*** CALL TO ACTION - Paintball ban in Wisconsin on ALL Public Lands...

[cphilip]

well now...shall a few un-named of us sit back and gloat? Naw not me.



Just needed info and thanks to Chris for them. Good job Chris on this one. Thanks for the hard work and digging you did. Still time you hear that and not as bad as it seemed. And we have representation on the committee! I love it!



Chris I too worry about the use of public land for undisciplined paintball. For Paintball's sake mostly. Think of the potential consequences of "free range" paintball... guy's... its very scary! And for the whole industry. Someone gets hurt..someone spills a beer...a chair hits the floor and poof! We all lose.

[raehl]

The more I learn about this...

The more I like how everything has turned out to date. The arguement is made that the DNR allows the use of it's land for hunting and snow mobiling.

The reality is that hunting is low impact, and snow mobiling is only allowed on a VERY SMALL portion of land along pre-approved trails. Otherwise it (and ATV riding) are banned everywhere on DNR land.

There's another point that's missed here: One other thing hunting, snow mobiling, ATV riding, fishing, etc have in common is they are *ALL* regulated *VERY* heavily by the state, from helmet laws to registration fees to implied concent laws. ATV/Snowmobile activity is supported on DNR land through the payment of such fees as well as the local volunteer support of ATV and Snowmobile clubs. The reality of the situation is that if you want to use DNR land for paintball like ATV riders, Snowmobilers and Fishermen, expect to pay annual license fees to own and operate a paintball marker as well and expect some rather specific rules on when you can play, how old you have to play, etc.

The DNR *NOT* allowing paintball on it's land is *MUCH* better for paintball than Wisconsin establishing the kind of regulations it would if the DNR *DID* allow paintball on its land.

- Chris

[cphilip]

Those were exactly my points on the other thread (started earlier) on this subject below this one chris but not so eloquently spelled out. Thanks!

[raehl]

Wait...

There's another thread? I should go read that one.

- Chris

[cphilip]

Yes you should! And you will see that I was totaly duped by the end of that thread by what apears to be erroneous info. The words "Bill" and "Legislative Committe" was misused in the press release. What a shame. But as it pans out this is the best site on the net for PB info.

Eventually...because of people like you that dig hard and give us the scoop!

Many thanks to Chris on this one.

cphilip

[pumpamatic]

Thanks for the info raehl, I was about to give Cherly Albers a jingle and kindly tell her to pull the head out.
I'm with skipdogg, WI is lame. This Graduated Driver Licensing b.s. really pisses me off. I'm glad we're not doing that High School graduation test anymore, though. Oh, and by the way, the reason hunting pressure on state land is so low is because I've only been to a couple of places where, if you make your few shots count, you can get a good haul of game. There's also a lot of idiots on the public land I've seen over deer season. These people will sit 100 yards away from each other, paying no attention to where their bullets should fly, and mostly end up wounding a mess of deer. I don't regret to say that I will try my hardest to stay clear of public land during deer season, but before and after I can pop a bag of squirrels, rabbits, grouse, and pheasants, even some coons and other rodent.

[billmi]

If more people were involved to the level Chris is being involved, our legislative bodies would probably be making much more informed opinions.

When it comes to assessing the situation though, I am more trusting in the analysis given by the pair of lawyers doing this for the PPMA, one of which has past experience as a NRA lobbyist, than the analysis of a college student. That doesn't mean I don't respect the abilities of a college student, by any means but I do have a lot more trust in the ability of the attorneys who have a long track record in this field to analyze both the situation and its importance.

As an update, this from the PPMA late last night:
"Progress has been made regarding NR 45.03(3)(q) banning paintball on Wisconsin State land -- the committee chair has agreed to have the Department of Natural Resources review the proposition in the light of information being provided by the paintball industry."

Note the opposition the this change (which while not a law does have the power of a law, because the DNR is given this authority under law) is not about not letting people play "renegade" paintball in state parks, it is because this change, as written would prevent the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources from being able to issue permits for paintball use of lands which are under their authority.

Unlike some people think, sneaking into a state park is not the only way to play on public lands. The last two Las Vegas NPPL and a number of Pan Am tournaments were played on Bureau of Land Management land - with permission and permits. They were licensed and regulated through the BLM. Similarly Fields of Fire, one of the oldest paintball fields in Southern California is located in the Angeles National Forest. An insured, legit commercial field - with permits from the forest service to operate. Paintball Paradise, home to the Seattle Pan Am tournament the last two years is in a city park - again, with the blessing of the city. Without change to the present course of action in Wisconsin, well over 1 million acres of land will be locked out of possibilities like that.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[cphilip]

Originally posted by billmi
...I am more trusting in the analysis given by the pair of lawyers...

Taken out ot context but...I will never utter those words myself!

[Webmaster]

Id just like to make this statement...

I realize some of you feel this is a false alarm or something that was blown out of proportion...

But to be honest I too know the lawyers who do work for the PPMA. They are both experianced and very dedicated to the sport. With out thier past work, paintball may not have had the legal success it has had in past instances.

I feel that being cautious and well informed is very important. But at the same time, the ammount of respect I have for the people at the PPMA is enormous and I couldnt concieve of them steering me wrong. Before the PPMA was formed, I was alerted to a Bill in CT about regulating paintball masks, and I sent a letter to the CT state legistlature about that. I am sure there are constant fires like this that they are putting out here and there that dont meet our attention.

So I suppose what I am saying is, perhaps a bit of blind faith is in order for future PPMA announcements. I suppose that may be hard for some of you. But because of the personal relationship I have with some of the people of the PPMA, I totally intrust my support and thier judgment on the proper actions needed to protect our sport.

Its just my opinion - but one I hope some of you share.

PS - this "call to action" is very similar to lobbying practices of the NRA. Heck, the NRA will even provide postcards for me to sign and send to representatives about certain bills. One may say the NRA treats every case like a giant forest fire, threatening to engulf us all. But then again its because of the NRA that we even have the second ammendment still.

[shartley]

Long post edited down to.....

Read Chris' post. Don't fall for hype or rhetoric. And make well informed decisions based on FACTS not personal affiliations, or "feel good" posts.

I am glad I posted my initial post and that it was on target (but drew fire like a target as well.. LOL).... it seems that AO sorted through the mess while others just went along for the MOB mentality ride. Good job AO.

I guess being a sceptic pays off... again.

For those in Wisconsin, I would advise reading Chris' posts very carefully. He brings up good points for both sides of the issue. And you will NEVER get everything you want, you have to strive for the best for ALL, and both sides. And pushing too hard will only close doors and you end up with nothing.

Chris brings up great points about regulation. And Bill brings up good points about State Parks not being the only areas affected. But you can not just look at numbers and a couple cases in OTHER States when making a determination on the matter, there is MUCH more to it than that. (understatement)

And be leery any time people want to throw out numbers to support their stance. When you see numbers but no serious breakdowns..... take caution. Chris did a nice breakdown for people... read it.

Oh, and some of you might like to read what APG put out as well.. top is misleading in my opinion (as was the PPMA's), but the bottom brings up things that I warned people about...

News Update
>
> The Paintball Products Manufacturers Association announced that progress
has been made regarding NR 45.03(3)(q) banning paintball on Wisconsin State
land -a further review. www.paintballassociation.com will have updates.
>
> (1) THANK YOU to all paintball media, businesses and players for your
letters and calls to committee members.
>
> (2) PLEASE, PLEASE do not use profanity or rudeness in any further letters
or calls. Some did so and that actually hurts our cause. We understand and
appreciate your passion for paintball, but we have to "work within the
system" and that means being as diplomatic as possible.
>
> It probably isn't necessary, in fact, to continue the writing and calling
at this point. PPMA staff and a Wisconsin lobbyist are teaming up to take it
to the next step.

Be careful what you ask for.... you MAY get it (but it may not be what you intended). Again.. Merry Christmas to all.

[raehl]

There are several problems here...

This situation was handled poorly by the PPMA.

On Sunday afternoon I get an email from APG saying that paintball is about to be "BANNED on over 1,000,000 acres of a state's recreational lands." No mention of which state this is or what type of land they're referring to, just a "paintball" and "BANNED" and "1,000,000" in the same sentence. Nice and inflamitory.

At about 12:20 AM central time on Monday I received an email from the PPMA, followed quickly by forwards and copies from people I'm acquainted with, including Jessica Sparks. These emails told me that WI was going to pass a bill in two days banning paintball on DNR land and that the Chairman of the committee had REFUSED to hold a hearing. The legislature was maliciously acting to stop the DNR from letting people play paintball on DNR land. I therefore needed to act to prevent this from happening by making sure we got a hearing in the next two days. I did what Bill did: I believed the PPMA, emailed the college paintball clubs in Wisconsin, talked with some of the NCPA Board of Directors, wrote up a letter to fax in, went to bed, got up, and picked up the phone.

And found out that what the PPMA had told me was greatly misrepresented at best, and a downright fabrication at worst. Admittedly, I should scold myself for not picking up on the assertion that a bill was going to pass if it didn't get another committee hearing (as that's just not the way things work) but none the less, I find out that:

1) There is no bill. The language in question is a DNR administrative rule that was in its 30 day review period with the Natural Resources Committee.
2) The source of the rule was the DNR - meaning it wasn't the legislature who was pushing this, but the DNR - so attacking legislators wasn't going to change the DNR's stance on paintball. It doesn't matter if the law allows the DNR to issue permits if the DNR doesn't want to issue permits.
3) The assertion that it was "Fix it in 2 days or we're all screwed" was BS - the DNR could still overturn the rule (or simply not enforce it), and the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules had the continued legislative oversight to do so as well. If it got out of the NRC this month, the JCAR could take care of it next month.
4) There are not any permanent paintball fields on DNR land - something I could find out in a few minutes that the PPMA either did not know or was unwilling to tell me.
5) There had already been one hearing, on December 5th, at which the committee actually made the rule better by eliminating the part of it that banned possession of paintball equipment.
6) There had been at least one hearing at the Department level before the rule was submitted to the NRC.
7) The chairman did not refuse another hearing out of malice, but simply because they did not believe they could get enough members together to get a quarum to conduct buisiness before the holidays. Given that they'd already had one hearing and there were still multiple avenues open to get things changed, this hardly seems unreasonable. The PPMA decided not to tell anyone that.

I none-the-less expressed my concerns with the rule, especially focusing on the potential impact to college clubs, and established the NCPA as being concerned about our clubs in Wisconsin - apparently well enough that they knew who I was when I called back this morning. I rewrote my letter to reflect the accurate information and faxed it in, as well as got point of contact information for the DNR on this rule and called and emailed that person (who I think is hiding under her desk from all of the panicked calls from people the PPMA has incensed needlessly.)

After doing a lot of research over the kinds of lands the DNR administers, as well as the types of regulations and fees imposed on activities the DNR *DOES* allow on its lands, I am now currently *VERY* skeptical that the direction the PPMA is trying to take this is appropriate.

Here are some of the problems with this. First, you'll note that when I originally got notice from the PPMA, I was acting within an hour on their behalf, both as WI resident as well as the president of a non-profit organization with member clubs in WI which also happens to be incorporated in WI. It was very obvious that I was much more effective when I called than the other people because I was actually speaking on behalf of real Wisconsin people. Unfortunately, the PPMA seems more than willing to ask me to act on its behalf, but not willing to give me accurate information. Because of this, I was not nearly as effective as I could have been, and instead of there being a 20 minute turnaround time when the PPMA asks me for help next time, there will be at least a day while I figure out whether the PPMA is giving me all of the information this time or not.

On top of that, it occurs to me that I and other paintball players have ZERO influence on what the PPMA does. It is the Paintball Product Manufacturer's Association. While their goals and players goals may be the same much of the time, there is going to come a time when they won't be - I know I certainly wouldn't want the Airline Companies Association lobbying on my behalf for airline safety laws, nor would I want the Insurance Company's Association lobbying on my behalf as an insurance customer for rules governing insurance companies.

Bill, I know your intentions are good, but you told people there was a bill pending to ban paintball, one that would become law in two days if another hearing wasn't held. That was false, and a phone call to the Chairman's office would have cleared that up. I still havn't seen anything on Warpig explaining that that was an error. While I understand that paintball is still a very "old boy network" (especially obvious to a "new boy" like me), I think people like you whose words *ARE* often taken as gospel need to excercise SPECIAL care in what you repeat, even if it comes from someone you've known for years.

You'd also think we would have learned something after the "Canada Will Ban Paintball" "Erm.. Canada Won't Ban Paintball" fiasco earlier this summer - where one of the "gospel speakers" of paintball said Canada was going to ban paintball, and then every paintball media outlet had dire warnings about the fate of paintball in Canada, and then finally someone actually called up the right office and asked if it was true and the answer was.... No. Turns out that whoever started the whole mess just read the proposed law wrong. But since no one in the media took the time to, I dunno, ASK, that mistake ended up everywhere.

I have little faith in the PPMA's lawyers, because I don't know whose opinions are represented in the PPMA, I, as a player, have no way of influencing the PPMA, and the PPMA has already gone zero for one with me in giving me accurate information. I can't trust the PPMA because the last time I did (Monday) they turned out to be wrong - whether because they didn't know what was really going on, or they knew exactly what was going on but thought a different story would sound better, I don't know.

Oh, and by the way: One more thing the PPMA isn't telling you? How the "problem" with the law is getting resolved. The NRC reps talked with the DNR and asked them to withdraw and reconsider the rule, which the DNR agreed to. Again, something I was able to determine with a simple phone call. Do you even know this Bill, or did the PPMA figure it was better to maintain the illusion that it was "all them" solving the problem and "not to worry, the PPMA will take care of it."

It's quite possible that the reason the committee managed to get the DNR to reconsider the law, and the reason that the DNR accepted, is that people like me politely called both the NRC and the DNR, gatherred all of the information, called again, and wrote and emailed our concerns with the proposed rule. I highly doubt a bunch of incensed phone calls and emails about the safety of paintball (when the rule wasn't created out of safety concerns) or the unfairness with letting other activities use the land (when those activities generate revenue for their use and are heavily state regulated) did the job.

And just to throw my personal bias out into the open, it bothers me somewhat that I'm the President of a non-profit organization responsible for getting thousands of students to try paintball every year across the country, that's behind a 10-fold increase in the number of high school clubs in the past four months and a doubling of the number of college clubs in the past year, which offers tournaments to newbie players at prices as low as $30/team and $65/case, and when I ask for just a *LITTLE* help in getting the word out so that we can *REALLY* help grow paintball, I get the runaround, while inside of an hour, there's a false press release on every paintball media outlet on behalf of an organization yet to get a single player onto the field because someone the editor knows says so.

Do people not realize just how many potential paintball players are just SITTING on college campuses and in high schools across the country just WAITING for someone to come along and tell them how to get to a paintball field? Ok, enough of that rant.

The NCPA has *THOUSANDS* of members across the country. Not tens, not hundreds, *THOUSANDS*. I am more than happy to spread the word to our membership about problems which may affect them so they can act. When the PPMA gives me false information, it does not help the cause. When the PPMA causes hundreds of people with that false information to call up legislative and administrative offices and complain about something that isn't true, causing all of those people to go hide under their desks for a week and preventing people like me who are INFORMED citizens of the state and INFORMED representatives of actual clubs and players in that state from reaching them and having an INFORMED discussion, it does not help the cause.

Anyway, I imagine that since the rule is being reconsiderred by the DNR it will go through at least one more DNR public hearing. I'll let you all know what the timetable on that is.

And lastly, I'm not a college student - I've been out of college for a year. While I suppose some may be more willing to trust experienced lobbyists than me, *I* am much more likely to trust myself, especially since I've spent the time to call the right offices and verify what's actually going on. Besides, Bill, unless you're talking to the PPMA lawyers/lobbyists yourself, you're trusting the PPMA's version of what their lawyers/lobbyists say. It's already been made clear this week that what the PPMA says is true isn't necessarily what is actually true, whether they have intelligent/experienced/well motivated people working for them or not.

No one should contrue this as me saying the PPMA is a bad concept or I don't agree with what the PPMA is trying to do or suspect the motivations behind the people involved. I *AM* saying that if they are going to be effective in the future, they are going to have to do things differently next time, because there *ARE* people like me who get involved in the process, and maintaining our trust is critical.

- Chris

[MINIMAGMAN]

thats ok paintball is illegal in new york city but we still play in the public parks there, but we run when we see parks department

[skipdogg]

and who said there arn't ways to promote the sport