaxing' of the standards still requires one to be at an arbitrarily set level of disability to qualify for a permit. What science was used to set this level of disability? None, it was simply the lowest that special interests could get through.



If you want to write a story about the issue, try doing a little research. Look at the Americans With Disabilities Act for starters. As for my story, it will unfold in due time.

Esox, I asked you two simple questions and you danced around them. Here they are again:

have you gone though the new process to try to obtain a crossbow permit since the regulations were changed in 2008?

Were you turned down in 2008?

You accused MUCC of preventing you somehow from hunting during the bow season, yet we don't know if you even tried to take advantage of the laws changes that MUCC helped achieve that have gotten lots of people into the woods during bow season with crossbows.

[Trophy Specialist]

Paul,

I think you misunderstood what I said. Currently I am not a member partially because I disagree with them on issues and secondly because of the way they make decisions.

What I meant to say is if you or anyone decides not to be a member because of a single issue that is pretty shallow.

Ralf mentioned the worm bill and I’ll add they didn’t show up on the chumming ban either.

If you belong to a club and have nothing better to do, you can work within the club to be a delegate. If you don’t do that, you can let the delegates know your concerns and how you feel on an issue, but it is like talking to your congressman or state senator. They just don’t give a chit and pursue their own agenda. (The good old boys way)

This is not representative of sportsmen and that is why I said they need to change the way things are run. The Internet is the perfect way to get input from members. They could have a forum just like we have here. They could list the issues they are considering or get ideas from the members.

Everyone could chime in and present their arguments and after some time limit all the members interested could vote. Then all you have to do is count the votes. I think they should have some percentage like 2/3 of the voters before taking a stand or spending resources.

Suppose 2/3 of the members voting were against crossbows. MUCC management should then use their resources to prevent full inclusion. On the other hand if 2/3 of the members voted for full inclusion, MUCC should commit themselves to work for full inclusion.

If the vote were lest than 2/3 then they should make available to the DNR and other organizations which way the members were leaning but take no overt action one way or the other.

The idea that MBH or any other club could lobby for what they want is not conducive in my mind to being representative to the overall best interest of the organization or me personally.

If MUCC wants to know what their membership really wants it is a very simple thing to do. If this idea hasn’t occurred to them before, it is about time it did, that is unless they want to keep power to those who “know” what is best for all of us. If I am going to be a member, I should at least get one vote and if I don’t, I won’t belong.

It is a power thing and as usual those who have power don’t want to relinquish it. With a web-site like this one only open to members they can’t cheat either as every members name can be listed as to how they voted just like in some of the polls on this thread.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions Paul as I believe we are on the same page.
Very good post and I hope "the powers that be" at MUCC read it and considers it fully.

[Trophy Specialist]

Here, I will help you get started on your story. Lets take this little exerpt:




http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm#Anchor-Sec-49575


If you need more help in your research just ask. I have reams of it.:)
Looking forward to your article.
Don't forget to include how our current crossbow permit standards were arrived at.

You don't have to lecture me on the ADA as I have cited it several times myself in the past to help convince people that nobody should be excluded from the bowseason because of disabilities. I fought for the original use of crossbows in MI and I will continue to fight for laws to allow anybody to use a crossbow that can't shoot a bow due to phisical disabilities. I've been in the trenches on this one for over 15 years now and it's not becuase I want to be able to use a crossbow eithor.

[ESOX]

Nope, didn't apply last year as I didn't want to waste my time and money on the required doctors visits etc...when I would have barely not qualified under the arbitrarily restrictive requirements.
Remember this? exclusionary qualification standards and criteria
I know a few other people in the same boat. However, I intend to do it this year and when I am denied I will be prepared. So whens the story on how this is all legit and above board? On the science MUCC and it's sister club presented to the NRC to get the disability level set where it is? On just how fair this is to all those who don't qualify? How fair this is to those who simply can't afford to do what is necessary to qualify? How it doesn't violate the Americans With Disabilities act? I can't wait to read the story. It ought to be a good one.

[Spartan88]

I smell class action on ADA grounds and the good ole boys club wont be able to sway a judges gavel.

[ESOX]

I smell class action on ADA grounds and the good ole boys club wont be able to sway a judges gavel.

Ya think? :evilsmile

[Fur-minator]

I don't think crossbows should be allowed during the regular archery season. ( Did I say that out loud? )

I didn't even realize that the question posed in the thread was about crossbows.

I am not a member but I don't miss an episode of the show. I was a fan of the other outdoors show that is no longer around. That was a voice for me.

If you don't like the magazine or the organization put your dollars to work with another. I would recommend you contact them and explain your stance or they will not know how you feel.

How many of you have contacted your local, state, or federal representatives in the last month to tell them what you think about any issues?

If your not part of the solution then you are the problem.

Gabe, Jimmy, keep up the good work.

[Whit1]

How many of you have contacted your local, state, or federal representatives in the last month to tell them what you think about any issues?


Which time? The first, second, third??

There are several MS members, on both sides of the crossbow and other issues who have kept regular contact with the powers that be. Many members here in MS do more than merely sit on their hands. Some of us actually find out the details of what it is we're advocating and discussing.

[Fur-minator]

:hide:

[Trophy Specialist]

Nope, didn't apply last year as I didn't want to waste my time and money on the required doctors visits etc...when I would have barely not qualified under the arbitrarily restrictive requirements.
Remember this?
I know a few other people in the same boat. However, I intend to do it this year and when I am denied I will be prepared. So whens the story on how this is all legit and above board? On the science MUCC and it's sister club presented to the NRC to get the disability level set where it is? On just how fair this is to all those who don't qualify? How fair this is to those who simply can't afford to do what is necessary to qualify? How it doesn't violate the Americans With Disabilities act? I can't wait to read the story. It ought to be a good one.
Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.

[Whit1]

:hide:

Nah! No need to hide..................yet! :lol:

[ESOX]

Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.
Trust me, running to have an article published in the MUCC rag or anywhere else will be the LAST thing on the minds of people rejected this year. The next set of people rejected under arbitrary guidelines set with no science behind them will be following other recourse than an article about their plight. What help could they expect from an organization rife with the likes of Jerry Keck?
(You know the guy from MBHA and MUCC who did this at an NRC meeting): From the minutes of the meeting:
Jerry Keck opposed the proposal to allow hunters 65 or older to automatically receive a crossbow permit if they apply for one.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:82643Tgs0aAJ:https://mi.gov/documents/dnr/Minutes_5-10-07_198814_7.pdf+nrc+crossbow+jerry+keck+age+65&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the organization that works for sportsmen? LMAO....yea the greedy little minority of "sportsmen". What of the other issues MUCC has dropped the ball on? Looking at just one issue and the way they have tried to screw us at every turn, one has to wonder how many of their other fumbles were unintentional. They have managed to stain their credibility. I should sent them a truckload of soap and see if they can get some off that smell off. Another once fine organization that lost it's way. :(

[Terry Williams]

The organzation works for bow hunters, maybe you should try it.

[ESOX]

The organzation works for bow hunters, maybe you should try it.

I expected that type of response. If you can't say anything to defend your organizations actions, say something really, really stupid. :dizzy::lol:

[Terry Williams]

I think we are doing fairly well defending ourselves. No crossbows yet and you and some of the others have a trail of tears all the way to Lansing. Your turn to say something stupid, I don't have the market cornered.

[bentduck]

I am not a huge fan of MUCC and I find myself on occasion at odds with the NRA ... but I am a member of both. Until something better comes along I will continue to support MUCC because we need them now more than ever (warts and all. :p)

While MUCC has certainly "lost their way" from where they first started, they still have the basic mechanism in place to be a loud and effective voice for sportsman should they ever admit their mistakes and regroup.

I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt and continue to support them during these tough times. A faulty life jacket is still better than no life jacket at all ... (I just made that up :)

[Ranger Ray]

All organizations have a shelf life. Objectivity is lost with friendships, income dependency and ambitions as time passes. New organizations need to either cycle out the old, or a total house cleaning of the old must take place. If not, most become archaic. Sound familiar? :lol:

[ESOX]

All organizations have a shelf life. Objectivity is lost with friendships, income dependency and ambitions as time passes. New organizations need to either cycle out the old, or a total house cleaning of the old must take place. If not, most become archaic. Sound familiar? :lol: You know, we seem to spend a lot of time on opposite ends of the field on a lot of issues. I think this time we agree. :yikes::lol:

[Ranger Ray]

opposite ends of the field
I like to refer to it as, mutual misunderstandings. :lol:

[ESOX]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Michihunter]

You don't have to lecture me on the ADA as I have cited it several times myself in the past to help convince people that nobody should be excluded from the bowseason because of disabilities. I fought for the original use of crossbows in MI and I will continue to fight for laws to allow anybody to use a crossbow that can't shoot a bow due to phisical disabilities. I've been in the trenches on this one for over 15 years now and it's not becuase I want to be able to use a crossbow eithor.Only disabilities TS? What about physically underdeveloped people? Children, women, and even men?

[Hamilton Reef]

MUCC and Michigan was once in its prime as the model for protecting the Great Lakes and natural resources. That MUCC credibility took a dive when they destroyed their responsibility to protect the "Public Trust" and literally got in bed with Nestle Ice Mountain to divert the Great Lakes as a product. The other states and Canada know well how MUCC was bought off to sell out their integrity. MUCC now "claims" to protect the Great Lakes, shhh, except when it lines the right pockets. Even if the Nestle man can save MUCC financially in 2 more years, their integrity will still be lost for violating the 'Public Trust" of the Great Lakes.

[TLWOODS]

Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.

Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.

[Whit1]

I like to refer to it as, mutual misunderstandings. :lol:

Ray, you are running for what political office? :lol:

In reality, for the most part, most of the posters in MS can find more points of agreement with each other than differences.

[Trophy Specialist]

Only disabilities TS? What about physically underdeveloped people? Children, women, and even men?

What about them? If someone can phisically pull back a bow, even a light poundage one, then they can participate in archery hunting and are not being denied anything. To me people that choose not to put the effort into mastering archery equipment are a lot less of a priority than people that are forced out of the sport due to disabilities.

[Michihunter]

What about them? If someone can phisically pull back a bow, even a light poundage one, then they can participate in archery hunting and are not being denied anything. To me people that choose not to put the effort into mastering archery equipment are a lot less of a priority than people that are forced out of the sport due to disabilities.Thank you for your response. I certainly don't agree but that's for another topic.;)

[Splitshot]

Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.

Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.

The current format of the magazine is directly related to the management of the organization.

Why would you keep your personal feelings to yourself and why not give us a full report on what Mr. Hanson has to say since he doesn’t seem interested in letting a large number of sportsmen and women know what his organization thinks.

It is obvious that many of us would support their efforts more if we felt we had a voice. If MUCC wants our money without our input, they will continue to decline. As sportsmen and women we need an organization like MUCC but only if they can be responsive to the needs of the sporting community.

Look at John Muir’s Sierra Club today or the Audubon Society founded by hunter and fisherman John Audubon. Although they support some hunting, remember the “Dove Bill”.

National Wildlife Federation supported by Franklin Roosevelt. Their three tenets. connecting people to nature reversing global warming protecting and restoring critical wildlife habitats. Wow global warming,

All of these organizations do good work, but have morphed into something much different than the founders ever expected especially when it comes to hunting and to a lesser degree fishing.

All of these organizations are much different then MUCC in regard to hunting and fishing but still losing touch with their charter because of internal politics.

It also seems strange to me that MUCC would not take the opportunity to openly reach out and discuss these issues and concerns with sportsmen and women on this web-site. Probably good PR to just avoid controversy and the issues, but the silence makes many think we are right about the organization. are correct.

[ESOX]

You can maybe use this as creative criticism.
I think they are getting some.:)

[Whit1]

Look at John Muir’s Sierra Club today or the Audubon Society founded by hunter and fisherman John Audubon. Although they support some hunting, remember the “Dove Bill”.

National Wildlife Federation supported by Franklin Roosevelt. Their three tenets. connecting people to nature reversing global warming protecting and restoring critical wildlife habitats. Wow global warming,

All of these organizations do good work, but have morphed into something much different than the founders ever expected especially when it comes to hunting and to a lesser degree fishing.


That's a solid point Ray and it can be applied to other names as well. Aldo Leupold and "Ding" Darling were two other sportsmen who hunted and fished. They were early pioneers of the environmental movement and habitat restoration. Yet their names have been kidnapped by groups that are trying to bend the arc of history into realms that are decidedly anti hunting and angling.

To get my post on topic MUCC has had it's problems, as do all organizations, and the need to hear about them is vital. This thread does supply some of that, but, perhaps it would be better if the path of discussion this thread has taken might better be put into a new thread.

Hmmm! Does "Two paths diverged in a woods and I, I took the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference", apply elsewhere?

[Barry]

Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.

Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.

Oh sure! :lol::lol::lol: Just like saying we didn't really want the fire department to respond after yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Well not only did the Department bring the white shirts to this call but looters showed up to exploit the chaos. :tdo12:

And my last wish is for the genie to go back into the bottle while we talk about the magazine. :lol:

[Spartan88]

Ever see the video of the pack of baboons clubbing the dead cheetah? Once the pack knew it was dead they all took their turn whacking it. This thread reminds me of that video. :D

[thetreestandguy]

From the perspective of a former employee I would use the word "culture". You hear sports teams as well as businesses saying they "need to change the culture of the organization", see the Detroit Lions. I left a job I absolutely loved because the culture at that place was sucking my soul out.

I agree with those that say MUCC can be and had/has been a vital organization for outdoorspeople. There simply isn't another organization around doing this work on our behalf. It's been really sad to see an organization I once loved slowly go down the drain!

To go back to the Lions analogy, Mr. Ford is a nice enough man by all accounts. His leadership has led to a historical win/loss record though. I sure hate to think of MUCC setting all the wrong records in the near future...no TV show, historic low membership, etc, etc, etc.

I hope they change for the better, we all need them looking out for us!

[Skinner 2]

Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.

Trophy Specialist;
Does my dad who is 81 years old qualify for your request? He didn't quite get turned down as he did not qualify and hence fell through the cracks. My dad was not even able to apply!

My dad tried getting a crossbow permit two years ago. Doctors would not sign off because he was old, not disabled. This year he was giving up bowhunting because of the light weight he was forced to pull. Low and behold new guidelines were released.

I called a couple physical therapists and they said they could not test my dad because he did not have a disability as listed on the applications. I was told he would have to get his Doctor to sign off.

My dad again asked his Doctor who refused to sign off because he was old and not disabled. He was told the application was a legal document and they could loose their licensing by signing it declaring him as disabled when he is not. I e-mailed MUCC and asked for help. Never got a response. I e-mailed MBH twice and was told the difference between cams and round wheels and something about a 100 year old man shooting a target league. No offers of real help from these-mails.

With no sign of help and nothing left to loose I filed Age Discrimination against the MDNR September 15, 2009 on behalf of my father. I also called anyone else I thought could help, ATA, NRA, AARP…… Three days later I received a call from three DNR’s Lawyer, She asked if we would accept this and I quote… Have my dad go to his doctor and on their letter head recommend him be allowed the use of a crossbow to hunt due to his age and muscle tone. I accepted this offer with the condition she assured me others like him would not be left out. My dad’s doctor had no issue signing this new request and also put it on a prescription letterhead!

Oddly the NRC now has Crossbow on the agenda and one thing not being disputed is getting an age added. Even stranger, I found out was the newer application did make provisions for an age but before it was accepted and passed the MBH wanted the age removed. I wonder now did MUCC agree with them?

Two newspaper articles were written about his and even after my dad’s permit was granted the MDNR’s press agent would only tell the reporters it was under investigation.

So my questions is does my dad qualify for your offer?

Skinner

[MOODMagazine]

Well, I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll try and address some of the issues.
First, Troy obviously didn't want me or anyone from MUCC to respond and said so in his opening post. There was also a post recently about me or MUCC trying to avoid the controversy by not responding and a post that said I'm not interested in spreading the message of MUCC to the hunters. Huh?

I haven't responded before now for two reasons only: 1. I was on a plane traveling and 2. I hadn't seen the thread until now.

I'm not afraid of controversy or standing up in front of anyone, anytime to talk about the things I believe in. That's exactly why I live by one simple motto: Do what you feel is right. I have no problem whatsoever addressing any questions about what I do or what MUCC does because I do what I think is right.

I have never, ever tried to hide from anyone and I'm not going to start now. I answer calls, I respond to emails. My name is Tony Hansen, for those who I've not yet met, and I'm the Editor of Michigan Out-of-Doors Magazine. My email is thansen@mucc.org. My phone is 517-346-6483. I live in Eaton County and I've lived there basically my entire life. If I can explain anything, if you have a question, comment or concern -- contact me. Troy did. He didn't like my response but I did, in fact, respond and I didn't duck any of his questions. I won't duck yours either. Do any of you remember any other editor or MUCC leader responding on this site? I have nothing to hide and I want people to tell us what they think -- but you must also realize that the whole notion of dropping your MUCC membership because you disagree with a policy doesn't solve anything. It only weakens your position.

I don't set MUCC's policies. The staff does not set the policies. The membership does. And, yes, I realize that non-club members do not have an equal voice. I wish I could solve that. The fact is, it's not something that's so easily solved and it's being worked on. The structure was in place for about 50 years before I was born. But if you'd all like to lay that on me, go ahead. I'm not afraid to shoulder that load either.

When you choose not to be an MUCC member, you have no vote, no voice, no say. Seems to be that it's a very, very silly decision to just turn your back on the only organization in the state that focuses solely on state-level hunting and fishing issues as well as general conservation issues.

Do I myself agree with every MUCC policy? Yeah, right. I'm as much an individual as any of you. I have my own thoughts, my own views. But I am a staff member and I WILL uphold the policies set by our members.

It's funny that the same people who claim the magazine is getting smaller (it hasn't changed page count since I started by the way) and complain about getting 10 issues instead of 11 are the very same ones that would howl should we ever increase the dues. Yet I'm pretty sure they've expected to pay more for just about everything over the last 10 years and I'm pretty sure they expected their employers to increase their pay as well. Nothing is static right? Except, of course, the things they expect to receive.

Here's what I've heard about me in this thread and in the last three years:

I don't write about deer hunting enough.
I write too much about deer hunting.

I don't support deer management.
I support deer management too much.

I'm a lackey for the DNR.
I've had two DNR employees and an NRC commissioner tell me I'm too critical of the DNR.

I'm afraid to stand up for the hunters.
I'm too pro-hunting for a conservation organization.

I've had MUCC members themselves (on more than one occassion) howling over what I wrote because they didn't think I was upholding MUCC's policies. Yet, in this thread, I'm painted as a mouthpiece for the DNR and MUCC's "good old boy network" -- which is strange since two of the leaders in the organization are under age 35.

I could go on and on.

But here's the bottom line. I've worked my tail off making the magazine the best it can be. I'm sorry if some don't like it. Contact me and give me your suggestions -- but, believe it or not, I actually do research our membership and create content that appeals to MOST. I can't please everyone. Compare it to previous years and tell me that it's not more about hunting and fishing and trapping than ever before. And, yes, I know it needs more trapping stories. I need a writer. I'm not a trapper and I don't write about things I don't know. I'm working on it.

MUCC has reduced its club member dues. We have not raised IAM dues and we continue to provide 10 issues of a high-quality, gloss-cover magazine. That's more issues than any other conservation organization.

Unlike anonymous posters on Internet sites, I put my name on the things that I write and I stand by them. If you don't like the content, submit your work. You will need to put your name on it and you will need to realize that about 100,000 people are going to see it. You will be required to use your real name and I'll need a photo to go with it. Any mistakes, errors or ommissions will be there for all to see -- and you'd better be willing to face up to them. It's not television. It's not going to disappear from the screen in a few seconds. It's there for all time to be analyzed, scoured and picked apart. Just get those stories written and send them in. But keep in mind that I have high standards for the work that appears in the magazine -- I don't want any stories about wildlife mounts in an airport or wild flower identification. I don't think that's that what you guys want to read about.

I'm not perfect and neither is MUCC. But I can guarantee this: Change is happening, it has happened and I will personally do everything I can to see that MUCC is the organization of the hunter, for the hunter.

And, by the way, I believe that 90 percent of our staff hunts or fishes. So the statements made about that simply aren't correct.

I honestly appreciate the feedback generated through these discussions and I try to learn from all of it. But I think it's high time the hunting and fishing community in this state stop working so hard to find fault with the people and the organizations that are willing to fight for them and start spending that energy to support them.

There are a few people on this site that know me personally. I would be shocked if they agree with anyone that claims I would be willing to work for a place that doesn't have the interest of the outdoors at heart. For anyone to ever doubt my total conviction and passion for the outdoors is flat-out ridiculous. I really don't care if people beat me up about what I write because I know that it's part of my job. If you're willing to stand up, you also have to accept the fact there will be people looking to knock you down. It's just the way it is.

I'd much rather get beat up for doing something than settle for doing nothing.

[Scott K]

Mr. Hansen, you make some good points, but I'd really like to hear you respond to this.

The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?

[MOODMagazine]

Sure Scott -- thanks for the opportunity.

The by-laws are pretty clear -- a 2/3 majority is needed to adopt resolutions that call for a change in law. The motion to support crossbow expansion did not receive 2/3 majority. Thus it does not pass.

The issue on remaining neutral is a very valid point -- and I'm going to have to punt that one for now. Not because I'm afraid to answer but because I simply don't know when or what the exact language on the resolution that was approved. I believe that MUCC's members approved a resolution against crossbow expansion and thus that policy remains because a vote did not gather the 2/3 majority to pass that would have reversed that policy.

Speaking now entirely as an individual member -- I do think that the 2/3 rule is outdated and should be revisited. And I'm not alone in that thinking. Clearly when you have a simple majority support an issue, it makes all involved think about how to make that majority stick. It's been discussed and I don't know the current status. But the important thing is that the leadership of the organization has discussed the issue. Keep in mind, a simple majority vote doesn't win a Presidential election either. And our national legislature requires 2/3 support on certain issues as well. I'm not defending the by-laws, I'm just trying to illustrate that there was precedence and reasons behind the way they were originally written is all.

Amy Spray, our policy person working on the crossbow issue has worked very, very hard to honor MUCC's policies while dealing with an issue and a set of proposals that aren't anywhere near cut and dry as they relate to the resolution that was passed. It's a sticky and tricky deal.

I'm sorry I can't offer a more firm answer but that's the way the by-laws are written and until they're changed, MUCC's staff must abide by the by-laws and uphold the vote of the members.

[Michihunter]

I personally think that your post is one of the main reasons MUCC doesn't garner the support it once did. These by laws most definitely need to be revisited when an issue as divisive as the crossbow must revert to past policy of an issue REGARDLESS of a majority vote. And then to take it a step further and Lobby that position as something that is favored by MUCC when in fact it is not. Nothing good can come of proactive works (ie: lobbying) that are not representative of the majority's wishes.

[MOODMagazine]

How and who decides which issues should trump the by-laws? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand how you make that work without degrading the entire voting process.

A resolution was passed that did not support crossbow expansion and had the 2/3 majority.

A resolution to reverse that policy did not gain the 2/3 support thus the current policy remains.

Again, I'm not sure that I have everything on this particular issue correct -- I'm not the policy person on the issue. But just use it as a hypothetical example: You have existing policy that received 2/3 support. A counter proposal gets simple majority support but not 2/3. What do you do? You honor your by-laws -- or change them.

How do you change them? By becoming involved in the organization and fixing a problem that you care about fixing.

Heaering from members like you on these types of issues is VITAL to the growth and future of the organization. No one will address an issue unless it's raised.

[Splitshot]

I don't set MUCC's policies. The staff does not set the policies. The membership does. And, yes, I realize that non-club members do not have an equal voice. I wish I could solve that. The fact is, it's not something that's so easily solved and it's being worked on. The structure was in place for about 50 years before I was born. But if you'd all like to lay that on me, go ahead. I'm not afraid to shoulder that load either.

When you choose not to be an MUCC member, you have no vote, no voice, no say. Seems to be that it's a very, very silly decision to just turn your back on the only organization in the state that focuses solely on state-level hunting and fishing issues as well as general conservation issues.

Tony, are you serious. Do you really think the members set the policies. That is unless you mean the special members.

Your right the structure has been in place since the thirties and it needs to change. Instead of a page and a half defending yourself, why didn’t you address the issue I raised about giving all members a voice with an Internet-site.

Even if you belong to a club, you don’t have a voice. Even as president of the Capitol Area Sportsman’s League I didn’t feel like I had a voice even when I invited MUCC to hold their annual meeting at our club. Every time I asked a question, I was told I just didn’t understand.

If I disagreed with just one or two issues, it would be different. The fact is I disagree with many of the stances MUCC has taken in recent years and I believe it is because of the archaic system that has been in place too long.

With a forum similar to this one MUCC could limit access to dues paying members who could participate in the discussions so management would know what the membership really wanted.

The transparency of a system like this would dispel all the rumors and innuendo about how decisions were made and help MUCC become much more responsive to the needs of their members.

I would have no problem if the membership took a stance different than I wanted as long as I felt I could have my say and voice my opinion with a vote. Only delegates vote now and I never could figure out how the issues that were voted on at the yearly convention were decided to begin with.

Most members don’t have the time to get involved on the delegate level, but with a web-site members could voice their opinions anytime night or day. If MUCC wants to represent what a majority of the membership deems prudent they need to change the system. Let me know what they think.

[bentduck]

The organiztion needs a clear agenda and mission statement that is driven by common sense, accountability and enough political savy to make a difference. They need a LEADER who will LEADand not simply follow guidlines. MUCC needs to blow up it's current methodology and create a mission statement that can't be undermined by members, who other than having enough money to pay dues, may not have a clue!!

MUCC needs to take a page out of the PETA and HSUS playbook and have a purpose and stick to it and not rely on membership to water everything down, making the whole group impotent out of some warped sense of political correctness. If enough tree huggers infiltrate the MUCC ranks do we really want to allow them any chance of influence??

MUCC must quit being so damn wishy washy and inconsistent. It's all about leadership and a CRYSTAL CLEAR sense of direction. You may not attract everyone right out of the gate but the bandwagon will fill if you are passionate and work to do what is right and not just politically expediant. Just my opinion.

[MOODMagazine]

bentduck, splitshot:

You'll get no argument from me on your points. You're correct. The structure does need to be addressed and IT IS. Again, as long as the current system remains, that system will be honored and should be. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But change, yes, that's needed and the board tends to agree. These processes are ongoing and it's what I'm excited about -- there are certainly internal issues and discussions that I'm not going to air publicly. Other than to say the leadership (of which I'm a part on the staff side) hears you and we're moving. The board is doing the same. It does take some time but you can't begrudge that -- it's a fact of life in everything that change takes some time.

The on-line voting, the delegate system -- it's all being reviewed and analyzed. I'm not going to lie and say that I know it will be changed becuase I don't. But the fact that the leadership is looking at such changes is a testament that change is in the air and is needed. But if you're expecting a system where the staff or leadership ignores the desires of the membership that will not and should not happen. If anti-hunters start infilitrating MUCC and creating policy, then my point is served exactly. We ALLOW that to happen by letting petty disagreements over past history keep you from being a member. You forfeit your voice and you open the door for others to dictate the direction.

All I'm asking is that people be involved and supportive. Does that mean agree and be quiet? Heck no. It means be a member and raise some cain if you want. Involvement is the ONLY solution.

In regards to clarification of mission -- dead on. And it is absolutely being addressed and there are major internal discussion occurring on that.

Again, it's not my place to air that publicly yet. When the process is complete (it will be sooner rather than later) those communications will be made.

[ESOX]

Involvement is the ONLY solution.

How do you explain that aging population whom one of your representatives not only failed to represent, but objected to them being issued crossbow permits? They should pay dues? Hand you the knife with which to stab them in the back? I don't think people are that gullible.

[Michihunter]

But if you're expecting a system where the staff or leadership ignores the desires of the membership that will not and should not happen.Isn't that EXACTLY what happened when MUCC lobbied against the crossbow?:confused:

[MOODMagazine]

No, that's not what happened with crossbows. We've already went down that path. Current, voter-approved policy is against crossbow expansion. The resolution seeking expansion, while gaining majority support did not gain 2/3 support as required by the by-laws. Thus the current policy against expansion remains. And I want to reiterate again that I do not know the specifics on that policy. I'm using that as a hypothetical example in an attempt to explain how the 2/3 ruling applies.

Guys, we all agree the system needs work and that work is ongoing. But the by-laws are the guiding principles at this time. To not honor them does a great disservice to the organization and the membership. Again, the simply majority support and the 2/3 issue is one that's been identified as an issue and is being discussed. I can't tell you the outcome because I don't know. I'm sorry but I am not going to mislead you on that.

If your views on the crossbow issue were against expansion, would you want the process to be altered? You must have standards and policies for voting. If they aren't working, then you change them following the proper procedures. Otherwise you have a group with no consistency or regulation and that's not good for anyone.

[ESOX]

And please, I really would like to see this story published. On the science MUCC and it's sister club presented to the NRC to get the disability level set where it is? On just how fair this is to all those who don't qualify? How fair this is to those who simply can't afford to do what is necessary to qualify? How it doesn't violate the Americans With Disabilities act? I can't wait to read the story. It ought to be a good one.
And I would like to add, Why the stance against crossbows for senior citizens? And maybe a story on all the troubles crossbows have caused in states with full inclusion.

[MOODMagazine]

If you'd like to research and write that story, sign your name to it, I would certainly review it as I review all submissions.

[ESOX]

UH-Yea. I am fully confident I would get straight answers to my questions at MUCC headquarters. Who was it from MUCC or it's sister organization that tried to get the disability levels set so as to exclude even more people from hunting than we ended up with? I'd like to start by interviewing him.
Never mind, I would probably puke.

[Skinner 2]

Members are dropping because they don't like how things are run. You admit to a problem and say nothing you can do. Problem can be fixed if more people join to replace unhappy members. You as new member make things change.

Here is an idea. Since you admit to problems and agree with some of what is said.

Change the problem, show people it has changed, and they join! Coming in here defending the stand with I can't do anything is not helping! Heck I could not even get a return e-mail, What the 189 member that voted in favor must not have been allowed the use of the computer that day.

If you build it they will come!

BTW I liked the trapping part today. Nice bit about a elderly gentleman You should show more like him!

Skinner

[ESOX]

Current, voter-approved policy is against crossbow expansion.

Well then, I must have been very, very wrong. Somewhere deep in the recesses of my little mind I recalled reading either last year or the year before on the MUCC website that the MUCC did not have an official position on crossbows, and therefore would simply back what MBHA wanted. So I didn't read that there? My apologies.
If I did read that there, was there a vote on the issue between 2006 and last years convention? I could be way off base. Either way, just when was it that the MUCC adopted what appears to be a prejudiced, mean spirited official stance against the elderly and disabled in regards to their enjoying archery season?

[Tom Morang]

If you'd like to research and write that story, sign your name to it, I would certainly review it as I review all submissions.

I don't think that the keyboard commandos will do that Tony. They would rather hide behind the computer and criticize.

[ESOX]

I don't think that the keyboard commandos will do that Tony. They would rather hide behind the computer and criticize.
Thats probably the best answer you have, right Tom? Because there is no arguing the points in fact.
Possibly the "keyboard commandos" understand that it would be squandering time and effort that would be better expended elsewhere? What are the odds that MOOD would publish an article that shows what MUCC and the MBHA have attempted to do in regards to this issue? What they have done at the NRC meetings is a matter of public record.
Opposing permits for people over 65.
Attempting to get the disability standard set at 30#.
The net effect is one of an organization working to deny outdoor opportunities to people, not fight for them.

I could go off on some other subjects, but one issue at a time.

[Tom Morang]

Thats probably the best answer you have, right Tom? Because there is no arguing the points in fact.
Possibly the "keyboard commandos" understand that it would be squandering time and effort that would be better expended elsewhere? What are the odds that MOOD would publish an article that shows what MUCC and the MBHA have attempted to do in regards to this issue? What they have done at the NRC meetings is a matter of public record.
Opposing permits for people over 65.
Attempting to get the disability standard set at 30#.
The net effect is one of an organization working to deny outdoor opportunities to people, not fight for them.

I could go off on some other subjects, but one issue at a time.

It's OK, come out of the closet.

[ESOX]

It's OK, come out of the closet.

Ah yes, another cryptic nonsense post showing you are attempting to defend an indefensible position but have nothing to say. Do you have anything intelligent to add?

[bentduck]

MOOD

Thanks for addressing this. It's a step.:)

[Tom Morang]

Ah yes, another cryptic nonsense post showing you are attempting to defend an indefensible position but have nothing to say. Do you have anything intelligent to add?



Yes, read the signature line.

[ESOX]

LMAO. What lies Tom? Which points specifically do you contend aren't true?

[Tom Morang]

Begin using your real name, then we will talk.

[ESOX]

Begin using your real name, then we will talk.
Oh certainly, that would change the facts, wouldn't it? :dizzy:
As I said, I believe you have nothing intelligent to say Tom. Do you?
Now what points do you take issue with?

[Tom Morang]

Now what points do you take issue with?


Demanding dialogue while hiding behind a screen name.:lol:

[ESOX]

I'm done with you. You have nothing to share dialog about. You are grasping at straws, trying to find a way to hide the fact that you have no rebuttal.
You should work on your defense, this one makes you look silly, and none too bright.

[Whit1]

Sure Scott -- thanks for the opportunity.

The by-laws are pretty clear -- a 2/3 majority is needed to adopt resolutions that call for a change in law. The motion to support crossbow expansion did not receive 2/3 majority. Thus it does not pass.

The issue on remaining neutral is a very valid point -- and I'm going to have to punt that one for now. Not because I'm afraid to answer but because I simply don't know when or what the exact language on the resolution that was approved. I believe that MUCC's members approved a resolution against crossbow expansion and thus that policy remains because a vote did not gather the 2/3 majority to pass that would have reversed that policy.

Speaking now entirely as an individual member -- I do think that the 2/3 rule is outdated and should be revisited. And I'm not alone in that thinking. Clearly when you have a simple majority support an issue, it makes all involved think about how to make that majority stick. It's been discussed and I don't know the current status. But the important thing is that the leadership of the organization has discussed the issue. Keep in mind, a simple majority vote doesn't win a Presidential election either. And our national legislature requires 2/3 support on certain issues as well. I'm not defending the by-laws, I'm just trying to illustrate that there was precedence and reasons behind the way they were originally written is all.

Amy Spray, our policy person working on the crossbow issue has worked very, very hard to honor MUCC's policies while dealing with an issue and a set of proposals that aren't anywhere near cut and dry as they relate to the resolution that was passed. It's a sticky and tricky deal.

I'm sorry I can't offer a more firm answer but that's the way the by-laws are written and until they're changed, MUCC's staff must abide by the by-laws and uphold the vote of the members.

Thanks for the response and I mean that for more than just what you said, but also the willingness to jump into an obviously contentious thread as far as opinions of MS members concerning MUCC are concerned.

As you may know......or not........I am a strong advocate of crossbow inclusion so my feelings about MUCC's policy stand may arc toward regret. However, I do understand the reasons for having the 2/3 majority requirement for changing the policy, feeling on the other hand that something less than that might suffice. Having a mere "majority, say 51%, required to change policy wouldn't work as well due to the fact that, depending on who attends the convention and how they vote, said policy change could reverse itself the following year. Going back and forth from year to year would make any organization impotent.

What I would suggest is that if a vote on a policy change did not reach the 2/3 platform thus no policy change could be implemented, but the vote showed clearly that a majority of MUCC's membership were indeed in favor of the change that MUCC remain neutral and explain why rather than just leaving it's neutrality hanging in the air for the listeners to surmise the reasons.

MUCC does have clout, there's no doubt about that. Getting up at an NRC meeting or legislative hearing or other body and declaring the organization's opposition to a measure being considered while at the same time the vote on said measure showed a clear majority in favor gives a very false impression as happened in the case of crossbow inclusion.

Of course we don't know the process, although I've emailed Amy asking about it I'm sure her busy schedule has prevented a response, the lack of knowledge on the part of most of us, leaves open the question of validity. Please, I'm not saying that in an accusatory manner, but rather pointing out a pitfall that has crossed the minds of those of us not in the know.

One other salient point I'd like to make on the topic of policy change is that it would be wise for anyone involved with organizations that are either in favor of the policy change or not in favor of to be recused from taking part in any part of the voting process, other than being able to vote. Again I'm not suggestion skullduggary here, but rather saying that it would be wise to implement a process that would prevent accusations of such.

By the way, what was the membership vote on crossbow inclusion? There are those who say that the "vast majority" (speaking outside of MUCC rather than the vote) are against full inclusion.

Thanks again for your response.

[U of M Fan]

Thanks for the response Tony.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

MOODMAGAZINE:Speaking now entirely as an individual member -- I do think that the 2/3 rule is outdated and should be revisited. And I'm not alone in that thinking. Clearly when you have a simple majority support an issue, it makes all involved think about how to make that majority stick. It's been discussed and I don't know the current status. But the important thing is that the leadership of the organization has discussed the issue. Keep in mind, a simple majority vote doesn't win a Presidential election either. And our national legislature requires 2/3 support on certain issues as well. I'm not defending the by-laws, I'm just trying to illustrate that there was precedence and reasons behind the way they were originally written is all.
THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE WE HAD AT LLWC. we took it to the b.o.d.(board of directors) meeting and set up the simple proposal of having a ballot vote amongst all the members . we propose that the 2/3 majority vote be repealed to a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote on all ballots hence forward, with the exception of 3 major issues at our club.(which i won't discuss). the rationale was: its just so hard to get 2/3's majority on anything(things that needed to be changed for the good of the club) and there are some very serious issues which need to be changed from time to time.

[Trophy Specialist]

Trophy Specialist;
Does my dad who is 81 years old qualify for your request? He didn't quite get turned down as he did not qualify and hence fell through the cracks. My dad was not even able to apply!

My dad tried getting a crossbow permit two years ago. Doctors would not sign off because he was old, not disabled. This year he was giving up bowhunting because of the light weight he was forced to pull. Low and behold new guidelines were released.

I called a couple physical therapists and they said they could not test my dad because he did not have a disability as listed on the applications. I was told he would have to get his Doctor to sign off.

My dad again asked his Doctor who refused to sign off because he was old and not disabled. He was told the application was a legal document and they could loose their licensing by signing it declaring him as disabled when he is not. I e-mailed MUCC and asked for help. Never got a response. I e-mailed MBH twice and was told the difference between cams and round wheels and something about a 100 year old man shooting a target league. No offers of real help from these-mails.

With no sign of help and nothing left to loose I filed Age Discrimination against the MDNR September 15, 2009 on behalf of my father. I also called anyone else I thought could help, ATA, NRA, AARP…… Three days later I received a call from three DNR’s Lawyer, She asked if we would accept this and I quote… Have my dad go to his doctor and on their letter head recommend him be allowed the use of a crossbow to hunt due to his age and muscle tone. I accepted this offer with the condition she assured me others like him would not be left out. My dad’s doctor had no issue signing this new request and also put it on a prescription letterhead!

Oddly the NRC now has Crossbow on the agenda and one thing not being disputed is getting an age added. Even stranger, I found out was the newer application did make provisions for an age but before it was accepted and passed the MBH wanted the age removed. I wonder now did MUCC agree with them?

Two newspaper articles were written about his and even after my dad’s permit was granted the MDNR’s press agent would only tell the reporters it was under investigation.

So my questions is does my dad qualify for your offer?

Skinner
It sounds to me like the new 2008 regulations had some cracks in them, but it also sounds like the DNR did eventually fix the problem, although as usual, they did not make the process to correct the problem as simple as it could have been. I went through a similar experience over 10 years ago with my Father-in-Law. He had physical disabilities that were (still are) extremely debilitating. Still, he was originally denied a permit and we had to fight the DNR to eventually get it. From what I read, the DNR's new (2009) proposed crossbow rules will allow anybody that's over 65 to use a crossbow. Since your Dad did get a permit, I'd be more interested in writing about a case where someone can't hunt with a bow anymore due to disability but was denied a permit. And I'd also like to restrict it to people that will not be covered by the DNR's 2009 crossbow proposal because I don't want to write an activist article about an issue that may very well already be solved.

[cityslicker]

As I stated in an earlier post, I am a Life member of MUCC.
MUCC is not our enemy.:confused:
One of the monthly features I like to read is ON PATROL. An example is OFF TO A GREAT START Sgt. Dave Rantanen, while patroling Luce County, came upon a youth carrying a loaded rifle. He had just left his blind and was going to look for his father about 500 yards away. Sgt. Rantanen asked the boy how old he was, the boy stated he was 12 and showed Sgt. Rantanen his safety certificate that indicated he had just turned 10 years old. Sgt. Rantanen contacted the father about a half mile away who stated his sons were 12 years old. The second son was in a blind about 500 yards away along an illegal ORV Trail. His safety certificate indicated he was 11 years old. Enforcement action was taken on the father.

How many laws do you think were broken?:SHOCKED:

THANX Tony, for stepping up and taking on the position of MOOD magazine Editor. It does appear you have a "THANKLESS" position.

[Linda G.]

The DNR reports, whenever they make them public, which is erratic at best, and never iinclude all of the officers' activities, are available on their website for free. All the magazines and outdoor papers are usually much later printing the reports and use them as filler...

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-42199_50569---,00.html

[Fur-minator]

I have been alittle disappointed with the quantity/quality of the magazine over the past year or so. Specifically the so called "double" issue in the summer and now the same for the Jan/Feb issue. I am wondering what some of you think.

Tony, Gabe, & Jimmy, I know that you may read this and I know what your opinion is and I don't want to hear it. this is for the rest of us.You can maybe use this as creative criticism.

I think it has went way past this.

How did a thread about a little disappointment with a magazine turn into a complete push to force a tunnel visioned crossbow agenda on everyone?

[Rasputin]

Tony- Thanks for your input. I don't think anyone questions your courage. You are a leader and leaders need results.

Most of this dialogue has been revolving around MUCC policy rules and crossbows. Will you addres the bait ban? I would like to know why the baiting issue has not been debated on your pages. Read a few threads here and you can see some members raising valid issues. I'm not necessarily upset with the new rules, just seems to me like there is enough debate that MUCC / MOOD would devote more time to the issue than one letter to the editor by a guy who thinks he can jump over the moon. The only conclusion I can draw from MUCC's stance on this is that there must have been a prior editorial opinion on this issue in spite of the significant number of hunters that oppose that new rule.

Shoulders togther for bear hunters. Shoulders together for (potential) dove hunters. Guys who want to throw some corn on the ground? Too bad.

I appreciate your point about hiding behind user names. I'll send you an e-mail next week. It's been written and on my desk for weeks anyway. I won't write an article (in spite of my english degree) because I'm not the most qualified to write it. Some others on this web site certainly could. Would you print it or is MUCC afraid of the issue?

[Spanky]

The magazine will soon be available in electronic form to all members as part of membership. The hard copy will be 'extra'.

Also for the affiliate clubs-all members will have to be MUCC members but dues will be $5. Thiese policies will be phased in shorthly.

Didnt answer question but have not seen this here.

That is exactly true and is causing a rift between our steelheaders chapter and our MUCC affiliation. It used to be we had to have 15 members of our chapter to subscribe to their membership to be affiliated, now they want that and $5 dollars from each member of our chapter whether they are a participating member or not. That is not gonna happen, and they are gonna loose our chapter as an affiliation, and I would imagine that will happen with other organizations. Greed is gonna drive sportsmen away from the MUCC. I am a long time member and even joined through our club to help get the 15 together that we needed for the affiliation, but if they think we are gonna give them an extra $750 bucks to belong their mistaken. Biting the hand that feeds has NEVER been a good policy. They do have a voice for sportsmen in our state, but they do have their political agendas, and have angered many groups and clubs by taking their stand on issues, and not neccesarily speaking for the majority of sportsmen.They do alot for us, but they do nothing for free. There has to be some type of gain for their cause, or just forget it! Sucks for me to admitt it, but I have seen it, and often times right from the meeting room in their headquarters in Lansing.:rolleyes:

[MOODMagazine]

Rasputin,

Support for the baiting ban was appropriate under MUCC's current policy -- and it's actually a couple of years old. I believe it was three years ago, that MUCC's members voted for a ban on baiting to combat disease. That was done before the current ban or the discovery of CWD.

Spanky, I guess I have to take exception with your statements. Greed? What greed is there in REDUCING membership dues for club members 300 percent? The only greed I see is in organizations and hunters/anglers expecting to have an organization to protect their interests and refusing to fund or support it. And that's exactly the system that's been in place, support of your issues, your efforts, a magazine, member benefits, lobbying efforts, advocacy, instruction, educational programming -- all provided by MUCC. And a member wants to balk over a $5 membership fee?

If that's really unaffordable for the members, then we really needn't have further discussions. Because if the sportsmen and women of this state are going to say the future of the outdoors isn't worth $5 to them, if they're going to try and falsely label an organization that has been on their side for 70 years as greedy by reducing their dues, then the outdoors has no future in this state. None. And those people can look in the mirror when it comes time to lay blame.

Biting the hand that feeds? Do you have any idea at all what it costs to service those 15 members? I can absolutely guarantee that it's much more than $15 per member.

Some day the hunters and anglers of this state need to take a look around and realize just how much is at stake. To hear anyone complain about paying $5 or $15 or $30 is just bewildering to me. Absolutely bewildering. Clearly there will be those that care about the future of the outdoors and those that won't. The outdoors isn't worth $5 to you?

[cityslicker]

I am only 49 and thought enough of our hunting and outdoor heritage, I paid for my Life Membership in MUCC 20 years ago.
And yes Tony I read my magazine. Because I mostly only hunt Deer I enjoy John Ozoga's Whitetail Biology and Tom Nelson's Full Draw.
Because we do not know much about the 500 MUCC affiliate clubs, MOOD needs to do a "Club Profile." :cool:

[duckhunter382]

I think we are doing fairly well defending ourselves. No crossbows yet and you and some of the others have a trail of tears all the way to Lansing. Your turn to say something stupid, I don't have the market cornered.
perfect example that mucc doesnt represent all sportsmen, only the few. They make the kind of decisions on high profile issues that affect us all and if you dont support them they make you feel like you are wrong and should be thanking them for fighting against you.

[Skinner 2]

It sounds to me like the new 2008 regulations had some cracks in them, but it also sounds like the DNR did eventually fix the problem, although as usual, they did not make the process to correct the problem as simple as it could have been. I went through a similar experience over 10 years ago with my Father-in-Law. He had physical disabilities that were (still are) extremely debilitating. Still, he was originally denied a permit and we had to fight the DNR to eventually get it. From what I read, the DNR's new (2009) proposed crossbow rules will allow anybody that's over 65 to use a crossbow. Since your Dad did get a permit, I'd be more interested in writing about a case where someone can't hunt with a bow anymore due to disability but was denied a permit. And I'd also like to restrict it to people that will not be covered by the DNR's 2009 crossbow proposal because I don't want to write an activist article about an issue that may very well already be solved.

Pretty much the lame answer I expected:

OK fell through cracks in the new September 2008 Requirements. The age was on the original proposal and were voted off. Now you refer to them as cracks. Cracks MBH and MUCC supported. The DNR make a quick fix to said crack. Should have made a quick fix to your(MUCC) poor decision would have been better wording!

Why run a story about a guy who had an issue with what you supported? Shows wrong doing perhaps call it a crack for no other reason. Why let anyone else see this. Now anything about him is an activest story Wow this shows more what the MUCC supports. Not the majority of your members that for sure. Yet you push clubs to be affiliated! Two clubs I belong to I refuse the offers!

Oddly you fought the state for your father in law because you felt he was not delt with properly. Are you now and Activist?
We quit the MUCC a few years back because of some other issues they took. Seniors included! I see we were not wrong in our decision.

We support the NRA and SCI. They support hunter opportunity based on scientific data. If the MUCC does this then why are you not on the same path? Good old boys as someone else refered too!

FWIW. A story about my father and how the crossbow affects our family is out right now. Woods n Waters January issue page 85. "Protecting a Hunting Tradition.

At least Tom Campbell is not affraid to publish a story about a Families tradition of hunting.

Hey perhap MUCC would run a story on why this guy needs to take a disability test?

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/member.php?u=26617

Skinner

[solohunter]

Rasputin,

Support for the baiting ban was appropriate under MUCC's current policy -- and it's actually a couple of years old. I believe it was three years ago, that MUCC's members voted for a ban ??? maybe you should revisit the voting??

Spanky, I guess I have to take exception with your statements. Greed? What greed is there in REDUCING membership dues for club members 300 percent? -- all provided by MUCC. And a member wants to balk over a $5 membership fee? maybe people dont want to be a member of a lobby that they dont agree with anymore? or will not listen to them but will bow to the DNRs suggestions .

Some day the hunters and anglers of this state need to take a look around and realize just how much is at stake. To hear anyone complain about paying $5 or $15 or $30 is just bewildering to me. Absolutely bewildering. Clearly there will be those that care about the future of the outdoors and those that won't. The outdoors isn't worth $5 to you?

well maybe people dont see it the way you do, Or they feel the DNR is not acting in the best interest of the lowly hunter that buys licenses and funds them.

so as far as your magazine is a little lacking, maybe its not just the magazine,,,,,, then be bewildered, you will not get a clue? then you must be right, steer the course captain,, those rocks are just an illusion. throttle up tony.

[Spanky]

Spanky, I guess I have to take exception with your statements. Greed? What greed is there in REDUCING membership dues for club members 300 percent? The only greed I see is in organizations and hunters/anglers expecting to have an organization to protect their interests and refusing to fund or support it. And that's exactly the system that's been in place, support of your issues, your efforts, a magazine, member benefits, lobbying efforts, advocacy, instruction, educational programming -- all provided by MUCC. And a member wants to balk over a $5 membership fee?

If that's really unaffordable for the members, then we really needn't have further discussions. Because if the sportsmen and women of this state are going to say the future of the outdoors isn't worth $5 to them, if they're going to try and falsely label an organization that has been on their side for 70 years as greedy by reducing their dues, then the outdoors has no future in this state. None. And those people can look in the mirror when it comes time to lay blame.

Biting the hand that feeds? Do you have any idea at all what it costs to service those 15 members? I can absolutely guarantee that it's much more than $15 per member.

Some day the hunters and anglers of this state need to take a look around and realize just how much is at stake. To hear anyone complain about paying $5 or $15 or $30 is just bewildering to me. Absolutely bewildering. Clearly there will be those that care about the future of the outdoors and those that won't. The outdoors isn't worth $5 to you?


Twist it around anyway you want, and of course the outdoors is worth $5 to me.Whats wrong with your vision? To try and get $5 per person from a group of 150-180 members when only 12-15 of those members want to belong to your organization is plain crazy, and its insulting to tell me that by doing that , you are saving us all 300%.Those other members get no membership benifits or magazine, they just get to know that because we as a club want to be affiliated with MUCC, they need to pay this "affiliation tax" because MUCC suddenly decides that is the new policy. For 15 guys to belong, and you have OUR chapter name on YOUR affiliation list the price now goes from $225 to over a thousand dollars!:dizzy:

Guess what, aint gonna happen, and that attitude that you promote(as bewildered as you may be) just shows me what the winds of change in the MUCC are doing to divide the sportsmen of Michigan instead of unite.It is increasingly "my way or the highway".

I will be strongly recommending we drop the affiliation, and those members(if any) that want to continue their membership with the MUCC do so on their own.From what I have heard of late from past MUCC members and their dissatisfaction of the Organization, I would doubt that 4-5 guys would even consider renewing their membership dues.I hope for the sake of MUCC that this is not an indicator of other fishing groups, but I have a pretty good "feel" for my chapter members, and they will never fall for it.

[steveh27]

I'm on the board of a NON-100% member affiliated club. We had kept our MUCC fee at the minimum & felt we were just making a donation to MUCC. It was nice for the 10 member minimum to get the MOOD mag as well. Now with the requirement to pay $5 for all members our fee will GO UP OVER 300%, not down as MUCC claims. Very deceptive ads. I expressed my concerns to MUCC that many clubs will simply quit rather than pay such a large increase for no additional benefit. Most of our members do not give us their email address so they could not get the emailed mag edition. And to drop the print edition & then charge extra for it is OK I guess. My point was why not just increase the dues to $25 from $18 for non-100% clubs. The MUCC board voted against it.

There is a big problem in the way MUCC runs. They are run by a small segment of 'insiders' who go to inconvenient meetings, wade through the political machinations MUCC has, & set their agenda. Anyone who does not participate in those meetings has no voice. The vote is not a majority of members (or 2/3), it's a majority of those insiders who are willing to jump through the hoops they themselves have set. MUCC needs to make it easier for general members to vote and have an impact.

My club would have quit the instant we found out about the fee changes that we had no vote on. But, we seem to be locked into MUCC to be able to get State raffle licenses. This seems to be a State law issue & their interpretation. That needs changed as well.

[Trophy Specialist]

I have an individual MUCC membership and I also belong to multiple organizations that are MUCC affiliates, but I am not very active in any of them and don't really know the details of how the money flows to MUCC from those clubs. Some of the previous posts have only explained the stituation partly. Could someone please explain what the current and future dues are for affiliates and their members.

[steveh27]

Here's my take on the old & new MUCC affiliated club fee structure.

Under the old fees, a club could either be:

(1) a 100% club with all of their members becoming members of MUCC at a cost of $15 per member to the club. ie: with 100 members a 100% club would pay MUCC $1,500 annually.

or (2) a non-100% club, with only a minimum of 10 members required to join MUCC at a fee of $18 per member to the club. ie: with 100 members, but only 10 joining MUCC, a non-100% club would pay MUCC $180 annually.

The 100% clubs got more votes at the official MUCC meetings, which we never attended, as we considered our membership a donation to MUCC.

Under either membership all club members also becoming MUCC members got MOOD magazine mailed to them monthly; ie: the 100% club's 100 members got the mag; the non-100% club's 10 joining members got the mag.

The new fee structure eliminates the non-100% option. All clubs must have 100% of their members join MUCC. The fee has been dropped to $5, but the subscription to the print copy of MOOD magazine has been eliminated. It has been replaced by an electronic copy of MOOD being emailed to each member that has given MUCC their email address. Each member can buy the print version subscription to MOOD for an addtitional $20 out of their own pocket. I personally do not like reading mags online & prefer the print copy to take with me to the blind, the outhouse or wherever.

So, an original 100% club with 100 members will have the fees paid by their club to MUCC go from $1500 to $500. But, an original non-100% club with 100 members, but only 10 of whom joined MUCC in the past will have the fees their club pays MUCC go from $180 to $500, with no print mag.

I was told the cost of printing the mag was causing financial problems & the fees didn't cover that cost. They should have just raised the fees $5-$7. But the 100% clubs control the political machinery at MUCC & they didn't want to pay that increase so they did it this way to gouge the old non-100% clubs. I think many of them will drop out unless they're locked in like mine is to get State raffle licenses for fund raisers.

[steveh27]

MUCC says if a member is a member of several clubs with MUCC affiliation they only have to pay MUCC for one membership through one club. But, MUCC will not do the screening to determine that. Each club will somehow have to find out if they're payng for a duplicate unneeded membership. Not sure how.

[Trophy Specialist]

Thanks for the info steveh27. One of the affiliates I belong to used to offer members a magazine subscription, but they eliminated that option years ago and I’m not sure if they even still an affiliate any more. Three of my clubs are definitely affiliates; however I can’t ever remember hearing much about MUCC in any of the newsletters they send out. I think that MUCC is a very low priority for a lot of clubs and like you said, a lot of affiliates just donate money to them and don’t participate in MUCC politics.

[Scott K]

What greed is there in REDUCING membership dues for club members 300 percent?
That is mathematically impossible.




Edit: I just read steveh27's post so I see where he was coming from. That would be a 67% decrease.

[Splitshot]

The fact that MUCC is a state organization that strives to protect our hunting, fishing and trapping privileges makes it very important to all of us.

I would be willing to pay them a lot more in dues if they actually reflected the views of sportsmen they claim to repersent. As I said before I don't think I have a voice, in fact I feel my vote has never been heard. If MUCC supported my position it was just luck.

I feel the only possible voice I have is my through my wallet. It appears thousands of other sportsmen feel the same way because the membership has lost thousands of members in the past 20 years. I think we are sending MUCC a message and until MUCC decides to recognize us, we will stay away. I offered the Internet idea I spelled out in a previous post a couple of years ago and as usual it fell on deaf ears.

Tony this is nothing personal, frankly I think you are doing a good job. Mr. Muchmore needs to find a way for my voice to be heard without me having to dedicate many hours of my time to directly get involved in a club.

I was the president of a club for 4 years and stayed on the board for two more years in order to keep my club from letting our club membership lapse. We were a charter member of MUCC but we had some members who didn't want to spend the extra money because they were ticked off about a particular issue.

I almost begged MUCC to send someone to several of our meetings to explain their mission to our members but no one came. Since they dropped the club membership I have not been a member. It is a mute point now because I don't live in Lansing any more.

I can tell you I have no problem if a majority of sportsmen disagree with my perspective, I can live with that. But I think many decisions are being made because some group like MBA or even the Resource Sellouts there is no way I’ll join again.

My biggest issue is related to special fishing regulations and since Mr. Muchmore is an avid fly fisherman, I suspect he sides with Mr. Borgenson’s idea of ethics.

[steveh27]

Yeah, that 300% fee reduction claim is very deceptive. That's only for the 100% clubs. The non-100% clubs will have very large increases, over 300% in my case. And as you point out it's not a 300% reduction, but a 67% reduction. Some people never got math. I taught it.

[MOODMagazine]

I think there's a key point being missed:
If you want to support MUCC, support MUCC. If you don't, then don't. No one is going to force you to do anything. But, as the conversation comes full circle, you say you're not being represented.

So what do you do? You drop out or your club drops out. What does that get you? An absolute guarantee of no representation. Why? Because your members won't pay $5? If an organization isn't willing to pay $5 per member to support the organization that supports them, there is nothing to be done about that. We'll simply continue to work with those that do.

The new structure is in its early stages and I can say this -- it is being very well-received by a lot of clubs including a large number of non-100% clubs who see the importance in a strong, unified voice. Sure, paying $180 for a 10-member club is attractive to that club. But those clubs were getting the very same level of support and advocacy as clubs who valued the organization enough to be 100%. That's not right. And the structure needed to change.

MUCC doesn't exist to provide you with a magazine. It doesn't exist to provide you with a cheap way to protect the outdoors. It exists to ensure that hunting, fishing and trapping continue in this state. That conservation is practiced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't have a little of patience for groups that claim MUCC is gouging them or trying to turn a profit. It's a bunch of bull. MUCC works to protect your interests. If your club or organization wants to be a part of the solution, to help the cause, it's $5 per member. A ridiculously low rate for what you receive. But it's your call. I know where I stand on the outdoors -- I spend a whole lot more than $5 per year for other organizations including a $30 IAM membership through MUCC. Never, ever have I said "what's in it for me?" What do I get?" I know what I get. I get the opportunity to support the groups that focus on what I love.

What do I get? I get to keep hunting and fishing. That's priceless to me. Those groups that do ask those questions, that do make those statements simply aren't my sort of group.

[steveh27]

MOOD,

You are missing the points many here are making. You state "support the organization that supports them". As some have posted here, MUCC does not support the members, it supports those who are part of MUCC's political machinery and willing to attend their meetings & promote their agenda. AT no time in my memory has MUCC had all of their members vote on any issue. MUCC needs to institute a way for all members to vote & not just get ruled by those long term insiders who go to the inconvenient meetings & wade through the political machinery. They are a small percentage of members.

You state "paying $180 for a 10-member club is attractive to that club. But those clubs were getting the very same level of support and advocacy as clubs who valued the organization enough to be 100%". My club never received any support prior to the raffle license issue, and we pay separately for that. We just gave our $180 as a donation, not getting anything in return, except the mag. Now they're demanding we triple our donation and lose the mag. We're not asking for anything. We would have been happy to pay a 37% increase in our old dues structure, but they want over 300% more! Advocacy is in the eye of the beholder. You are an employee & view whatever MUCC does highly. Many remember the days of Tom Washington taking decisive action, sometimes strongly against the DNR & State with positive effect. That is sorely missing today. To many it seems that MUCC is run by the PR department of the DNR. Certainly they often need to work together, but sometimes adverserial (sp?) stands must be taken.

You can continue to defend MUCC's mistakes with glittering generalities such as "MUCC works to protect your interests". As you say, "It's a bunch of bull." The devil's in the details. MUCC works for those insiders who are part of its political machinery. As you state, "That's not right. And the structure needed to change". WHat are you doing to change the structure of MUCC to be more representative of its entire membership? Or are you just saying this is the way we've decided it will be, and you can join under our rules. And don't complain because we won't listen & study your concerns because we know how to do it our way. In America we pride ourselves on being independent and questioning authority to make changes leading to improvement. Sounds like you do not want that kind of America, and it's "My way or the highway".

I wish MUCC was as strong as it used to be. This is not the way to return to that strength. When I asked questions re: the new fee structure & recommended the 37% increase it was not only out of concern for the cost to our club, but for the future of MUCC. If many non-100% clubs quit MUCC will be hurt even more. Trying to make questions and recommendations is viewed negatively. Your comments here verify that.

[Rasputin]

OK, Tony. Now I understand. I'm sending in my $5. The check is in the mail. You can keep your magazine. As a matter of fact, I'll send $5.02, just so I can say I added my 2 cents.

[MOODMagazine]

Steve:

Don't get me wrong -- I hear you on the voting issue and have stated already that I agree and work is being done right now to address that. But it takes time.

I've I didn't care about your opinion, I wouldn't participate in this discussion. I obviously do care or I wouldn't even bother. I know that changes need to be made my point is that without participation from opposing views that change isn't going to happen.

It's not my way or the highway. It's your way -- and what I'm hearing is that people aren't willing to do the work necessary to make the change happen. They balk at membership dues, they claim they're not being represented. But you have to have some level of involvement to ensure that representation is what I'm getting at.

Steve, I don't want you to think in any way that your concerns aren't valid or on falling on deaf ears. They are not I can assure you that.

[Whit1]

I'm not going through the posts to count, but I believe that Tony has said several times that he agrees that changes need to be made in MUCC and the way it goes about having members vote on issues. He's also said that moves are in the works to change that situation. That's more than fair enough for me, but it must be kept in mind that the devil is in the details.

[old professor]

With the wide spread access to the Internet and email, surely they could come up with a way for members to vote on issues. For instance, sign in by your MCC member number to access the poll and vote on issues.

[Whit1]

Here's a link, kindly supplied to me by Amy Spray, concerning MUCC's policy adoption process.

http://www.mucc.org/images/2008resolutionguide.pdf

[November Sunrise]

Here's a link, kindly supplied to me by Amy Spray, concerning MUCC's policy adoption process.

http://www.mucc.org/images/2008resolutionguide.pdf

That was helpful. Thanks.

[Liver and Onions]

The fact that MUCC is a state organization that strives to protect our hunting, fishing and trapping privileges makes it very important to all of us.

I would be willing to pay them a lot more in dues if they actually reflected the views of sportsmen they claim to repersent. As I said before I don't think I have a voice, in fact I feel my vote has never been heard. If MUCC supported my position it was just luck.
.............

Tony, I think that Splitshot's message if worth reading again.

L & O

[ruffin'it]

What about the MUCC's stance on the water compact, the sulfide mine, the 1836 reinterpritation ect...

It seems that the voice of the sportsman has been sold out to the highest bidder.

[hitechman]

Seems to me that I saw a web page on MUCC that listed all of the affiliated clubs. I just spent 20 minutes browsing their website and couldn't find a list.

Anyone know where I can view a list of the affiliated clubs?

Steve

[One Eye]

I think there's a key point being missed:
If you want to support MUCC, support MUCC. If you don't, then don't. No one is going to force you to do anything. But, as the conversation comes full circle, you say you're not being represented.

So what do you do? You drop out or your club drops out. What does that get you? An absolute guarantee of no representation. Why? Because your members won't pay $5? If an organization isn't willing to pay $5 per member to support the organization that supports them, there is nothing to be done about that. We'll simply continue to work with those that do.

The new structure is in its early stages and I can say this -- it is being very well-received by a lot of clubs including a large number of non-100% clubs who see the importance in a strong, unified voice. Sure, paying $180 for a 10-member club is attractive to that club. But those clubs were getting the very same level of support and advocacy as clubs who valued the organization enough to be 100%. That's not right. And the structure needed to change.

MUCC doesn't exist to provide you with a magazine. It doesn't exist to provide you with a cheap way to protect the outdoors. It exists to ensure that hunting, fishing and trapping continue in this state. That conservation is practiced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't have a little of patience for groups that claim MUCC is gouging them or trying to turn a profit. It's a bunch of bull. MUCC works to protect your interests. If your club or organization wants to be a part of the solution, to help the cause, it's $5 per member. A ridiculously low rate for what you receive. But it's your call. I know where I stand on the outdoors -- I spend a whole lot more than $5 per year for other organizations including a $30 IAM membership through MUCC. Never, ever have I said "what's in it for me?" What do I get?" I know what I get. I get the opportunity to support the groups that focus on what I love.

What do I get? I get to keep hunting and fishing. That's priceless to me. Those groups that do ask those questions, that do make those statements simply aren't my sort of group.

I would pay $50 a year for MUCC membership if they would drop the "cloaked" agendas, actually follow their own policies as approved by the membership, and respond to member concern/inquiries. MUCC has promoted issues in direct contradiction to approved policy, and then hides when they are questioned about it by members. As far as the magazine, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The magazine has simply become a self-promotional tool for certain personalities rather than MUCC as a whole.

For me, it is not about money. Good luck.
Dan

[michi1]

Did anyone see the Mlive story out of Grand Rapids , MUCC is turning over ownership of the TV show to Jimmy , but will still have some input. I'm sure the devil is in the details.

[trout]

I would pay $50 a year for MUCC membership if they would drop the "cloaked" agendas, actually follow their own policies as approved by the membership, and respond to member concern/inquiries. MUCC has promoted issues in direct contradiction to approved policy, and then hides when they are questioned about it by members. As far as the magazine, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The magazine has simply become a self-promotional tool for certain personalities rather than MUCC as a whole.

For me, it is not about money. Good luck.
Dan
__________________

That is so true in my opinion.

A side note: If the Sportsman of Michigan took the time to be more active in wildlife habitat improvement on State owned and private lands and trash removal of all hunting areas, you'd see a huge increase in the quality time outdoors.
An organization such as MUCC should be extremely active in such efforts.
Alot of changes need to take place or we will lose far too much and our grandchildren will suffer due to our lack of unity and action.

I stopped buying the magazine years ago.

I enjoyed many of the smaller columns pertaining to wildlife ID both game and non-game as well as anything not related to deer hunting.
When I lived in Michigan I grew tired of the "deer hunting sickness" many special interests groups seem to spread with the support of the MUCC MAg.
That is a sad way to feel and it bothered me.