Update on the Wisconsin DNR potential ban...

[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.

[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?

Tremis

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

[raehl]

Field on DNR land?

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/mes...28434773.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]

tremisBillmi

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.

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.

(according to him, their main concern was their structural integrity).

[raehl]

On a quick note...

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]

Geez...

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]

Ok, have a little more time here:

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]