Hunter Orange Update

[bradymsu]

The House Natural Resources Committee approved a bill providing for changes in hunter orange law today. Amendments were made to the proposed bill based on the feedback from the Michigan Sportsman Forum.

The bill would now exempt crossbow deer hunters (in archery deer season), falconers and predator hunters from having to wear hunter orange. Bobcat was added to the list of predators based on a suggestion made in this forum.

Also based on suggestions made on this forum, the requirement in the bill that all blinds be marked with hunter orange on private and public land was changed to just pop-up blinds on public land. The 144 square inches language suggested here was also added to the bill.

We're not only listening to you, we're acting on many of your suggestions. The Michigan Sportsman Forum has provided the Michigan House, or Rep. Sheltrown anyway, with a valuable tool to craft better natural resource policy and make the process far more democratic. Thanks to those of you who make this site happen.

[Skinner 2]

Thanks for the report Brady and all your and Rep Sheltrown's efforts.

Skinner

[tommy-n]

Thanks for the update Brady, that sounds fair enough;)

[Bellyup]

I did not have a chance to check out the link, sorry. Will the 144 sq inch of orange be applied to all pop up blinds including waterfow blinds that pop up such as on boats and field hunting blinds ?

[whitetailmonster]

Thanks for the update and the effort to make it easier to be out in the woods.

[Huntmich]

is this 144sp total on the whole blind? does it have to be visible from all sides?

[Michihunter]

Will this bill now be referred to the Senate Committee for Hunting Fishing and Tourism? And if so, do you have an idea of how it will be received in that committee or an estimated time upon which it will be heard?

[bradymsu]

is this 144sp total on the whole blind? does it have to be visible from all sides?

Yes and yes. The pop ups I've seen have the square foot of orange at the top.

[bradymsu]

Will this bill now be referred to the Senate Committee for Hunting Fishing and Tourism? And if so, do you have an idea of how it will be received in that committee or an estimated time upon which it will be heard?

To be diplomatic, the Senate is unpredictable.

[bradymsu]

I did not have a chance to check out the link, sorry. Will the 144 sq inch of orange be applied to all pop up blinds including waterfow blinds that pop up such as on boats and field hunting blinds ?

Orange on blinds would only be necessary to take deer, not ducks.

[Bob S]

the requirement in the bill that all blinds be marked with hunter orange on private and public land was changed to just pop-up blinds on public land.Absolutely fantastic news.

[bumpbottom]

Thanks for listening!:woohoo1:

[beervo2]

Thanks Brady!!!!:)
Sounds fair to me...

[unclecbass]

Good job, that proposal makes perfect sense. Works for everybody.

[Justin]

Good news, the change to public land only though, is ridiculous.:confused:

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Good job, that proposal makes perfect sense. Works for everybody.

i concur, but when something makes perfect sense the senate will screw it up with some ding a ling add on. i sure hope they leave it as it is and progress forward from this point. SAFTEY IS NUMBER ONE!

[bradymsu]

Good news, the change to public land only though, is ridiculous.:confused:

Justin, I agree. Hunting accidents happen on both public and private land. But your and my perspective took the backseat this time to the property rights advocates. It's my hope that people voluntarily use hunter orange on blinds on private land, not only for their own protection, but for the peace of mind of other hunters on the same property or neighboring properties. There are more victims in an accidental shooting than the person being shot.

[Pinefarm]

I must say, sounds about perfect. A rarity. I'm not 100% on some orange "in motion" for varmit, but probably impossible to enforce and regulate. Very good compromise, all in all.

[7MM Magnum]

That's GREAT news!!

It's nice to know for sure that SOMEONE is out there actually listening to sports persons who actively pursue the sports and not just the whimpering of the anti-hunting crowd!

Good Job !!! :coolgleam

[shawnfire]

thats great news

[bradymsu]

What follows is the text of the amended bill. The proposed changes to existing law is in caps and bold. The regular type is the existing law. There may be future consideration of including a type of neon green used today by some law enforcement and road workers. The green color is suppossed to be more visible than orange, especially in the fall.

Sec. 40116.

(1) A person shall not take game during the established daylight shooting hours from August 15 through April 30 unless the person wears a cap, hat, vest, jacket, or rain gear of the highly visible color commonly referred to as hunter orange. Hunter orange includes blaze orange, flame orange, or fluorescent blaze orange, and camouflage that is not less than 50% hunter orange. The garments that are hunter orange shall be the hunter's outermost garment and shall be visible from all sides of the hunter.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person engaged in the taking of deer with a bow OR CROSSBOW during archery deer season, a person taking bear with a bow OR CROSSBOW, or a person engaged in the taking of turkey or migratory birds other than woodcock, A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE SPORT OF FALCONRY, OR A PERSON WHO IS STATIONARY AND IN THE ACT OF HUNTING BOBCAT, COYOTE, OR FOX.

(3) A PERSON SHALL NOT USE A GROUND BLIND TO TAKE DEER FROM PUBLIC LAND WITH A FIREARM UNLESS 144 SQUARE INCHES OF HUNTER ORANGE IS VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THE GROUND BLIND FROM ALL SIDES.

(4) The failure of a person to comply with this section is not evidence of contributory negligence in a civil action for injury to the person or for the person's wrongful death.

(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:

(A) "GROUND BLIND" MEANS A MANUFACTURED GROUND ENCLOSURE USED TO CONCEAL THE OCCUPANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAKING GAME. GROUND BLIND DOES NOT INCLUDE A BLIND CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY OF DEAD VEGETATION FOUND ON THE PROPERTY.

(B) "HUNTER ORANGE" MEANS THE HIGHLY VISIBLE COLOR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS HUNTER ORANGE AND INCLUDES BLAZE ORANGE, FLAME ORANGE, AND FLUORESCENT BLAZE ORANGE.

[QuakrTrakr]

Fantastic Brady! Thanks for listening and ACTING! The predator hunter orange issue has been a long one. I believe it was Dudley Spade that got that ball rolling a few years ago.

[joelsheltrown]

Hi everyone. Brady has been keeping me informed as to your opinions. I have decided to join the group myself. Although I don't think I will be a prolific poster(busy as heck) I will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for your support!~ Joel

[QuakrTrakr]

Hi everyone. Brady has been keeping me informed as to your opinions. I have decided to join the group myself. Although I don't think I will be a prolific poster(busy as heck) I will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for your support!~ Joel

Great to see you here Joel! Keep up the great work!

[7MM Magnum]

WELCOME aboard Joel ! :D

Thanks,... for all the GOOD things YOU have done to help promote hunting and the outdoors for all of the rest of us! :coolgleam

[ridgewalker]

Thanks for being a first rate Rep. and welcome! I hope this is just a beginning to your political career because there are far too few like you.

[swampbuck]

Welcome to the site Joel, We needed someone to keep Brady in line.:lol: Once more thanks again for everything you do for our district and the state in general. They openened all the roads in Roscommon country to ORV'S last week, I think the editorial piece worked........ I hope you will continue in some capacity beyond 2010, And I hope there will be a suitable replacement.....do you got anymore brothers.......maybe Brady should be about due for a promotion;)

[Whit1]

Hi everyone. Brady has been keeping me informed as to your opinions. I have decided to join the group myself. Although I don't think I will be a prolific poster(busy as heck) I will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for your support!~ Joel


Welcome to MS Joel. It's great to have you on board as a member. Now that you're in here we'll have to stop sayin' all them bad things 'bout ya............:lol:

Seriously, it's been a pleasure working with you and Brady for the past year. Both of you have been very helpful in educating some of us as to the process of lawmaking.

Brady, thanks for the update on the hunter orange issue. The amendments make sense in many ways.

[Skinner 2]

Welcome and thanks Joel for all the work you ahev been doing.

Thanks to you too Brady for keeping us informed and asking what we think

Good work guys!

Skinner

[WALLDADY]

Its GREAT to see public officials , useing a tool , such as a site like this , to get feedback . I think thats wonderfull . Let me also say thank you . It sounds as the rule is reasonable accross the board . In Ill. ( where I live ) it is written almost exactly the same way . The Blaze Orange requirement is NOT satisfied if Blaze Orange Camo is used . It must by solid 144sq.in. , visible from all sides . Is that also the way it reads for Mi.??

Good Luck and Safe Trips ............................ Walldady

[Socks]

Justin, I agree. Hunting accidents happen on both public and private land. But your and my perspective took the backseat this time to the property rights advocates. It's my hope that people voluntarily use hunter orange on blinds on private land, not only for their own protection, but for the peace of mind of other hunters on the same property or neighboring properties. There are more victims in an accidental shooting than the person being shot.

Thank you for listening to us and keeping us informed. I'm not as disciplined to always check in and your posts help me do that.

Hi everyone. Brady has been keeping me informed as to your opinions. I have decided to join the group myself. Although I don't think I will be a prolific poster(busy as heck) I will be checking in from time to time. Thank you for your support!~ Joel

Welcome and thanks for taking our opinions and acting upon them or at the very least hearing what we have to say.

Thanks to both of you!

[bradymsu]

The hunter orange bill is up on the House floor today. Sheltrown will be offering an amendment to strip the requirement for blinds completely, including pop-up blinds on public land. The amendment will allow legislators to decide if they feel this new requirement is necessary to protect the safety of hunters or if it is an unnecessary nanny-state regulation. If you have an opinion either way, contact your state representative this morning.

[tommy-n]

Thanks for the update Brady

[QuakrTrakr]

Email sent. Thanks Brady.

[Michihunter]

The hunter orange bill is up on the House floor today. Sheltrown will be offering an amendment to strip the requirement for blinds completely, including pop-up blinds on public land. The amendment will allow legislators to decide if they feel this new requirement is necessary to protect the safety of hunters or if it is an unnecessary nanny-state regulation. If you have an opinion either way, contact your state representative this morning.

What caused the change of heart Brady?

[QuakrTrakr]

Hey Brady, I can't find any wording for predator hunters in the bill. Do you have a link? All I could find is the michiganvotes link. http://www.michiganvotes.org/SearchLegislation.aspx?Keywords=hunter+orange&op=Search

[el Cazador]

For years I have voluntarily tagged my pop-up blinds with orange on all 4 sides. However, rather than use the store bought caps for the blind (overpriced), I've used squares of hunter orage fabric and sewed velcro to the square, with another piece attached to each of the 4 sides of the blind. I can then remove them when bow/turkey hunting. My question is...assuming each square is at least 6"x6", collectively this would amount to 144 sq. inches on 4 sides. Would this be acceptable? A little hard to determine based on the wording posted.

[bradymsu]

For years I have voluntarily tagged my pop-up blinds with orange on all 4 sides. However, rather than use the store bought caps for the blind (overpriced), I've used squares of hunter orage fabric and sewed velcro to the square, with another piece attached to each of the 4 sides of the blind. I can then remove them when bow/turkey hunting. My question is...assuming each square is at least 6"x6", collectively this would amount to 144 sq. inches on 4 sides. Would this be acceptable? A little hard to determine based on the wording posted.

Yes, but it probably won't even matter anymore now that the requirement is coming out.

[bradymsu]

What caused the change of heart Brady?

Negative public reaction outside of Michigan Sportsmen to the blind requirement. You guys are great, but apparently you're not always perfect in determining the voice of Michigan's hunters. :)

[bradymsu]

Hey Brady, I can't find any wording for predator hunters in the bill. Do you have a link? All I could find is the michiganvotes link. http://www.michiganvotes.org/SearchLegislation.aspx?Keywords=hunter+orange&op=Search

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4897

See subsection (2) in the bill.

[Pinefarm]

It's more often the masses of hunters who aren't so perfect. ;)

Our opinions here aren't usually speaking for the masses. To the contrary. In fact, our job is more often than not to fight off the mob mentality.

The flaw in thinking is often that the majority of hunters are sportsmen. From 15 years in the hunting/fishing sporting goods business, I'd say it's more like 20-30% are sportsmen.

[tommy-n]

It may very well be those masses of " sportsman" are the ones sticking together more so than the high horse riders of these forums:p


anyhow it's probably good they took it off or the whole thing might have been flushed down the crapper

[Pinefarm]

I'll take the high road over the low road anytime. ;):D
After dealing with those "masses" for some 15 years, you might find your opinion changes of the "masses" as you learn of their desires and intentions.
The masses aren't on M-S.
You'll often find the masses have little interest in what they can give back and somehow believe the resources are only there for them to take and take and take, and put nothing back, other than maybe $15. And for that $15, they expect world class everything, as seen on TV. IMHO.
It doesn't work that way.

Be it the guy that complains that he "only hooked 4 salmon all day" in a river or "only saw 4 deer all day" on opening day, too many have become spoiled, IMHO, and demand game laden land and water everywhere they go, everytime they go out. They have little care or knowledge of the potential damage that "too much" year-round can bring, longterm. It's usually only about them and what they can take. My .02

[sullyxlh]

(3) A PERSON SHALL NOT USE A GROUND BLIND TO TAKE DEER FROM PUBLIC LAND WITH A FIREARM UNLESS 144 SQUARE INCHES OF HUNTER ORANGE IS VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THE GROUND BLIND FROM ALL SIDES. So the way this is worded

It does not apply to me taking a deer with my bow during firearm season.

If I use my bow during the firearm season I am only required to wear the orange on me and not have it on my blind.

This only states I cannot take a deer with a firearm in a blind with no orange
It states nothing about taking a deer by bow in a blind during firearm deer season.

It states Firearm as in method of taking
Not Firearm season as in the time frame of taking game.

[bradymsu]

So the way this is worded

It does not apply to me taking a deer with my bow during firearm season.

If I use my bow during the firearm season I am only required to wear the orange on me and not have it on my blind.

This only states I cannot take a deer with a firearm in a blind with no orange
It states nothing about taking a deer by bow in a blind during firearm deer season.

It states Firearm as in method of taking
Not Firearm season as in the time frame of taking game.

Correct, but that subsection is history...eliminated, and the bill is now in the Senate after passing the House without dissent.

[Bob S]

The masses aren't on M-S.
You'll often find the masses have little interest in what they can give back and somehow believe the resources are only there for them to take and take and take, and put nothing back, other than maybe $15.I don't know Bob, when you see those on this site that oppose QDM because it interferes with their God given right to kill any buck, I think there are plenty of the masses on M-S.

[swampbuck]

Correct, but that subsection is history...eliminated, and the bill is now in the Senate after passing the House without dissent.

Thanks to the good Rep. for getting that ammended in such a timely manner.

[QuakrTrakr]

Yeas 107 Nays 0
Thanks congressmen, now the senate!

[bowhuntr81]

I see that predator hunters would be excluded from wearing orange. Trappers would still be required to wear orange if carrying a firearm for dispatch correct? I see those as two separate endeavors and wouldn't link trappers into the exemption, but out of curiosity I figured I'd ask.

[bradymsu]

It's more often the masses of hunters who aren't so perfect.

I understand what you're saying. The bottom line however is that we live in a democracy. The masses are the ones in control. The masses own the resources. The majority opinion may not be the right one all the time, but it is then the obligation of the minority to make its case to the majority and attempt to alter viewpoints.

Whether we like it or not, popular opinion rules in a democracy. Those that lose touch with that reality and attempt to create mechanisms like Proposal G to insulate the policy making process from popular opinion always end up suffering as a result. The current state of MUCC and the DNR is testament to that.

[tommy-n]

Very well said Brady, you chose those words very well. I was going to comment on that statement as well but could have never said it as well as yourself.

[QuakrTrakr]

I see that predator hunters would be excluded from wearing orange.

While stationary. That means you have to wear it in and out from hunting.


"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person engaged in the
taking of deer with a bow or crossbow during archery deer season, a
person taking bear with a bow or crossbow, or a person engaged in
the taking of turkey or migratory birds other than woodcock, a
person engaged in the sport of falconry, or a person who is
stationary and in the act of hunting bobcat, coyote, or fox."

[Riva]

I understand what you're saying. The bottom line however is that we live in a democracy. The masses are the ones in control. The masses own the resources. The majority opinion may not be the right one all the time, but it is then the obligation of the minority to make its case to the majority and attempt to alter viewpoints.

Whether we like it or not, popular opinion rules in a democracy. Those that lose touch with that reality and attempt to create mechanisms like Proposal G to insulate the policy making process from popular opinion always end up suffering as a result. The current state of MUCC and the DNR is testament to that.

If memory serves me right, Proposal G was put in place by a vote of the people, i.e.: "the masses".;) Thus, as you say, democracy works.

IMHO, what we are seeing here, is a textbook example of the body charged with maintaining the spirit and letter of Proposal G, the NRC, failing in its duties to create policy based solely on science and thereby causing the legislature in to sweep up the mess.

Now that you have successfully addressed the hunter orange issue (at least in the House), we should not forget the other glaring disregard of Proposal G that emerged from the March 2009 NRC surrounding crossbow expansion, specifically as it relates to age, eligibility, hunting zones and the folly of that silly 350 fps proviso. A 3-year sunset is no way to mask a gigantically flawed policy that is in direct contradiction to the singular mandate that serves as the rudder that steers the entire vessel: science! The day is not over.

In any event, thanks for fixing the hunter orange thingee. How are its chances in the upper chamber?

[bradymsu]

How are its chances in the upper chamber?

Start e-mailing your senator, especially YOUR senator.

[Riva]

Start e-mailing your senator, especially YOUR senator.


I have no doubt MY senator will respond accordingly. He drives the bus.

What is the bill #? Where was the bill placed?

[Pinefarm]

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology".
Carl Sagen


Brady, running wildlife management on popularity is where we strongly disagree. Biologists should have far more say in managing our resources, not the scientifically uneducated user.

Popularity, and endless resistence to change is why Michigan deer hunting is where it's at today.

See Passenger Pigeon, Bison, Grayling and what happened to 2 feet of our top soil from timbering in the 1800's, from when the masses run the show.

Or take the bait ban, for example. You ask the average guy who hunts a few days a year if he wants bait to be legal and he'll likely reply "hell yeah".

As wildlife management becomes more complex and more based on complex scientific models, continually relying on uninformed opinions is a fatal mistake.
As we drift away from a more rural society to a more urban one, the average voice becomes less and less informed on what happens in the natural world.

Add a world where instant gratification is the norm and you have a dangerous mix. We need to focus on what will happen 5 or 10 years from now, not just for next years opening day deer campfire or drop-freezer.

If wildlife management is a democracy, even though we live in a representative republic, then you need to open it all up to a vote, for the 80% of non-hunters and anti-hunters alike.

And then you need to open up the floor of the legislature for public comment on each issue.

One could strongly argue that the current state of MDNR is due to the failure of the elected legislature to get past politics in election years. Hence the license fee disaster in Lansing a while back.

The epitome of doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Yet, when the legislature fails on protecting wildlife, it's not a big enough "one issue" to swing an election and to remove that legislator from office. In a sense, wildlife management gets short shrift from the legislature because it's not their main focus, like it would be a wildlife agency filled with wildlife experts. Not even remotely close.

This is also the real reason why MDNR doesn't want buck tag changes. They know the legislature has 90% of it's members who have no clue about complex deer management, other than popularity contests and they don't want the legislature making things worse.

Basically, the experts don't want the laymen close to it. I don't blame them.

On M-S, you can find some very informed voices on a myriad of hunting and fishing issue's. There's biologists here, retired CO's, professional guides and even opinionated former sport shop owners. ;)

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, and opinions are like certain sun-starved parts of the human anatomy that everyone has, I'll make the controversial statement that not all opinions should necessarily be weighed equally when important and needed wildlife changes are to be considered.

From behind the counter, you hear all the myths. A large number of hunters believe MDNR secretly imported coyotes to kill all the deer. I'd guess a majority believes "the insurance companies" run deer policy. Many hunters believe MDNR "falsified" CWD because of some hidden agenda to ban baiting.

And while I certainly claim to be no biologist or deer expert, I believe I know better than nearly anyone here about what impact a license rule change could have at the license counter, as far as if it's too complex or confusing, or will be well received.

That's not from some arrogance on my part, it's from having sold several $1,000,000.00's in licenses and dealt with an individual on each basis. It's no different than as I wouldn't claim to know more about the engine in my Chevy than that repairman who's fixed 5000 of them.

Frankly, since license agents probably answer more license rule questions than anyone, even CO's just due to sheer volume, asking a list of some 30-40 higher volume license agents on the impact/confusion/viability about any new rule would be a good idea.

It's akin to asking Captains, Lieutenants and Sargeants about how things are really going on the ground. Or how they will work.

Or take the combo tag. The amount of confusion was so bad on that, that when a guy came to the counter on Nov.14 and said "I want my deer license", we got to the point where we wouldn't even mention the combo tag option if he didn't bring it up first. Because, if you did, invariably the guy would say "what's a combo license" you'd end up with a 5 minute "who's on first" conversation and the line of guys wanting tags would grow and grown. If someone asked for a combo, then we sold it. But even then, many still had questions about the combo and more often than not, they had the rules wrong.

The point is, many if most "regular" guys buying a tag on Nov.14 don't even fully understand the combo tag. Things like herd structure, sex ratio's, etc may as well be chinese and in another dimension.

Brady, I do commend you for looking for input. But it depends what you're looking for and how you gleen the info.

Is it angry emails to your office? If so, do you then judge a rule on it's merits or it's potential political fallout? If a rule change, or fee incease, is dismissed mainly due to fear of political fallout and not benefit to the resources, then what good is that process either?

One could argue that that process is potentially even worse than the NRC.

Is it better to put weight on the viewpoints of those immersed in the genre 365 days a year or to give equal weight to any opinion that may only spend one day a year within the genre?

The act of buying a license should not be seen as making all equal and giving all opinions equal weight. Taken to the end, why even have a DNR with biologists at that point? Why not let voters decide seasons and bag limits at that point?

As far as the angry emails of those who claim our fee's are too high, even though they're cheapest in the Midwest or that "the DNR wants all the deer killed" from guys that only spend a few days dealing with deer, at all, keep this in mind...

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
Edward R. Murrow

More and more online bashing of MDNR reminds me more and more of listening to guys down at the end of the bar bash MDNR.

Those who endlessly bash the bait ban online typify the guy down at the end of the bar. Yet, if they merely picked up the phone, called MDNR and talked to possibly the worlds best expert on deer to deer disease transmission over bait, they'd know better.
But they won't. They don't want to know. They enjoy their role as MDNR basher.

Keep in mind that many you hear from have never sold a license or endlessly explained rules, yet alone $1,000,000's of dollars worth. Keep in mind many you hear from have never seen a Winter deer yard. Keep in mind that many who say there's no deer left never see fields full of deer, in the same area, at Spring meltoff. Keep in mind most you hear from couldn't identify a severe browse line if they stood in the middle of one. Keep in mind than many don't understand that buying a license simply allows them the opportunity to hunt and that it doesn't entitle them to a deer in their freezer every year. And on and on.

My children would like candy and chips for dinner. And if left to a vote, they'd have it. But the role of knowing the right thing and doing the right thing should be left to those who have the experience to know otherwise.

For that reason, many more of the biological nuts and bolts rules should get more input from MDNR, not less.

And for an opinion piece about opinions, that's my opinion and mine alone.
I'm sure many will suggest I take that opinion and forcefully insert it in my sun-starved anatomy. ;):lol:

But in an age when specialization is the future vs mass produced, going back to the Michigan mass product model for wildlife management vs utilizing specialists/experts is a mistake that we will pay for, yet again.

Unfortunately, that seems to be something that Michigan is actually adroit at doing well.

[QuakrTrakr]

I have no doubt MY senator will respond accordingly. He drives the bus.

What is the bill #? Where was the bill placed?

I believe it's in the process of being submitted.

[Riva]

"We live is a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology".
Carl Sagen


Brady, running wildlife management on popularity is where we strongly disagree. Biologists and should have far more say in managing our resources, not the scientifically uneducated user.

Popularity, and endless resistence to change is why Michigan deer hunting is where it's at today.

See Passenger Pigeon, Bison, Grayling and what happened to 2 feet of our top soil from timbering in the 1800's, from when the masses run the show.

Or take the bait ban, for example. You ask the average guy who hunts a few days a year if he wants bait to be legal and he'll likely reply "hell yeah".

As wildlife management becomes more complex and more based on complex scientific models, continually relying on uninformed opinions is a fatal mistake.
As we drift away from a more rural society to a more urban one, the average voice becomes less and less informed on what happens in the natural world.

Add a world where instant gratification is the norm and you have a dangerous mix. We need to focus on what will happen 5 or 10 years from now, not just for next years opening day deer campfire or drop-freezer.

If wildlife management is a democracy, even though we live in a representative republic, then you need to open it all up to a vote, for the 80% on non-hunters and anti-hunters alike.

And then you need to open up the floor of the legislature for public comment on each issue.

One could strongly argue that the current state of MDNR is due to the failure of the elected legislature to get past politics in election years. Hence the license fee disaster in Lansing a while back.

The epitome of doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Yet, when the legislature fails on protecting wildlife, it's not a big enough "one issue" to swing an election and to remove that legislator from office. In a sense, wildlife management gets short shrift from the legislature because it's not their main focus, like it would be a wildlife agency filled with wildlife experts. Not even remotely close.

This is also the real reason why MDNR doesn't want buck tag changes. They know the legislature has 90% of it's members who have no clue about complex deer management, other than popularity contests and they don't want the legislature making things worse.

Basically, the experts don't want the laymen close to it. I don't blame them.

On M-S, you can find some very informed voices on a myriad of hunting and fishing issue's. There's biologists here, retired CO's, professional guides and even opinionated former sport shop owners. ;)

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, and opinions are like certain sun-starved parts of the human anatomy that everyone has, I'll make the controversial statement that not all opinions should necessarily be weighed equally when important and needed wildlife changes are to be considered.

From behind the counter, you hear all the myths. A large number of hunters believe MDNR secretly imported coyotes to kill all the deer. I'd guess a majority believes "the insurance companies" run deer policy. Many hunters believe MDNR "falsified" CWD because of some hidden agenda to ban baiting.

And while I certainly claim to be no biologist or deer expert, I believe I know better than nearly anyone here about what impact a license rule change could have at the license counter, as far as if it's too complex or confuing, or will be well received.

That's not from some arrogance on my part, it's from having sold several $1,000,000.00's in licenses and dealt with an individual on each basis. It's no different than as I wouldn't claim to know more about the engine in my Chevy than that repairman who's fixed 5000 of them.

Frankly, since license agents probably answer more license rule questions than anyone, even CO's just due to sheer volume, asking a list of some 30-40 higher volume license agents on the impact/confusion/viability about any new rule would be a good idea.

It's akin to asking Captains, Lieutenants and Sargeants about how things are really going on the ground. Or how they will work.

Or take the combo tag. The amount of confusion was so bad on that, that when a guy came to the counter on Nov.14 and said "I want my deer license", we got to the point where we wouldn't even mention the combo tag option if he didn't bring it up first. Because, if you did, invariably the guy would say "what's a combo license" you'd end up with a 5 minute "who's on first" conversation and the line of guys wanting tags would grow and grown. If someone asked for a combo, then we sold it. But even then, many still had questions about the combo and more often than not, they had the rules wrong.

The point is, many if most "regular" guys buying a tag on Nov.14 don't even fully understand the combo tag. Things like herd structure, sex ratio's, etc may as well be chinese and in another dimension.

Brady, I do commend you for looking for input. But it depends what you're looking for and how you gleen the info.

Is it angry emails to your office? If so, do you then judge a rule on it's merits or it's potential political fallout? If a rule change, or fee incease, is dismissed mainly due to fear of political fallout and not benefit to the resources, then what good is that process either?

One could argue that that process is potentially even worse than the NRC.

Is it better to put weight on the viewpoints of those immersed in the genre 365 days a year or to give equal weight to any opinion that may only spend one day a year within the genre?

The act of buying a license should not be seen as making all equal and giving all opinions equal weight. Taken to the end, why even have a DNR with biologists at that point? Why not let voters decide seasons and bag limits at that point?

As far as the angry emails of those who claim our fee's are too high, even though they're cheapest in the Midwest or that "the DNR wants all the deer killed" from guys that only spend a few days dealing with deer, at all, keep this in mind...

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
Edward R. Murrow

More and more online bashing of MDNR reminds me more and more of listening to guys down at the end of the bar bash MDNR.

Those who endlessly bash the bait ban online typify the guy down at the end of the bar. Yet, if they merely picked up the phone, called MDNR and talked to possibly the worlds best expert on deer to deer disease transmission over bait, they'd know better.
But they won't. They don't want to know. They enjoy their role as MDNR basher.

Keep in mind that many you hear from have never sold a license, yet alone$1,000,000's of dollars worth. Keep in mind many you hear from have never seen a Winter deer yard. Keep in mind that many who say there's no deer left never see fields full of deer, in the same area, at Spring meltoff. Keep in mind most you hear from couldn't identify a severe browse line if they stood in the middle of one. Keep in mind than many don't understand that buying a license simply allows them the opportunity to hunt and that it doesn't entitle them to a deer in their freezer every year. And on and on.

My children would like candy and chips for dinner. And if left to a vote, they'd have it. But the role of knowing the right thing and doing the right thing should be left to those who have the experience to know otherwise.

For that reason, many more of the biological nuts and bolts rules should get more input from MDNR, not less.

And for an opinion piece about opinions, that's my opinion and mine alone.
I'm sure many will suggest I take that opinion and forcefully insert it in my sun-starved anatomy. ;):lol:

But in an age when specialization is the future vs mass produced, going back to the Michigan mass product model for wildlife management vs utilizing specialists/experts is a mistake that we will pay for, yet again.

Unfortunately, that seems to be something that Michigan is actually adroit at doing well.


Robert, very nicely stated. I am saving this one. Most excellent.

[7MM Magnum]

Ditto here as well,.. that was a hell of a GOOD READ ! ;)

[bradymsu]

Brady, running wildlife management on popularity is where we strongly disagree. Biologists and should have far more say in managing our resources, not the scientifically uneducated user.

Pinefarm, you need to realize that irony in this though is that scientific management of our natural resources cannot exist without popular support. And it's the withdrawal of that popular support that has put the DNR in its current funding situation.

Having a degree in natural resource management from MSU and a degree in public administration from WMU combined with 15 years as a legislative staffer focusing on natural resources issues has convinced me that we must have sound scientific management of our natural resources, but that management must exist, and can exist, within a democratic system where user input is a major contributing factor in making conservation policy. Too heavy a focus on what's popular results in mis-management such as the examples you describe. Too little focus on user interests, results in a loss of support for management programs. There has to be balance to make it work.

To jump off topic briefly, let's consider just what sound scientific management is. To many people who aren't involved in the academic or applied sciences, science may appear to be black and white, with one right answer. No scientist making progress in her or his field is going to agree with this. Science is highly political often with conflicting theories. And applied science is even more political. Take deer management, for example. There are various way that Michigan's deer population can be managed scientifically depending on your intended result. Do we want a high population of bucks or do we want high quality bucks? There are tradeoffs and different scientists, just like different users, are going to have different priorities and varying opinions.

To get back to the hunter orange issue, I personally believe that the requirement for hunter orange on all blinds is a good idea. Statistics show that hunter orange laws works and people are being accidently shot in blinds that are not easily visible. However, I also realize that I personally am more pro-government regulation on public safety issues like this than the average user is. But I'm just one voice in a large society, much of which has strong concerns about an increasing amount of regulations on personal behavior. Policy makers have an obligation to strike a balance betweeen public safety and the role of government in people's lives and they need to suspend their egos and personal views in doing so. This is what happened on the hunter orange issue in the Michigan House. I don't agree with the result, but I recognize that it was the right result.

Legislative bodies directly accoutable to the public have the ability to strike this balance. This is why both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution put elected legislative bodies at the top of the policy making process. Even Proposal G only gives the NRC the ability to approve administrative rules which can be overruled by an act of the Legislature.

A lot has been said on this forum and elsewhere about the failure of Proposal G to live up to expectations. There has also been criticism about some of the NRC members. I don't think the problem is the concept of sound scientific management or the personalities on the NRC. The problem is the imbalance and struggle created by Proposal G between the public, their elected legislators, the NRC and the DNR. Given the legislative term limits that were approved in the 1990s along with Proposal G, this imbalance and struggle won't end without a change in structure.

I certainly don't believe the Legislature should be handling day-to-day natural resources policy. As you said, most legislators don't have the long term interest or understanding of natural resource issues to make these decisions and the focus on sound scientific management would be lost. But there does need to be meaningful legislative oversight of the process. One possibility is to return rule making authority to the DNR director and create a joint legislative natural resources rules committee made up of the 6 natural resources committee chairs and vice-chairs from the House and Senate, 4 of which would be able to rescind a conservation order. Regardless of what the solution is, there needs to be more cooperation between the DNR and the Legislature or natural resource management in our state is going to continue to suffer.

You are welcome to send me a private message on the various issues you brought up, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. On the issue of hunting fees for example, my objection to raising fees isn't based on the current or proposed fee levels themselves but instead on the economics no-no of raising prices with a declining customer base and more importantly on how a focus on fees avoids a focus on hunter retention and recruitment, which is where the real problem is. Of course, the NRC is loath to get too deep into the hunter recruitment and retention issue because it knows this will upset some of its key political supporters such as with the Michigan Bow Hunters and the crossbow issue.

[swampbuck]

Pinefarm,

While certainly Biologists should have considerale input on game management. I think it would be a mistake to throw out social science completely. The fact of the matter is every person who buys a license is important, whether it is through financial support of the DNR or by being one more vote to protect and preserve the future of hunting.

Lets take fee increases for example. Personally I would be willing to pay more, But there will be many that wont. Lets say 10,000 hunters drop out due to fee increases, how many of those 10,000 will have children or grandchildren and other future generations that will never hunt because their father/grandfather quit due to a fee increase. How will that effect the future of hunting.

You guys keep bring up propsal g and sound science. What is sound science.....The bait ban was sound science no doubt. What about OBR and antler restrictions. The "Experts" here have stated that there is not a biological advantage to better age structure, sure we will see more rutting behavior, daytime activity, bigger bucks. but is that sound science or the minoritys wishes. How many current and future generations of hunters can we afford to lose to that one................. Sound science in the scope of managing a public rescource that is used by 600,000 or so people is going to have to take public desires into account if you want to preserve hunting. Thats just the way it is. Now if you were to show scientific evidence that age and sex structure is causing genetic or disease problems and endangering the health and future of the deer herd you would have a case.

The problem is that the so called "serious hunter" or "sportsmen" as you refer to them are unwilling to compromise. And about that only 20% being sportsmen thing. In my opinion every person who hunts and fishes under the laws in this state are SPORTSMEN, Every single one and their opinion is just as important as yours or any other "experts". But I degress to the point I was about to make..... A while back I suggested making the combo a 1 buck/1 doe license. I gave that a lot of thought before I suggested it because I was searching for something that would offer something for EVERYONE. Casual/serious hunters, meat hunters, Trophy hunters, management guys, EVERY SPORTSMEN. It didnt get much support because It didnt include antler restrictions or, Someone wanted to kill 2 bucks or, The archery guys might have to give up the doe option to make it work in low density areas etc. etc. etc. Nothing will get done without COMPROMISE. Quite frankly I could live with OBR, MARS, Increased fees .....whatever. What I cant live with is disregarding the wishes of 80% or more of the Sportsmen of this state for no sound scientific reason.

Rep. Sheltrown has made several solid suggestions for alternative funding and they have been picked apart, because just about everyone here only thinks of themselves. Brady and Rep. Sheltrown do the research and his actions are based on sound science within the framework of increasing/preserving outdoor recreational opportunity. This I know to be a fact. That is the way it should.......no the way it has to be.

Never before has there been a politician who would stand up for the outdoorsmen of all forms as he has, not even close. Who knows if there will be in the future. We all know that... But its amazing how many people are still willing to piss that away because they are only concerned about themselves. SAD,REALLY SAD

[bradymsu]

I should add to the statement above, that this is my personal viewpoint given my history of working with natural resource policy issues. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Rep. Sheltrown. C.Y.A., especially now that he's on this forum.

[tommy-n]

"The problem is that the so called "serious hunter" or "sportsmen" as you refer to them are unwilling to compromise. And about that only 20% being sportsmen thing. In my opinion every person who hunts and fishes under the laws in this state are SPORTSMEN, Every single one and their opinion is just as important as yours or any other "experts". But I degress to the point I was about to make..... A while back I suggested making the combo a 1 buck/1 doe license. I gave that a lot of thought before I suggested it because I was searching for something that would offer something for EVERYONE. Casual/serious hunters, meat hunters, Trophy hunters, management guys, EVERY SPORTSMEN. It didnt get much support because It didnt include antler restrictions or, Someone wanted to kill 2 bucks or, The archery guys might have to give up the doe option to make it work in low density areas etc. etc. etc. Nothing will get done without COMPROMISE. Quite frankly I could live with OBR, MARS, Increased fees .....whatever. What I cant live with is disregarding the wishes of 80% or more of the Sportsmen of this state for no sound scientific reason". Quote

Very well said:)

[Pinefarm]

Brady,

I'm not trying to pick on you. I've very happy that you post here and certainly want you to continue.

To add just a bit to my point, I'm just stressing you be careful of the source of "the complainers". Some here and on other sites have mastered it. If there's a "DNR screwed up" thread, there's 20 regulars that pile on and make it seem like everyone hates the DNR. And in the computer age, can make their numbers seem larger than they are. I imagine there are people that love sending nasty grams to their Rep's too. I think the anonymity of the keyboard gives a lot of people an almost sexual rush when they send off an angry letter. Or some odd feeling of power.

Put that same guy infront of you, in person, and it's a whole different personality. To me, the non-human like quality of the internet doubles emotion levels.

I've met a lot of M-S guys in person. Let me tell you, when in person, they are always more subdued, likeable and reasonable than they sometimes appear here. Perhaps the same could be said for me.

Frankly, I could care less if the orange on tent blinds made it in or not. It was a nice little add on rule that may make some safer, but that's all it was.

My bigger concern is that you get sidetracked by the habitual complainers and MDNR bashers on other issues.

When or if it ever does comes to a big issue like the legislature tackling buck tag rules or fee structure or season dates, perhaps the onus of explaining the need for change to the constituents can come from your boss and a few others in the legislature who do understand something about deer management?

If it comes to that point, a cross media blitz of a MOOD TV spot, a Woods and Water op-ed and a posting here may swing a lot of minds. Especially if the nuts and bolts of any given issue was explained to them by a Rep?

I would think that that would go a long way towards making the case, no matter the issue, on hot button hunting/management issue's.

[Pinefarm]

Brady,

I'm not necessarily for fee increases just to have them. My main reason is that it appears that the major hangup to ever going to a One Buck Rule (OBR) like KY and IN recently did, with great results, is that the revenue of the combo tag doesn't seem to want to be given up.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but if not for the revenue situation, I suspect OBR would have much longer legs for consideration.
But as long as the revenue situation is what it is, OBR is off the table for any discussion. Is that a fairly correct assumption on my part and on the part of others here?

And this isn't some small issue about "wanting more big bucks". OBR helps, in a big way, to addressing many of Michigan's major deer problems.

As you know, our deer problems aren't just about deer. And they certainly aren't just about "antler fever", as some claim. Our deer problems are about car accidents, crop damage, forest damage, an evolution of our forests to non-preferred browse species, wildflower extinction, etc. I forget the biologist who said it, but to paraphrase he said "the biggest threat to small game populations is the whitetail deer". That was due to the habitat damage deer do.

KY and IN adopted OBR, just like Ohio has, because it's best license option going right now. Yet, it's simple enough for even the most uneducated deer hunter to follow.

This IS a big issue. Big enough that it really needs to happen. MDNR hasn't gone on record for saying so, but the retired deer biologist I spoke with on a regular basis said it was the thing to do and that other MDNR biologists agreed. In fact, the quote for that biologist that sticks with me is "we'll never get our deer problems fixed as long as guys have 2 buck tags in their pocket".

If revenue is the only thing holding that up, then it sure would be nice to fix that, only because the scope of what OBR helps fix is big.

[bradymsu]

Brady,

I'm not trying to pick on you. I've very happy that you post here and certainly want you to continue.

To add just a bit to my point, I'm just stressing you be careful of the source of "the complainers".

You're allowed to pick on me. You pay my salary. Honestly, I don't take any of these conversations personally.

I understand what you mean about the complainers and DNR haters. I will never agree with the "starve the DNR to death crowd". It isn't hard to separate them from people with legitimate concerns. Their tone typically sets them apart.

On the other end of the scale though, and far more dangerous, are those who believe that the DNR can do no wrong, that the decisions made by the department are based on sound science not politics and that the Legislature and general public should have very limited involvement in the natural resources policy making process. This mentality is anti-democratic and it is very destructive to winnning support for resource management programs. It, along with taking too many anti-recreational opportunity positions are what has destroyed MUCC.

I sounds like you feel we're responding to group #1 and you sound to me like you're advocating the mentality of group #2. I imagine this is the limitations of the internet and we're probably of a lot closer mindset. Regardless, I've read a lot of your posts and have a great deal of respect for you. And no, I'm not running for office. ;)

On the OBR & license sales, I'm not familiar enough with the issue to have any informed thoughts on it.

[QuakrTrakr]

Brady- You make a very valid point. I know some of the people in the NRC, and I think I'm more qualified to be in those positions than they are. In fact, I KNOW I am.

[Whit1]

Brady- You make a very valid point. I know some of the people in the NRC, and I think I'm more qualified to be in those positions than they are. In fact, I KNOW I am.

I have unfond memories of the one NRC meeting that I attended. During the entire Public Comment session, with the exception of one short 5 minute (or less) period when a well-spoken lady from Traverse City commented, a commissioner was playing with his Blackberry paying not a twit of attention to what was being said. Another commissioner was nodding off a bit.

They are political appointees.

[bradymsu]

They are political appointees.

True, although I have a lot of respect for Frank Wheatlake's knowledge of forestry issues and Keith Charter's background on hunting issues. I just wish the NRC was far more aggressive on retention and recruitment and pursuing new trends in non-consumptive recreation. There's a certain amount of political capital that comes with being elected to office rather than appointed that gives elected officials the ability to take on issues like crossbows. Unfortunately, there's also a tendency among many legislators to take the safe road and not do anything controversial. For better or worse, I don't work for one of them.

[Tom Morang]

I have unfond memories of the one NRC meeting that I attended. During the entire Public Comment session, with the exception of one short 5 minute (or less) period when a well-spoken lady from Traverse City commented, a commissioner was playing with his Blackberry paying not a twit of attention to what was being said. Another commissioner was nodding off a bit.

They are political appointees.

Whit.

Ever spend any time at the capitol during a house session? Handguns have even hit the floor during a session. :yikes: Or was that the Senate?

Term limits was the worst thing to ever happen to the Michigan Legislative scene.

[boehr]

...I just wish the NRC was far more aggressive on retention and recruitment and pursuing new trends in non-consumptive recreation. There's a certain amount of political capital that comes with being elected to office rather than appointed that gives elected officials the ability to take on issues like crossbows. Unfortunately, there's also a tendency among many legislators to take the safe road and not do anything controversial....That is one of the best statements I have ever read concerning both the NRC and Legislators. Well said!

[Riva]

Whit.

Ever spend any time at the capitol during a house session? Handguns have even hit the floor during a session. :yikes: Or was that the Senate?

Term limits was the worst thing to ever happen to the Michigan Legislative scene.

Mr. Morang, you and I are finally in agreement on an issue ;). You are 100% correct on the term limits issue in the MI legislature. Alternately, there's been some instances of NRC directors still hanging around in a voting capacity after their official (appointed) term has expired.

[Tom Morang]

Mr. Morang, you and I are finally in agreement on an issue ;). You are 100% correct on the term limits issue in the MI legislature. Alternately, there's been some instances of NRC directors still hanging around in a voting capacity after their official (appointed) term has expired.

Uh Oh.;)

[boehr]

As for term limits....we are in trouble with term limits and we are equally in trouble without them. The only thing that will sovole either is when people vote.

[Riva]

As for term limits....we are in trouble with term limits and we are equally in trouble without them. The only thing that will sovole either is when people vote.

There is a group currently promoting term limits for legislators be limited to any combination of 14 years service max. Trouble is, that doesn't divide into the 4 year terms of the MI Senate.

Do you find it strange that this thread started off talking about hunter orange? You can blame a moderator for that, in case you're curious.:lol:

[Rasputin]

As for term limits....we are in trouble with term limits and we are equally in trouble without them. The only thing that will sovole either is when people vote.


If I can paraphrase Pinefarm, I would say he was suggesting a few pages back that only the elite should be involved in decision making - maybe we need fewer people to vote to get better outcomes, not more?

[bradymsu]

If I can paraphrase Pinefarm, I would say he was suggesting a few pages back that only the elite should be involved in decision making - maybe we need fewer people to vote to get better outcomes, not more?

This is going to depend on which side of the political fence you're on. It's a well established fact in Michigan that the more people vote, the more Democrats are elected. And the fewer people who vote, the more Republicans are elected. This should come as no surprise as the most consistent voters are church-going conservative grumpy old white men. ;)

This is why on issues like no-reason absentee voting, Democrats love it and Republicans hate it. Democrats talk about "convenience" and "voter choice" and Republicans talk about the threat to "ballot security" and ACORN, but the bottom line is that one party wants everyone to vote and the other party would prefer to see more limited voter participation.

[Riva]

This is going to depend on which side of the political fence you're on. It's a well established fact in Michigan that the more people vote, the more Democrats are elected. And the fewer people who vote, the more Republicans are elected. This should come as no surprise as the most consistent voters are church-going conservative grumpy old white men. ;)

This is why on issues like no-reason absentee voting, Democrats love it and Republicans hate it. Democrats talk about "convenience" and "voter choice" and Republicans talk about the threat to "ballot security" and ACORN, but the bottom line is that one party wants everyone to vote and the other party would prefer to see more limited voter participation.

Three of the highest duties that can be performed by a citizen of our nation is: (1) serving in our armed forces, (2) sitting on a jury and (3) voting. The first two require that you be physically present to participate. The latter you do not. Perhaps that explains why absentee votes are either counted last or oftentimes, not counted at all. Moral of the story: grumpy old white men want their vote counted thus, stand in line.

[November Sunrise]

This is going to depend on which side of the political fence you're on. It's a well established fact in Michigan that the more people vote, the more Democrats are elected. And the fewer people who vote, the more Republicans are elected. This should come as no surprise as the most consistent voters are church-going conservative grumpy old white men. ;)

This is why on issues like no-reason absentee voting, Democrats love it and Republicans hate it. Democrats talk about "convenience" and "voter choice" and Republicans talk about the threat to "ballot security" and ACORN, but the bottom line is that one party wants everyone to vote and the other party would prefer to see more limited voter participation.

http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Fred explains politics:

In America, politics breaks mostly into two groups, both of whom probably do not have enough to do: liberals and conservatives. I will explain each.

The liberal believes that the group has a right to control every aspect of everyone’s life. He may permit many freedoms, but only those of which liberals approve. Abstract or general freedom holds no appeal for him. The limbic instinct of the inveterate liberal is to harry, regulate, and stifle the individual, of whose penchant for independent action he is profoundly distrustful.

Of course he does not think that he is stifling and imposing, but improving and instructing. For the unwilling he has no patience. The liberal is a creature of the homiletic herd, like a gnu wielding tracts, and believes in the “the masses,” in their infinite plasticity and potential for uplift and betterment, guided by him. Particularly he wants to uplift those who do not want to be uplifted, as their independence might be infectious. He sees himself in the capacity of the patient mother of a society of wayward two-year-olds who must be diapered, formed, and taught.

Thus his love of government in all its meddlesome intrusiveness, pedestrian witlessness, and unrestrained drive for dominion. He—or rather more often, she—knows that without coercion, some people will not do as they ought: that they will besot themselves, behave wrongheadedly, teach their children heaven knows what, and march off in all different directions. They must be restrained. And since the restrained usually find ways of evading the constricting tentacles, ever more and more-detailed laws must be enacted to thwart each new escape. Thus the government will eventually come to dictate the altitude, material, color, shape, texture, and compressive strength of toilet seats.

Liberalism is a feminine creed, embodying the kindness, short horizons, modest familiarity with reason, and placidity of the sex. It wants to buy people nice things without reflecting on how to pay for them. It believes in goodness but doesn’t often get much further, being benevolent while falling short of beneficence. As good mothers will, it tries to protect everyone from everything.

This is why the Democratic Party unrelentingly promotes security. Children must wear helmets while riding bicycles, swimming pools must not have deep ends, canoeists must wear life preservers, we must outlaw guns, and smoking, and drinking while driving, and we should all wear sunscreen so as to avoid melanoma. We must worry about safety until there is nothing left in life but its preservation.

With the seldom recognized totalitarianism of the female, liberals seek to impose happiness, whether desired or not, by therapy and mood-altering drugs, whether desired or not. People must be happy, must be safe, must be forcibly socialized to a life of orderly boring routine whether they want it or not. The herd will provide for all; the price is that all must yield to the herd. Thus the liberal aversion to any form of self-defense, whether conducted with a gun or a baseball bat. Self-defense is distressingly individual.

Conservatives by contrast believe that the individual has a God-given right to rob others. As the liberal has good intentions without rationality, the conservative has rationality without good intentions. He worships at the shrine of personal freedom, by which he means only his prerogative of making money regardless of damage done to others. He dislikes government as he dislikes anything that might inconvenience the pursuit of private rapine. He believes in the sanctity of private property, unless someone buys the lot next to his and builds a hog-rendering plant, when he will see the merits of zoning.

Conservatism is a masculine faith, hard-eyed, coldly logical, frequently bloodthirsty, and typically out of touch with any reality beyond the commercial. The conservative has no concern for the less fortunate, who he believes probably deserve it anyway. There is in conservatism a strong streak of social Darwinism.

Conservatives are fond of war, partly to be sure because of the consequent flow of contracts but also because war is an age-old, genetically mediated hobby of males. A robust conservatism embodies all the brainless pugnacity of the male. Note that history is chiefly the record of armed bands of men poking each other with sharp objects, after which the survivors drink mead and tell themselves how glorious it was. The Iliad, Beowulf, the Song of Rolland, and the Old Testament for example all read like the annals of teenage gangs in Chicago.

In the conservative mind, martial derring-do is wrapped like a birthday present in notions of glory, valor, sacrifice, virility, and transcendence. Women and most Democrats seem to see it in terms of deeply rooted and intransigent idiocy.

Conservatives conspicuously lack esthetic sensibility, a love of beauty being a concern of women and homosexuals. Show the conservative an Arcadian idyll of rolling fields and ancient oaks and he will see a site for several garish hotels, a parking lot, and a Wal-Mart. Like a congenitally deaf man watching the inexplicable sawings of a symphony orchestra, he is puzzled by conservationists. A dolphin, an elephant, a panda he calculates in terms of cans of dog food at thirty-seven cents per, and, for an additional three cents a can to cover legal contingencies, he would pack his grandmother. He sincerely has no faint idea why anyone might object.

He is likely to be a Christian, though not to the extent of letting his faith moderate his misbehavior. For him faith is a justification, not a limitation. While conservatives generally do not engage in herd behavior (note that they seldom hold demonstrations, while liberals seldom stop) they do believe in military aggression. Christianity provides moral cover as he does things that might otherwise raise nagging doubts, such as dropping large bombs on other people’s cities. I was only following orders, from on high.

The solution to the conflict between the two groups should be obvious to all thinking people, if any: Drop them down an abandoned oil well, pump large amounts of potassium cyanide after them, and stuff Oprah into the hole as a plug. A cap of cement couldn’t hurt. The silence alone would justify this wise deed.

All correspondence regarding the foregoing luminous insights should be sent to General Delivery, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.

[Thunderhead]

This thing jumped the tracks a long time ago........... What happened to the hunters orange thread ?

[Whit1]

This thing jumped the tracks a long time ago........... What happened to the hunters orange thread ?


Good question!

[Whit1]

Term limits was the worst thing to ever happen to the Michigan Legislative scene.


Absolutely!

We'd better be careful Tom; we're agreeing on too many items in a row.........:lol:

[Whit1]

Do you find it strange that this thread started off talking about hunter orange? You can blame a moderator for that, in case you're curious.:lol:


Find where that mod lives and hang the crud!..........:lol:

[hellbilly]

Time to lock?

[wally-eye]

Probably one of those ol crusty senile mods that can't remember what day it is.....:evilsmile :lol:

[Pinefarm]

Term limits have brought us far more pain than gain. Does anyone think the last budget mess/showdown would have happened in the days before term limits?
IMHO, the "old experts" would have made a compromise deal. We'd have also probably seen license fee increases and all these debates would be mute.

Many were for term limits a while back, and I was one. But it's quickly become clear that that was a huge mistake.

[Whit1]

Many were for term limits a while back, and I was one. But it's quickly become clear that that was a huge mistake.

I rarely do this Bob, but you'll understand.........................."I told ya so, I told ya so nya-nya-nya-nya-nya!" Of course I didn't know Bob back then, but our oldest son was totally in favor of term limits and I did converse with him (we rarely talk politics and for good reason) about it and told him it would be damned in a few short years.

Ballot proposals are not the way to get things done. Look at the mess California is in and in good part because of an unending stream of propositions over the years that have been passed by the voters.

We'll have to end this thread shortly as it is getting into politics and this is the wrong forum for that. I'll keep it open for a day or two in order for members to get in their last shots.

[Pinefarm]

Yup, having lots of newbie's in Lansing before they can figure out everything and create relationships isn't working.

BTW, this thread and many others about hunting issue's and fee's ARE about politics. ;)

[Riva]

Yup, having lots of newbie's in Lansing before they can figure out everything and create relationships isn't working.

BTW, this thread and many others about hunting issue's and fee's ARE about politics. ;)

Bringing these collective topics full circle, I believe it prudent that first term legislators be required to wear full hunter orange while the House or Senate is in session. Second term legislators are given minor separation by being allowed to wear blaze orange, but it may be in a camo pattern, if they so choose. Term-limited legislators, in deference to their seniority and accumulated experience are required only to wear a 12" x 12" patch on both the front and back of one's apparel, (heart-shaped on the front side permitted and back side may be sewn to the seat of one's trousers) Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.:D

[Big Nic]

Bringing these collective topics full circle, I believe it prudent that first term legislators be required to wear full hunter orange while the House or Senate is in session. Second term legislators are given minor separation by being allowed to wear blaze orange, but it may be in a camo pattern, if they so choose. Term-limited legislators, in deference to their seniority and accumulated experience are required only to wear a 12" x 12" patch on both the front and back of one's apparel, (heart-shaped on the front side permitted and back side may be sewn to the seat of one's trousers) Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.:D


Funny Stuff Riva :D:D That's one proposal thast would get my YES vote

[bradymsu]

Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.:D

Change it to a ball cap and you have yourself a deal.

[dougdad]

It's a good sense move to help improve safty for all of us. The manufactures of blinds will prob. put the req. amount on the top of the blinds by perminent attachment then provide a easily installed cover for those who want to use them on private land and chose to cover it.

Thanks for your support guys !!!