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!

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]

Re: Update on the Wisconsin DNR potential ban...

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"...

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]

ADDED NOTE

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! Ya can't say bastard can you? - cphilip

[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?

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.

[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