Update on the Wisconsin DNR potential ban...

[Webmaster]

For people who want to know - I got this press release today:

The PPMA (Paintball Products Manufacturers Association), and media in Wisconsin, have received the press release that follows and has forwarded it to the paintball media. It is from Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti, who, the PPMA says, has become instrumental in ensuring a better and fairer review for the proposed ban of paintball on Dept. of Natural Resources land in Wisconsin.

The PPMA thanks Nelson Paintballs, the paintball manufacturer mentioned in the release, whose contact with legislators helped achieve the results-to-date. The PPMA says that the matter has not yet been fully resolved, but at least it's getting a fair hearing. The PPMA extends a Thank You to the paintball media and everyone who participated in this fine example of "paintball standing united," including those who respectfully disagreed with the PPMA's position.

Anyone who wants to stay informed on breaking issues can add his or her name to the PPMA mailing list at www.paintballassociation.com. APG magazine provides information to those who are on the APG email lists: www.actionpursuitgames.com



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2001
CONTACT REPRESENTATIVE SERATTI
(608) 266-3780 (888) 534-0036

Lawmakers Seek Re-write of DNR Paintball Rule

Department agrees to extend review period

MADISON. At the request of lawmakers, the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has agreed to extend the review period on a new rule that would ban
paintball games on DNR lands. The ban was one part of rule change proposal
that addressed numerous unrelated issues, and as a result went largely
unnoticed until recently.

"It is unfortunate that the people most affected by this rule were not aware
of it earlier on, but I'm glad DNR is willing to work with us to allow
further public input," said Representative Lorraine Seratti (R-Spread
Eagle), who pressed hard for the extension. "You try not to let anything
slip through the cracks, but when something like this happens it's best to
take a step back and listen to people."

The proposed rule received a public hearing before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee in November. The committee requested some minor changes
at that time, but the public, particularly paintball enthusiasts, had
apparently been unaware that the rule restricted access to DNR lands.

Mark Pettis (R-La Follette) who serves on the committee said, "I hadn't
heard a peep from anyone on this before last Monday, but I've had around 300
emails since then."

Though it was a little known sport just a decade ago, paintball has grown
rapidly over the last ten years. It is now nearly a billion dollar per year
industry. It is estimated that 7.1 million people play paintball
nationwide.

"One of the oldest manufacturers of paintball equipment in the country is
located right across the Menominee River from my home town," said Seratti.
"They employ over fifty people from Michigan and Wisconsin, and buy most of
their raw materials from Wisconsin companies."

The Natural Resources Committee will hold a second public hearing on the
proposed rule some time shortly after New Years, and is expected to request
additional changes. While there are a number of businesses in Wisconsin
that offer organized paintball games, industry experts estimate nearly 80%
of paintball play takes place on public lands.

"I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have people playing paintball
in city parks, but it seems a bit unreasonable to ban these games on
property where we currently allow hunting," said Seratti.

-end-

[MajorDamage]

Coola! Now we'll show those commies in the white house! :D

ENDO!

[cphilip]

Excellent. 300 emails huh? One of them was from me!

[cphilip]

Well now this might seem picky and is a totally another subject but this one comment from her kind of concerned me.

but it seems a bit unreasonable to ban these games on
property where we currently allow hunting," said Seratti.


Now who does she think bought and paid for that public land in the first place? Not that they or even we have a problem with other uses but almost every acre was paid for by hunting taxes and fee's. Over 30 BILLION dollars contributed so far since Arms and Ammunition manufacturers agree to and the Federal Government instituted the program to tax all this stuff top purchase public land for preservation and hunting. Not to mention the state wildlife management programs and individual organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, I can go on and on but predominantly Hunting people bought most of it or pay the rent on it.

I know I know we happy in the Paintball world but remember who actually bought it for us. And I just got the hint from the way she said that that she did not. Perhaps I am too critical? Oh well we will forgive her that one. It might be taken out of context anyway.

[the JoKeR]

Originally posted by Webmaster
"I'm glad DNR is willing to work with us to allow
further public input," said Representative Lorraine Seratti (R-Spread
Eagle), who pressed hard for the extension."

He he he, you said "Spread Eagle"...:D

Thanks to evrybody who helped stop this from happening!

[shartley]

I got that earlier, and must say that it is, again, a bit misleading. I was hoping noone would post it, because if just read, but not actually examined for what it is, it appears to lend credibility to the PPMA mistake made earlier (which was not even close to being accurate).

But it *was* posted, so.....


It is from Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti, who, the PPMA says, has become instrumental in ensuring a better and fairer review for the proposed ban of paintball on Dept. of Natural Resources land in Wisconsin. You mean in the system that Chris already explained was being done? It was really only put on hold for the Holiday Season. Seems like time was the instramental eliment, not some conversations in a "downtime" anyway.


The PPMA thanks Nelson Paintballs, the paintball manufacturer mentioned in the release, whose contact with legislators helped achieve the results-to-date. The PPMA says that the matter has not yet been fully resolved, but at least it's getting a fair hearing. The PPMA extends a Thank You to the paintball media and everyone who participated in this fine example of "paintball standing united," including those who respectfully disagreed with the PPMA's position. Again, makes it look as if some sort of "deal" was made or prevention of some sort of "back-dooring" by not allowing a fair hearing. This is not even close to being accurate according to information provided by Chris. Quite misleading writing there, but typical.


At the request of lawmakers, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has agreed to extend the review period on a new rule that would ban paintball games on DNR lands. The ban was one part of rule change proposal that addressed numerous unrelated issues, and as a result went largely unnoticed until recently. I am glad they agreed to extend the review, but this appears to be a natural part of the whole process anyway. What special actions were taken? All they had to do is ASK.


"It is unfortunate that the people most affected by this rule were not aware
of it earlier on, but I'm glad DNR is willing to work with us to allow
further public input," said Representative Lorraine Seratti (R-Spread
Eagle), who pressed hard for the extension. "You try not to let anything
slip through the cracks, but when something like this happens it's best to
take a step back and listen to people." It would be standard to mention exactly WHO these most affected people are. This is STILL not answered, or even eluded to. All I keep seeing is *could be affected* or *might*, etc. Noone has stepped forward with a single tangible number, business name, or anything. You can not just say "Paintball Players" in general because as we have discussed before, this would not affect the "general" paintball community. Again, makes great sound bytes, but a bit misleading without any specifics listed.


The proposed rule received a public hearing before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee in November. The committee requested some minor changes
at that time, but the public, particularly paintball enthusiasts, had
apparently been unaware that the rule restricted access to DNR lands.Like I stated before, I am always made aware of any changes in Zoning, laws, or what-not that will affect MY business.... so if people were unaware, it would reason that it was because it did not actually affect fields currently in operation. And I have made this point before, and still no field names have been brought forward as being affected. And sorry, fields in OTHER States affected by similar laws or regulations don't count.


Mark Pettis (R-La Follette) who serves on the committee said, "I hadn't
heard a peep from anyone on this before last Monday, but I've had around 300
emails since then." And how many of those contained profanity? Remember the request to NOT use profanity, that I posted directly from APG? And honestly, 300 e-mails from all the paintball players out there? That is not many. We on AO have 3000+ Members, and I know that just about every Paintball Forum on the Internet was running the same press release. And then I would like to know how many were verified as WI Residents, and above the age of 18. Again, sounds great unless you look at the big picture. And anyone who was *not* a WI resident can not be counted because they do not VOTE there, or in fact matter at all as it pertains to this issue. If they did, why not get 50 Billion Chinese to send e-mails as well? Their letters would matter just as much.


It is estimated that 7.1 million people play paintball nationwide. When giving estimates and numbers, it is pretty standard to also state WHERE these numbers come from. Without them, they are useless as an indication of anything, true or not. Not to mention how National numbers do not matter for STATE laws.


While there are a number of businesses in Wisconsin
that offer organized paintball games, industry experts estimate nearly 80%
of paintball play takes place on public lands. What? Great numbers guys, but how were they gathered? Who are these "industry experts"? Again, when numbers like these are used in reports and press releases, it is standard to tell where, who, and how the data was gathered... and an exact WHO at a minimum. It is never "industry experts". Plus for an argument, you MUST use independent sources for validation.


"I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have people playing paintball
in city parks, but it seems a bit unreasonable to ban these games on
property where we currently allow hunting," said Seratti.I will "ditto" what Phil said in the post above.

This post is meant to show that again, you can not take what has been written about this issue at face value. And that is simply because it has *no* face value. It is all political fluff. It contains no relevant data backed up by any tangible proof. And that being the case, even if it *was* all true, it still holds no weight as an indication of anything other than a "feel good" press release.

And as "facts" go, it has none that were even remotely verified in the release itself. I give it as much weight as the original press release put out by the PPMA. And trust me, I did not even TRY to pick this one apart, and only skimmed quickly with my comments. You can make a papercut into a life threatening wound if you pick at it enough, and get enough people to believe you.

Some people will choose to believe this information, and that is fine, them doing so will not really hurt anyone. So I have no problems with it. Others will see it for what I feel it is... a smoke screen to cover and attempt to lend credibility to a huge mistake that was made by the PPMA. I hope those on both sides of this issue will respect the others' views and rights to their opinions with no personal attacks being made.

[shartley]

Oh, I had to add this so that some would not think I changed my post above....

1) I followed ALL AO Rules.

and

2) If you don't agree with me, that is fine. And if you think I am full of hot air.. that is fine too. LOL Then my post should not matter to you anyway. ;)

I enjoy the fact that some of us can disagree with each other, and often times strongly, but respect each others' right to do so. Disagreements do not make bad people, attacking them for them does.

Oh... and once again.. Happy Holidays. The clock is ticking down, and the kids are getting antsy. LOL

[Webmaster]

I guess its fun for some people to pick apart a PPMA press release. I mean, its easy to debate something that doesnt have a possiblity to defend itself. Its just a press release - its not like *I* wrote it and came up with the information and can then come back and defend it. Niether did Bill Mills (although he did write up a short piece on it on warpig). I really am just trying to pass information along.

While the PPMA press release doesnt have every single detail to satisfy every possible question - its not meant to! How many press releases have all the details?

It is in effort to inform people on what is going on and the progress.

I realize that Chris has spent some time talking with the DNR, who feels this thing is blown out of proportion yadda yadda. Well, honestly, you are hearing one side of the story if you have only talked to the DNR. I mean, call up Handgun Control Inc. I am sure they will tell you what good meaning people they are, who want to make your kids safe, and that the NRA is just a bunch of nuts who think the sky if falling everytime there is "sensible gun control" law proposed.

I would implore Chris to direct his activism by getting with the PPMA and offer support. I think it is great you are taking a interest and getting involved. At the same time I caution you to seek out the DNR and take everything they say at face value, yet the only contact you have with the PPMA is a few press releases. Perhaps after contacting the PPMA directly you will have a slightly different outlook.

Finally - it kind of bothers me the staunch skeptism met with the PPMA. I mean, I thought we were all on the same side here. People point out this and that as something they would do different, yadda, yadda. The point is you are just setting there on the computer arguing how the PPMA isnt doing a good job and questioning its motives and its methods. Well its out there doing something to the best of its abilities. Would you prefer no PPMA, or perhaps you all should form an organiztion that does what the PPMA seeks to do. I know - if your going to do something - do it right. But what makes any of us experts on the way to be paintball lobbiest/activists?

Finally, lets look at the founding members of the PPMA:

Lynn Scott is the PPMA president, and John Gregory is the PPMA Secretary-Treasurer.
The PPMA board of directors:
Arthur Chang, Kingman Int'l Corp.
Jerry Dobbins, Indian Creek Design, Inc.
Tom Kaye, Airgun Designs, Inc.
Bud Orr, Worr Game Products, Inc.
Lynn Scott, Brass Eagle, Inc.
Jerry Sullivan, Air Concepts Industries, Inc.

Wha-wha?? Tom Kaye? Hey that crazy Monkeyis at it again! Pretty soon he will loose all of AGDs money in a pryamid scheme, or mabye even become a scientologist.

If these people who pretty much STARTED our sport and continue lead it support the PPMA, perhaps we should be a bit less combatitive towards an organization designed to help us.


Hey! I got to censor webby! :D Ya can't say bastard can you? - cphilip:confused:

[beam]

I am happy to see that this didn't just "slip through the cracks"

Thanks webby for posting it. I also didn't know that about the PPMA.

One question though...you said something about "people picking apart a press release" or something like that?

What is that all about? :D

I guess I didn't notice it. ;)

[skipdogg]

Please keep us posted on when the next "meeting" to discuss the ban is held. I will most likely road trip it to mad town and check it out.

[shartley]

Webby
Thank you for your response.


I guess its fun for some people to pick apart a PPMA press release. I mean, its easy to debate something that doesnt have a possiblity to defend itself. Its just a press release - its not like *I* wrote it and came up with the information and can then come back and defend it. Niether did Bill Mills (although he did write up a short piece on it on warpig). I really am just trying to pass information along.Not fun at all... noone should even be able to, or HAVE to. It should be able to stand on its own, but this one could not, and not by a long shot. And no picking was done, it was all pretty much out in the open.

I would also like to know if what you are getting at is that anyone can put out a press release saying anything they want and noone can bring up the fact that it may be wrong, because the press release can not defend itself? I am confused. Shouldn't people who put out press releases EXPECT people to question them? And isn't it the right of readers to *not* take things at face value, but use a bit of common sense, and question things that they don't feel are accurate or even make sense?


While the PPMA press release doesnt have every single detail to satisfy every possible question - its not meant to! How many press releases have all the details?Well, noone expects all questions to be answered in a press release, but they *do* expect the basics to be covered. When you use stats, and numbers, and "expert" information, it is customary to list your sources... even in a press release. Again, if it does not even follow the basics, it is hard to determine if it is even credible.



I realize that Chris has spent some time talking with the DNR, who feels this thing is blown out of proportion yadda yadda. Well, honestly, you are hearing one side of the story if you have only talked to the DNR. I mean, call up Handgun Control Inc. I am sure they will tell you what good meaning people they are, who want to make your kids safe, and that the NRA is just a bunch of nuts who think the sky if falling everytime there is "sensible gun control" law proposed.But it seems that anyone with contrary views to the PPMA, or their actions and misinformation in this matter are the "other" side too... sort of. And I know you are not suggesting that *they* not be heard because they disagree. Or that they are not good meaning people as well.


I would implore Chris to direct his activism by getting with the PPMA and offer support. I think it is great you are taking a interest and getting involved. At the same time I caution you to seek out the DNR and take everything they say at face value, yet the only contact you have with the PPMA is a few press releases. Perhaps after contacting the PPMA directly you will have a slightly different outlook.And why is it that it appears that those who fully support the PPMA want people to take *their* word at face value? Isn't this a double standard? And why *not* consider the actual press releases put out by the PPMA as an indication of their skills and abilities? They *did* put the stuff out for the world to see, right? Confusing....


Finally - it kind of bothers me the staunch skeptism met with the PPMA. I mean, I thought we were all on the same side here. People point out this and that as something they would do different, yadda, yadda. The point is you are just setting there on the computer arguing how the PPMA isnt doing a good job and questioning its motives and its methods. Well its out there doing something to the best of its abilities. Would you prefer no PPMA, or perhaps you all should form an organiztion that does what the PPMA seeks to do. I know - if your going to do something - do it right. But what makes any of us experts on the way to be paintball lobbiest/activists?Hold on please... just because people don't agree with the actions (or every view)of an organization does not mean we are not on the same side. And to follow anyone blindly is foolish. Plus people should question things, no matter what the source is. It prevents them from being mislead... which was the case this time.

Also, noone said *nothing* should be done, but using the argument that *anything* is better than nothing is in my opinion the problem the Paintball Industry faces all the time. Why not use *this* argument... Better to do things *right* than to do them *wrong* even if they are being done wrong by good people. Your stance is waffled in that same paragraph. But that really does not matter. What *does* matter is that *I* or *others* did not form the PPMA. To use the argument that others should stop complaining or do it themselves does not rectify the situation. The PPMA *should* be held accountable for their actions, and people *should* question them.

I don't agree with everything the NRA does either, but I am a proud member. So why would anyone think that you have to support *every* action done by *any* group? And not doing so does not mean you are *against* them. This *all or nothing* mentality only hurts causes, not helps them.


Lynn Scott is the PPMA president, and John Gregory is the PPMA Secretary-Treasurer.
The PPMA board of directors:
Arthur Chang, Kingman Int'l Corp.
Jerry Dobbins, Indian Creek Design, Inc.
Tom Kaye, Airgun Designs, Inc.
Bud Orr, Worr Game Products, Inc.
Lynn Scott, Brass Eagle, Inc.
Jerry Sullivan, Air Concepts Industries, Inc. Well this matters little to me in all honesty. I help elect very qualified people to act on *my* behalf, but I don't follow their leadership blindly either. Seems too many people take the word of certain other people as gospel with no questioning.... that is a huge mistake. Good people or not, *none* of them are Gods, faultless, or should be followed with blind devotion, never questioning a word they say. This is dangerous.

Also I prefer to look at the actual *actions* of a group, not the names that make it up. And simply put, the PPMA, even if headed by Jesus Christ, put out a misleading press release, continues to do so, and people want to dismiss it. I don't want to debate *people*, I want to discuss the *group* and the actions taken on behalf of the group, and *by* the group. But others want to make it a personal thing.

This is just not right. If the PPMA messes up and someone says so, others want to assign the criticism *to* actual names... that would make it *appear* to be a personal attack.. when it is not. Otherwise, why even mention the *founders*? I don't think anyone was discussing the founders, but the actions taken *by* the PPMA directly.. not Tom Kaye, not Bud Orr, etc... the PPMA.


Wha-wha?? Tom Kaye? Hey that crazy Monkey is at it again! Pretty soon he will loose all of AGDs money in a pryamid scheme, or mabye even become a scientologist.That is so irrelevant to the issue that I need not comment further. (It *was* funny though.)


If these people who pretty much STARTED our sport and continue lead it support the PPMA, perhaps we should be a bit less combatitive towards an organization designed to help us.Interesting. So again, we are not to question, but to follow blindly..... and if anyone questions, they are *evil* or *counter productive* or care *less* about the Paintball Industry?

There are many of us out there that help the Paintball Industry in our own ways. They may be different, but I can assure you they are no less important. The Paintball Industry does not need an army of *yes* men, they need clear and rational thinkers. That is what will help the Paintball Industry grow.

How can anyone keep asking the same questions.. "Why is the Paintball Industry not being taken seriously after all this time? And why is Paintball not taken seriously as a mainstream sport?" But then fall back on... "But these people are so great, they were there from the beginning of the Sport.... etc. etc. etc."

The definition of insanity is doing the same things time and again but expecting different outcomes. As long as everyone goes along with the *club* things are just fine... are they? And if anyone questions the *club* are they out to ruin Paintball? Do they care less than others?

I don't think so. And I personally think asking questions and expecting quality from those who are *suppose* to be helping us, is not a bad thing.

Speaking of *helping*, is it not generally agreed by most Paintball Manufacturers that *full auto* is not a good thing for the Paintball Sport in general (and most have agreed to voluntarily stop its production)? Yet why is it that Kingman's latest ads in APG still have it as a standard feature in their new electro grip frames? And isn't Kingman a member of the PPMA?

Point? Even the members of the PPMA do not agree on everything. But would that put Kingman in the doghouse, or against Paintball? Again, confusing.

So, I personally *welcome* debate on issues. And I can fully see that disagreeing on issues does not automatically put you in the *other* camp. It does not make you the *enemy* of Paintball. And it does not mean that you are attacking any of the other people *personally*.. you just have differences in opinion. And *opposition* should not really bother anyone.. it sparks ideas and debates. That is how the Industry will grow.

I find it distressing that any time an organization is questioned or disagreed with, that it is made to look as if the person who is doing the disagreeing is wrong for doing so. Private people, questioning and acting as private people, should *never* be made to feel as if by doing so *they* must rise to the level of the Organization. And questions asked by private people should also never be turned around and directed back *at* them personally, which has happened many times here on AO.

There is a *huge* distinction between the actions of private people, and the actions of an Organization or Business. They are getting paid for what they do, private folks are not. They should also be held to higher standards than private people, and not judged on one hand as an organization, and then as separate people (just like the rest of us) if they do something wrong. They are either Professionals, or *not* And as Professionals, they *should* be open to questions and scrutiny, and if they are not prepared to be (or do) so, then they are in the wrong business.

And anyone who tries to protect them is actually creating a situation of condescension. Are they so talented, wise, and capable.. or are they not? And if they *are*, fantastic! But why then the need to protect them from those who point out errors? And remember, *I* nor any others who disagree with what they did, put out (and continue to put out) the Press Releases.... *they* did. So, please try to keep it on target.... discuss the issues, not the *people*. Discuss the *facts* not the *politics of friendship*.

This has thus far been a great debate, I hope that it remains so. Debating people’s character is *not* the issue… discussing what was *done* is. Again, I thank you for your post, it was well written and done so respectfully. I hope others can see I put the time into doing the same.

[cphilip]

All good points webby.

My only skepticism was the early reference to a "Bill" and with what I knew about the legislative process I knew that the outcome of a "Bill" out of a Legislative Committee was not what was being said. later it came out the they had missused the term "Bill" but even then and because it wasn't a "Bill" I was then even more certain that a day or two was not the end of the world or the last word on this. Not that we didn't need to do something about it but in fact we might just find it was agreeable even. Who knows? Not likely but stranger things ahve happened. So if I knew that...then they should have too. So I was wondering at first if I was being deliberately mislead or not. I don't know them like you do. But even still it was apparent that some misleading was occurring. Either by just plain error or on purpose I was not certain. I prefer now to think it was not deliberate but just a result of them finding out so late and not being able to analyze it fully but wanting to do something to stop the bleeding just in case.


But none the less my personal caution was warranted regardless of what anyone else chooses to do. Blind Faith in my opinion is reserved for Religion. Total skepticism is also not a real bright thing to do at times either. Sometimes you got to take a chance. But you can temper the problems if you do not act in too much haste. And when you smell something fishy you tend to want to slow down and get all the facts. I think that's all anybody wanted.

So I decided to send this e-mail as a compromise to all of them (taken in part):

Dear Sir or Madame,

It has come to my attention that DNR is preparing some sort of regulation that effects Paintball on Public land. Although I am a bit confused as to exactly the process or what the specifics are in this regulation as I have not had time to study them I would ask you to consider hearing from the Paintball industry and players before you make any final decision. Anything you could do to delay any final decision would give us time to study what you are proposing and respond appropriately.

Thanks you in advance for your consideration of this matter

Philip D. Carroll Jr.

So as you can see no mention of anybody or what they say or what they are doing just in case the facts were not straight. This went to them after Chris had reported to us. Late that day. So that is the way I went with it. Seems fair doesn't it?

[MantisMag]

i hate politics. the press release isn't really meant for us anyway. that's the feeling i get. it's for political reasons. the whole point of that release was to sway public opinion and get votes. notice the totally irrelevant mention of a paintball equipment manufacturer and the people they employ. that has nothing to do with where paintball is played. but it serves as a reminder to the representatives or whoever is voting on this issue that paintball contributes to their economy. the same thing with mentioning the nationwide paintball numbers. if they had used the numbers for just wisconsin they wouldn't have been as impressive. but the nationwide numbers sound big. it gives paintball credence to people who really don't care about paintball. it's all a political game. just be glad that somebody is playing these games for us. i didn't agree with all the things my lawyer did, i actually despised the games that he played, but i was sure glad he did them cause that's what it takes to get what you want.

[Webmaster]

I suppose I still fail to see how the PPMA has mislead or misrepresented anything - unless one really wants to pick apart nuances - or misconstrude the meaning of the realeases. Also note - while it is a "press release" - the PPMA is not the press. No more than if IBM releases a statement about layoffs or a new chip design.

By my suggestion that Chris not take the DNR at face value - I am not saying he should only get the side of the story from PPMA. But that by only talking to one side, and holding that as "what is really going on", he is possibly not getting the whole story the way he thinks he is. Vise versa - if one contacts the PPMA directly, they should also contact the DNR if they are interested in being active in the debate.

But he didnt - he only contacted the DNR - which in my mind is akin to contacting the Brown Shirt Headquarters and have them tell me how nice Hitler is (no, no, hes for economic reform and restoring the nation) (er - thats an extreme anology, Im not saying the DNR is full of Nazis)

As for me having a slant, I suppose I am just a tiny be more trusting of an organization composed of some of the most respected people in our sport - who are putting down TIME AND MONEY to defend it, than I am any two bit DNR committee composed of elected officials who get voted on because the voter may have remembered hearing their name somewhere. Call me crazy.

And finally - maybe I wouldnt be so dismayed at this challenge if I EVER EVER EVER heard you say a nice word about anything! NOTHING is satisfactory for you. I have never heard you be supportive of ANYONES work in the sport. If I ever heard a wholehearted positive endorsement from you with out any conditions - I do think that the earth would spin into the sun!

[billmi]

Originally posted by cphilip

So as you can see no mention of anybody or what they say or what they are doing just in case the facts were not straight. This went to them after Chris had reported to us. Late that day. So that is the way I went with it. Seems fair doesn't it?

Sounds like an excellent letter to me. Not insulting, not inflamatory, just expressing concern that the views of the paintball community might not have been represented in the decision.

And it's short and concise - they wouldn't have to read 6 pages to figure out what point you were trying to get across!

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[billmi]

Originally posted by shartley
I got that earlier, and must say that it is, again, a bit misleading. I was hoping noone would post it, because if just read, but not actually examined for what it is, it appears to lend credibility to the PPMA mistake made earlier (which was not even close to being accurate).

But it *was* posted, so.....


This latest PPMA release includes a release from Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti. I'm not sure why you would hope no one would post if it appears to lend credibility to a mistake made by the PPMA.

Why would you not want a state representative in Wisconsin to lend credibility to the PPMA or their actions?



You mean in the system that Chris already explained was being done? It was really only put on hold for the Holiday Season. Seems like time was the instramental eliment, not some conversations in a "downtime" anyway.


That was the impression I got from Chris' explanation of the situation. However, as I stated earlier, I didn't believe his analysis to be as accurate as that of the PPMA. Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti's office said "At the request of lawmakers, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has agreed to extend the review period on a new rule that would ban paintball games on DNR lands." If this were only facing a holiday break, why would they need to agree to an extension of the review period.



Again, makes it look as if some sort of "deal" was made or prevention of some sort of "back-dooring" by not allowing a fair hearing. This is not even close to being accurate according to information provided by Chris.


Some sort of deal was made. According to the office of Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti, "the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has agreed to extend the review period on a new rule that would ban paintball games on DNR lands."

Notice they didn't say that the views of the paintball industry would be considered as the review period continued, or during the next review period, but rather that the review period was extended.

Also notice that NONE of the PPMA releases say that any sort of back-dooring or underhanded steps were taken to ban paintball on Wisconsin DNR land. What they said was that little public notice was given, and that public notice did not reach the attention of the paintball community.

The release from Senator Seratti's office confirms that the paintball community was unaware of the situation not because of underhanded moves, but because it was nestled in with a large number of other changes:"The ban was one part of rule change proposal that addressed numerous unrelated issues, and as a result went largely unnoticed until recently."



Quite misleading writing there, but typical.


Actually I thought it was rather straightforward. I don't recall even seeing the phrase "back-dooring" written by anyone but you. Rather, I think it is misleading of you to claim that the PPMA releases imply there was back-dooring going on, and that there was not a change in how the regulations are being handled. That does seem to be typical though, of your writing on the topic. Your analyses of the PPMA releases appear to say that the PPMA releases all greatly exaggerate the situation, and then you proceed to discredit the exaggeration. However, I don't see the exaggeration when I read the releases. It seems as if you are trying to build a target to have something at which to shoot (metaphorically, that is).



I am glad they agreed to extend the review, but this appears to be a natural part of the whole process anyway. What special actions were taken? All they had to do is ASK.


According to Chris, it is a part of the whole process.
According to the PPMA, extension of the review period was NOT a natural part of the whole process.
According to the office of Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti, getting the extension required that she "pressed hard for the extension." If all she had to do is ASK, why did she press hard?

[ critiques of Representative Seratti's release and it's lack of supporting data of reasons why the ban should be re-examined have been removed for brevity ]



And how many of those contained profanity? Remember the request to NOT use profanity, that I posted directly from APG?


I do not have the answer to the question of how many contained profanity. The request you printed from APG was actually the PPMA's release forwarded by APG, so as you point out, the PPMA clearly requested that people do not use profanity.

[more text about how few paintballers wrote in compared to how many saw the notice, and about concerns of how many of them actually lived in WI, and further questions about where Representative Seratti got its data deleted]



This post is meant to show that again, you can not take what has been written about this issue at face value. And that is simply because it has *no* face value. It is all political fluff. It contains no relevant data backed up by any tangible proof. And that being the case, even if it *was* all true, it still holds no weight as an indication of anything other than a "feel good" press release.

And as "facts" go, it has none that were even remotely verified in the release itself.


OK, a state assemblyperson's office sends out a press release saying that they pressed for the DNR to extend the review period on the proposed ban of paintball on public lands, and you say that it has "no relevant data backed up by any tangible proof."

What would you like to see from them as "tangible proof?" Should they include phone and fax transcripts confirming that the review had been extended?

I'm not sure what experience you have working at state level politics, or of receiving press releases, but typically reporters and other media outlets accept a senator, assemblyman, or congressman's claim about something they have accomplished unless someone has presented evidence to the contrary.



I give it as much weight as the original press release put out by the PPMA. And trust me, I did not even TRY to pick this one apart, and only skimmed quickly with my comments. You can make a papercut into a life threatening wound if you pick at it enough, and get enough people to believe you.


That's correct, you didn't pick it apart. Like your previous posts, you say it implies something that it doesn't and then attack that false implication.



Some people will choose to believe this information, and that is fine, them doing so will not really hurt anyone. So I have no problems with it. Others will see it for what I feel it is... a smoke screen to cover and attempt to lend credibility to a huge mistake that was made by the PPMA.


So now you would have us believe that an elected official of the state of Wisconsin is involved in a conspiracy to lend credibility to a "huge mistake" made by the PPMA?



I hope those on both sides of this issue will respect the others' views and rights to their opinions with no personal attacks being made.

Certainly you have rights to your opinions. After this post I'm forming the opinion that you appear to be taking active steps to discredit the integrity of both Wisconsin State Representative Lorraine Seratti, and the PPMA.

Moreover, since you have so heavily criticized Seratti's release for not including detailed data to back it's claims, but remained mute on cphilips claims of how much money was used to purchase DNR lands, and where it came from, it would appear that there is actually an agenda to your criticism, rather than holding all sides of the issue under the same magnifying glass.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[shartley]

Sorry Bill, but your analysis of my post was not correct. I do not agree with your assessment of what happened either. This is clear. And in spite of what you may or may not think... I was by far *not* the only person to read into what happened, as I explained it. But of course it is easier to say *you* did not see it that way, and claim that because *you* did not see it that way, it *wasn't*. ;)

We come from separate schools of thought, and they are DRASTICALLY different. But that is what makes things interesting, and what forms debates and actual dialogue.

This is not a bad thing. I can however, see no benefit to even discussing it further here on the boards. Both sides are clearly different. And both sides see things that happened quite differently as well. Only time will tell which was correct, but I am more than comfortable with my track record... as if it actually matters in the end what we think happened, which I doubt.

I still look forward to seeing what happens in the *actual* situation (as opposed to this useless sideline event of debating press releases), and will remain skeptical of anything either side puts out. I am too used to politics and marketing to fall for verbiage games, and will continue to make up my own mind on things no matter what *anyone* says. ;)

I wish you a Very Merry Christmas, and the Paintball Industry a prosperous and safe New Year.

[billmi]

More on Wisconsin....

I just got a phone call from a friend who I didn't know was in Wisconsin, or even in paintball anymore (anyone out there who remembers Chris_W from the efnet #paintball days)....

Turns out the field he helps run is part on Wisconsin DNR administered land, operating with permission from the DNR. He just called me after reading the article on the 'pig and is planning to travel to the hearing. He says DNR did not notify him of the hearings.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Thordic]

And there it is, this WOULD have effected legitimate paintball fields.

Thanks Bill :)

[Muzikman]

Hmm..yeah...I remember Chris...It's been a good 3 or 4 years since I have seen his name around.

hmmm...brings back memories:)

[shartley]

And there it is, this WOULD have effected legitimate paintball fields.
(clearing throat… ) What “fields” would have been effected? Bill posted this:

Turns out the field he helps run is part on Wisconsin DNR administered land…
This would indicate ONE field, and only PART of it, not even the whole thing is on DNR controlled lands.

No offence is intended, honestly, but that does not say that even one full field would be effected by these planned changes. I don’t like the idea that they were not notified (or as it was claimed…. However, I am even more skeptical of claims due to recent events), but that is a different issue all together.

Also Bill stated his friend “helps” run the field, not “does” run it. I know that even with bills, sometimes my Wife knows about them before I do, or even takes care of them without me being involved. This does not mean that notification was not sent. And since this is often the case with business as well, who knows…

Furthermore, I don’t know if I would personally change a law because of one field (or PART of a field). Laws are supposed to protect the majority of its citizens. And there has been no conformation (that I have seen) that a “Grandfather Clause” would, or would not, be in effect for currently legally operating fields within DNR controlled lands. So this proposed change may end up not effecting any current field(s) anyway.

I have talked with many other Paintball Players and the consensus is that this Law may not be such a bad thing, if looked at from ALL sides. But it does make good kindling wood for controversy… especially for those just looking for something to be controversial about.

I still feel, however, that we should *all* hold off on making any judgements until it is actually decided, or further information is gathered and reported. I don’t think anyone here has ALL the facts on the matter… and that has proven more harmful than helpful (specially here on AO) in the past. Bill’s post did not clear up anything, nor prove anything either. It was just additional information, to be used with ALL the information available, not alone. It should also not be used to make further misleading statements.

Thanks Bill for the update. I look forward to hearing any and ALL relevant information on this as it progresses.

[Thordic]

If you want to nitpick, yes, I used an S.

Even if it was just one field, one is too many. I can't think of any area of the country that has a surplus of fields where one field wouldn't be missed. Paintball fields aren't like gas stations, they are still relatively small in number.

[tremis]

Shartley, you are the man. Sorry I doubted your " questioning" in our debate.


I also noticed that your post had been edited by cphillip. Is this some cosnpiracy to cover vital information.;)

Hey hey I'm just kidding......or am I? :D

Tremis

I love this place. Its nice to see debates not break down to the level of children.

[raehl]

I dunno, after talking to DNR people, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the DNR is permitting paintball play anywhere. What field is this and where is it? Is this person sure the land is actually DNR land?

- Chris

[billmi]

Another update on the issue, this one from Ben "Pump Scout" Kohnen, who "Just got back from Madison" and the latest hearing can be found at http://www.warpig.com/forums/rec/messages/1010028434773.shtml

Shartly, according to Chris Willie, the field owner told him directly that they had not received notification from the DNR, as when Chris brought this to his attention, it was the first he was aware of it. Also, according to Willie, the portion of the field that lies on DNR land is a speedball field made of heavy equipment tires, and not only one of their most popular fields, but the one they put the most work into building. So, they wouldn't be shut down, but they would be impacted.

Chris Raehl, I can't imagine why Chris Willie would have been mistaken about having to get construction permits, use permits, and then finally have the tire structures pass DNR inspection (according to him, their main concern was their structural integrity). It's possible he was confused, but when he explained to me the lengths they had to go to in order to get the approval from the DNR, I wouldn't expect him to be mistaken about the agency they were dealing with, or who controls the land.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[shartley]

tremis
There was no cover-up with Cphilip’s Editing of my post…. LOL What he did was go and change a word that I quoted Webby for saying. Cphilip had changed it on Webby’s post, so had to go edit mine to reflect the change. That was all.

Billmi
Thanks for the update link.. but I am confused. It was mostly personal opinion on what the person “saw”. The only relevant line was as follows:
With much input from the paintball community, the rule was dropped back in the DNR's lap to be reworded, or removed, pending consultation and education with the paintball community.All the rest is nothing at all, sorry.

And no offense, that one sentence did not address any of the issues we were trying to get clarification on.. well all but one. What some of us wanted to know is how the law would ACTUALLY affect paintball in Wisconsin, what fields, if any, actually WERE going to be effected (not speculation, but fact), and what was actually happening “Legally”. We now know what is happening Legally.

So, what I see with that post is only one line of information worth reading, and that did not say much anyway. It said that the process would continue on its NORMAL route. Great, fantastic, wonderful…. How about answers to any of the other questions? I am not trying to be confrontational, I am seriously interested. Are there any answers to the other questions I listed?

As for the DNR land issue involving that one field.. still remaining unnamed.. Building permits, Use permits, and structural tests are pretty much standard for any landowner… even private. Depending on what you want to build, where you want to build it, and for what purpose it is being built and used for, even the “Private” person on “Private” lands must follow the same steps. Try doing a simple addition to your house and see all the paperwork and steps you have to go through. And that is not even saying you want to play paintball in the addition, or use it for the General Public, or for Business purposes… you get into MORE with that.

With this said, I must point out that you never mentioned “Paintball Permits”, or anything having to do with paintball at all. However, you did say the following:
It's possible he was confused, but when he explained to me the lengths they had to go to in order to get the approval from the DNR, I wouldn't expect him to be mistaken about the agency they were dealing with, or who controls the land.In light of the points I made, could it have been that the DNR was the issuing and controlling authority for the permits? Could the DNR be the actual inspecting agency for the things mentioned? If so, it might have nothing to do with what land that is being used, and would apply to any land, including private…. Not just DNR controlled lands.

And you seem to back up *my* argument that it is NOT a paintball issue with:
(according to him, their main concern was their structural integrity).… which falls directly into my comments. They would have had the same problems if it was a tire structure for a Daycare Facility or public park as well. Of course I have a feeling I will be told I am reading it wrong, and you did not intend it that way.

Again, this all seems to be surrounded by a cloud of conjecture, speculation, and hype… I see no actual facts being provided, only opinions, and personal observations. This works great for spreading unneeded concern, and whipping up controversy, but it is far from being factually accurate. Of course the DNR guy(s) was outgunned.. no-brainer there. LOL It sounds like any other Town Meeting, Special Legislative Session, etc. that I have ever gone to. But that does not change the validity of the proposed rule or Law, sorry.

And I think that was my point. How does this proposed ruling actually effect paintball in Wisconsin? Not speculation, not conjecture, not hype….. It was stated that no actual numbers were given by the DNR.. Forget the fact that I saw no numbers given by Paintball People either, right? Well, let me correct that… I saw numbers given, but not any that actually MEANT anything. The Paintball Folks gave numbers taken grossly out of context, and that were designed to build hype, not to reflect actual situations. But I understand that… That is how the “game” is played.

What I would like, if possible, is to see raehl’s take on the meeting and what happened. Forgive me for being more than a bit skeptical about the whole thing, but I have seen too much misinformation, misdirection, and things being taken out of context to not ask questions (of course there are some that still claim this did not happen either… those of us who see it that way are not reading it correctly). And I don’t feel my questions are either out of line, unwarranted, rude, confrontational, or should even be too difficult to answer.

And for those who feel I just “pick” things apart… I am not. One line statements based on misleading information, and when they in themselves could cause further misinformation, *should* be addressed. And other information taken out of context should also be addressed. Furthermore, since there is often more than one side to an issue, the other side (Or at least an impartial one) should also be heard. I am not on EITER side of this issue. Simply put, I have seen NO factual information that would allow me to even make an educated decision on this matter. But I will not sit back and watch a propaganda war without asking valid question. OF BOTH SIDES.

I look forward to reading further relevant information.. thanks.

[raehl]

You still need to get DNR approval on plenty of things even if yu're NOT on DNR land - DNR has multiple funtions, they don't just serve as the administrator of parks/conservation areas/etc, but also as WI's version of the EPA. The folks fromStalker paintball mentioned having to clear a bunch of DNR hurdles, get various permits, etc, to get their field going, and they're not on DNR land either. Getting permits and verifying that you're not going to damage the environment is part of the process for setting up the field wether you're on DNR land or not. That might be the point of confusion - just because you're not on DNR land doesn't mean that you're not subject to some DNR oversight - just of a different nature.

As fo rhe meeting, I coverred it in brief in another thread here... WI DNR Ban Averted or something.

- Chris

[gmag]

This thread is long! My god! Great debate, though. I also wanted to add: I don't think Shartley disagrees with every little thing. He just stands up for what he *does* disagree with. Unlike many other AO members, he does not write meaningless posts that simply agree with the original content. I don't think it should be frowned upon to intelligently analyze, assemble, and construct a formidable argument.
~Brett

[raehl]

So I'll go into a little more detail about the events yesterday.

I got into the capitol around noon. While trying ot find the room, I managed to run into Representative Lehman (I think that's his name) who got me pointed in the right direction. I shmoozed him a bit on paintball, but it was obvious that he had something else he wanted to do as his eyes did the "glaze over" thing. He was pretty "moderate" on the whole thing during the hearing.

Got up to the hearing room, talked to some paintbal folk, basically we were all going for having the rule sent back to the DNR for reconsideration with paintball industry *AND* consumer representative input - I'm all for the PPMA, but there needs to be non-manufacturer input into the process as well.

First, we spent 2.5 hours listening to people argue over whether or not hunting permits should be issued for a herd of about 150 elk in eastern Jackson county as it related to a draft of a bill they were working on. not hte most interesting stuff in the world, but it was helpful to see how things were going to work for us. When it rolled around to our turn, first the guy from the DNR testified and made the DNR's case, which basically amounted to presenting a bunch of inaccurate information and declaring that paintball doesn't belong on DNR land. As a few of the representatives had already been educated in person by other people who were there that day, they quickly uncoverred that the DNR didn't REALLY know much about paintball, in a cuple cases even pointing out that they knew what the DNR was telling them was wrong.

They also asked him why the DNR was proposing the rule - apparently there had been zero complaints and zero incidents, aside from in one case where a warden apparently came across a paintball game (wardens are armed, BTW) and had to make a "split second decision" on wether real guns were being used or not.

Yeah, 20 people with real guns were having a BATTLE in the woods. Right.

I'll take a step back here and say that out of 11 of the reps, by my count, 7 were pretty much in complete favor of leaving paintball alone (and rather frustrated with the way the DNR was handling things), 2 didn't say much and appeared rather ambivilent, and 2, while not anti-paintball, had concerns about whether paintball games would endanger/crowd out DNR land from other uses. (One mentioned that he didn't particularly care to have hoards of paintball players running through the forest where he wanted to go bird watching, for example.)

Anyway, after the DNR guy got more or less grilled, Jessica, a chemist from Nelson, Dennis from Centerflag, and myself (I think that's the order, although I have a feeing I'm forgetting someone, probably one of the Stalker field owners) testified. Jessica did a fine job of doing the general paintball overview, and MANY props to the chemist from Nelson for taking care to highlight the differences between their three varieties of paint (recreational use, agricultural use, and forrestry use), especially since the DNR made it sound like we were all using permantent tree marking paint. Dennis highlighted that there's lots of play on non-commercial fields as well as fielded a bunch of tournament related questions, I highlighted paintball as a high school/college activity as well as the use of public lands by those groups for activities and the need to preserve the opportunity for that use. I also recommended that you not play paintball naked. (Which stemmed from an earlier comment that apparently referred to a nude beach? somewhere as being inconsistent with other legislation. Representatives apparently like to encorporate humor and poke a little fun at each other during the hearings.)

A couple more people spoke after me, and as it was then nearing 5 PM, the chair moved into executive session (which unlike with some bodies, does NOT mean they meet behind closed doors, but means the meeting is no longer open for public comment and the committee conducts buisiness) and brought foth a motion that the committee counsel had drated up - which means they'd had this thing ready to go before the meeting actually started. As I mentioned in the other thread, the motion basically gave the DNR until Jan 9 to decide whether to resubmit the whole set of 11 rules (of which the paintball rule was 1) as-is, drop the paintball rule and submit the rest as-is, or agree to work with paintball folk to come up witha better set of rules and resubmit the rest. The verbal instructions from the chair indiated they were kinda bullying the DNR by saying that if they DIDN'T agree to reconsider the rule or didn't reply, NONE of what they wanted would get passed , but reading the motion myself later I couldn't find the language that did that, so I'm not sure. Either way, the motion put us in good shape - if the DNR doesn't change it and resubmits it, the committee will reject it, if they drop it, great... and if they work wih us, ok. It's actually the last one I'm most worried about, as that will involve bringing in other DNR user groups, and then we're going to have to fight with them - and they'll be just as pissy about using DNR land for their purposes as we are using DNR land for ours. I also need to stress that the DNR apparently *REALLY* doesn't know *ANYTHING* about paintball - so we *DEFINITELY* need to make sure they dont' take it upon themselves to start writing up rules that could be used as a precedent elsewhere.

Anyway, the motion went through 11-0, although Representative Ott stalled things a bit halfway through the vote because he didn't want to vote on it right away and wanted to insert language in the motion to direct the DNR on what kind of regulation they should come up with. Most of the other reps seemed to agree that they had no clue how to direct the DNR even if they wanted to.

After that, the remainder of the paintball folk spoke and got in quite a bit more useful information for the committee members. Some of the best testimony actually came from players.

After that, we did some photo ops and went to dinner, where we ran into one of the reps from the committee from NW WI (and I can't for the life of my remember his name) who cme over and talked with u for a while, which was cool. It's obvious he won't be voting for any paintball regulation in the near future.

Hrm... and looking at the buisiness cards in my wallet, it appears that the guy who was testifying for the DNR was Robert W. Roden, the DNR Director of the Bureau of Facilities and Lands.

So that's the rough summary. The DNR is just horrendously ignorant about paintball, and rather than take the time to educate themselves, figurred they'd take the "easy" route and just ban it and not worry about it anymore. Look slike the ANRC committee put a stop to that.

- Chris

[shartley]

Thanks for the Update. Now THAT is reporting on an issue. It also gives a better reflection of events. I appreciated the honest, yet respectful manner it was written. Very nice.

Again, thank you.

Others would do well to take note of that post..…. Good job Chris.

[raehl]

A couple of the represetnatives thought that Paintball was something more common in OTHER states, interpreting that most of the emails they had received were from out of state and that only about half of the people speaking were from WI as indicating that people *IN* the state either didn't care or there just plain wern't any - one of the reps asked more than once "Why hasn't paintball flourished in WI?" and "But there don't appear to be any paintball players in my district". I think we made it clear that the problem was mainly due to the short notice, and someone (I think it was.. ah, shoot, I don't remember, one of the players) brought up that retailers like Wal-Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods all sell paintball equipment in WI, which pretty much ixnayed the misconception.

Point being that there's going to be a need in the future for more organized responses from *WITHIN* states to have the most significant effect on pending legislation.

- Chris