# Thoughts on MUCC/michigan out of doors.



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

cityslicker said:


> The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.
> The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.
> 
> The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:


theres a simple fix to that problem. petition to change the bylaw to majority of the vote not 2/3. we did that at the club i belong to. hell its hard enough to get 2/3 of the membership to vote on anything, how in the hell will you ever get 2/3 of the vote. another reason i/we don't belong to mucc.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

cityslicker said:


> The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.
> The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.
> 
> The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:


Brilliant. If we can't get 2/3 to vote for an issue we will help the minority set policy.


----------



## Topshelf (May 24, 2005)

The club I shoot at is affiliated and so I'm a member of MUCC. So we as members get the magizine each month. I still read some of the articles but have noticed that it has been watered down and sort of generic for quite some time. 
No, I dont agree with all their stances or like all their writers. Nor do I agree with all the NRA's stances but still support both in principle.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TLWOODS said:


> I have been alittle disappointed with the quantity/quality of the magazine over the past year or so. Specifically the so called "double" issue in the summer and now the same for the Jan/Feb issue. I am wondering what some of you think.
> 
> Tony, Gabe, & Jimmy, I know that you may read this and I know what your opinion is and I don't want to hear it. this is for the rest of us.You can maybe use this as creative criticism.


If you post such a thread then you should expect to hear from both sides of the issue including the particulars. Give and take, agree and disagree are going to happen. Both sides of these issues are open for discussion with retort and retorts given and taken.

As far as MUCC goes I've never been a member and I'm not sure why that is. As a kid Harry Gaines was a neighbor. I was and still am, good friends with his grandson. Of course Harry was one of the founders of MUCC. Not being a member and not having spent a lot of time over the years paying a lot of attention to MUCC, other than on the crossbow issue, I can't pass judgement.

TS/Mike is correct, I believe when he says that no matter what side of the issue MUCC takes they will make x% of their membership.....and others........unhappy.

I do have a question for those of you in the know and it does concern the issue of crossbows as discussed.....ad nauseum I heard from someone who was there.......at the convention last fall. Was a vote taken to change the stance of MUCC in this matter? (I believe there was). If a vote was taken was it by ballot or hand/voice count at a meeting?

One thing that I must say and of course can point a digit straight at me is that the only way to change an organization is from within.


----------



## Barry (Sep 19, 2001)

I like a good healthy debate but clearly, the motivation of the original post that started this thread was not to get input about a the MUCC magazine, IMO. If MUCC does not continue to speak for sportsmen with one voice, no other single organization will, IMO. If someone does not like an MUCC policy, either join them to change policy or start a competing organization with the same broad based mission. 

I belong to at least five hunting and fishing dues supported organizations. Among them is MUCC for which I have been a member for 30 plus years. MUCC will continue to get my dues because I don't believe another organization can or will form to successfully replace their mission of speaking for Michigan sportsmen and women with one voice. 

MUCC is not perfect but I appreciate that the organization is not afraid to facilitate solutions to controversial issues. It would be a sad day if MUCC stops taking risks on public policy issues. It will be the same day the anti's step forward to put a couple more nails into the coffin of our hunting, fishing and gun rights.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

cityslicker said:


> The crossbow issue was voted on at the MUCC convention. The majority of members voting were in favor of crossbows.
> The problem was it takes 2/3 rds majority to change MUCC policy when that policy is a Michigan Law Change. This is why it was not adopted.
> 
> The majority voting were in favor of crossbows.:rant:



What in the he!! does this have to do with the quality/quantity of the MUCC magazine. Talk about getting off topic. :lol:

Steve


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> If MUCC does not continue to speak for sportsmen with one voice


Hell, apparently they don't even speak for the majority of the members wishes. Why would people support someone who ignores their wishes, even worse, works against the majority of the members wishes?
I used to think that MUCC worked to expand our hunting and fishing rights. That they would act in a manner that was best for the resources. Time and again they have proven me wrong.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

ESOX said:


> MUCC lost me when their official stance on the crossbow issue was (sic) "What ever MBH wants." With no thought to how prejudiced and discriminatory MBH's stance on the issue was.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?





ESOX said:


> Hell, apparently they don't even speak for the majority of the members wishes. Why would people support someone who ignores their wishes, even worse, works against the majority of the members wishes?
> I used to think that MUCC worked to expand our hunting and fishing rights. That they would act in a manner that was best for the resources. Time and again they have proven me wrong.


 THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT, They have become a tool of a special interest group because that special interest group has a member on mucc's board. THEY HAVE LOST ALL CREDABILITY IN MY OPINION.

They will not see another cent from me and I will not hesitate to spread the message.:rant:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> One thing that I must say and of course can point a digit straight at me is that the only way to change an organization is from within.


That assumes one has the time, energy, and desire to somehow break into the "good old boys club" that has obviously taken over and is running the MUCC into the ground.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

ESOX said:


> That assumes one has the time, energy, and desire to somehow break into the "good old boys club" that has obviously taken over and is running the MUCC into the ground.


Yup!

The problem with me is that I have one of those.


----------



## cityslicker (Jun 12, 2008)

STEVE THE HITECHMAN MR. CHARTER MEMBER you crack me up:lol::lol:

You complain about my second post, when I was trying to help another poster be brought to light on MUCC and Crossbow issue from the convention. 

You obviously only read small bits and pieces then type away.

MY sincere apologies for going "OFF" topic for you.:lol::lol:

Typers on this forum crack me up.:lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> when I was trying to help another poster be brought to light on MUCC and Crossbow issue from the convention.


And I appreciated it. I had heard that before. So how were these votes counted? Was it a ballot, a raise of hands? How narrow was the margin to a supermajority?


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

ESOX said:


> And I appreciated it. I had heard that before. So how were these votes counted? Was it a ballot, a raise of hands? How narrow was the margin to a supermajority?


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240062&highlight=mucc


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

I've been a MUCC member for over 20 years. I'm not happy about how MUCC reacted to the baiting ban. I enjoy hunting over bait (so I've recently learned that makes me a Cretan), but I can live without it. I would have appreciated better timing on the announcement, but I'll adapt just fine. My issue with MUCC is not because they supported it, but because they didn't make it apparent that they even looked into the science of the ban. Hook line and sinker what the state said, and from this forum, you can at least grudgingly agree that it is a topic that merits debate. I don't feel like MUCC held the State's feet to the fire to be convinced it was necessary. At least you can't tell that from MOOD magazine. I don't have to agree with them, but when a large segment of who they suppossedly represent have an opinion, it should be presented, pro and con. All four issues of MOOD that have come out since the bait ban have been practically silent about the issue except for one negative letter to the editor by a guy who thinks he can jump over the moon. All other comments were Tony telling us to be united. Easy to say when you get your own way! I agree with some of the others that MUCC should provide a forum for discussion and stop being in such a hurry to have opinions. Maybe they should rename MOOD magazine the "Tony Hansen Journal" since it seems to be about him and his opinions more than anything else.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

November Sunrise said:


> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240062&highlight=mucc


I looked through that thread Jeff, but the voting process isn't really described.


----------



## cityslicker (Jun 12, 2008)

At the MUCC convention only clubs with representation have votes. When I was President of the club I belong to, I went to the convention. The year was 2002 and I held 3 votes representing the 300 club members. 
You can be sure with the Michigan Bow Hunters knowing about the crossbow resolution being brought to the 2008 convention they tried to bring "ALL" involved that would vote with them.
If I remember correctly, the majority was in favor of ALL inclusive, but not by 2/3rds majority.
Most of the problem arises when over 500 clubs are affiliated with MUCC, but not nearly that many are represented at the convention.
If it was done the same as 2002 you raised a color coded card which represented the number of votes you held and all were counted.
Hope this helps.:help:


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I was also president of a club in Lansing and the way the conventions are run are out dated. Lots of politics. MUCC should get a web-site and only allow members. The members should vote so MUCC can see what the membership really wants instead of being controled by the good old boys network.

MUCC has made mistakes and gone against my wishes, but they are sportsmen and women and they fight for our rights. Anyone can do what they wand, but if I didn't support them because they didn't always agree with me that would make me a pretty shallow person. As sportpeople we should be able to look at the big picture.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Splitshot said:


> MUCC has made mistakes and gone against my wishes, but they are sportsmen and women and they fight for our rights. Anyone can do what they wand, but if I didn't support them because they didn't always agree with me that would make me a pretty shallow person. As sportpeople we should be able to look at the big picture.


Nice. So if I don't support an organization that not only supports arbitrary benchmarks of how disabled is disabled enough to be able to crossbow hunt, but does so against the majority of it's members wishes, I am a shallow person? Should I send them a check to assist them in making sure I only get a late season bow hunt? I am being discriminated against. I don't qualify for a crossbow permit under the arbitrary guidelines as they are, yet I can't use my old archery equipment anymore. The MUCC isn't taking up the fight for my rights, they are assisting the MBH and it's drive to keep as many hunters out of the woods as possible. The guidelines established have nothing to do with reality., they are a negotiated point, set so as to exclude as meny people as possible, with the aid of the MUCC and an afilliate. Someone sounds shallow, but I don't think it's me.
Consider This post if you will:



Munsterlndr said:


> The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill. Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?


 THAT is not the way an organization that is looking out for the interests of sportspeople behaves. Ignoring the wishes of the majority of it's members, and working against them. They are supposed to SUPPORT and EXPAND opportunity, not assist in the arbitrary discrimination against sportspeople.
So, alas we are closing in on the point where the NRC will deny me the right to hunt Oct. 1. Will the MUCC be there to aid me? No, the good old boys club will be steadfast in it's desire to keep me excluded. I will end up taking other means of adressing this issue that will cost me time and money, just as going through the application process costs Dr's visits, office call expenses, and paperwork shuffling. And Splitshot thinks me not supporting MUCC just because we don't agree on an issue make me shallow. Yea, whatever Ray.


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)




----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

ESOX said:


> Nope, didn't apply last year as I didn't want to waste my time and money on the required doctors visits etc...when I would have barely not qualified under the arbitrarily restrictive requirements.
> Remember this?
> I know a few other people in the same boat. However, I intend to do it this year and when I am denied I will be prepared. So whens the story on how this is all legit and above board? *On the science MUCC and it's sister club presented to the NRC to get the disability level set where it is?* On just how fair this is to all those who don't qualify? How fair this is to those who simply can't afford to do what is necessary to qualify? How it doesn't violate the Americans With Disabilities act? I can't wait to read the story. It ought to be a good one.


Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Fur-minator said:


>


Nah! No need to hide..................yet! :lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.


Trust me, running to have an article published in the MUCC rag or anywhere else will be the LAST thing on the minds of people rejected this year. The next set of people rejected under arbitrary guidelines set with no science behind them will be following other recourse than an article about their plight. What help could they expect from an organization rife with the likes of Jerry Keck?
(You know the guy from MBHA and MUCC who did this at an NRC meeting): From the minutes of the meeting:
*Jerry Keck opposed the proposal to allow hunters 65 or older to automatically receive a crossbow permit if they apply for one. *
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...+65&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the organization that works for sportsmen? LMAO....yea the greedy little minority of "sportsmen". What of the other issues MUCC has dropped the ball on? Looking at just one issue and the way they have tried to screw us at every turn, one has to wonder how many of their other fumbles were unintentional. They have managed to stain their credibility. I should sent them a truckload of soap and see if they can get some off that smell off. Another once fine organization that lost it's way.


----------



## Terry Williams (Dec 20, 2000)

The organzation works for bow hunters, maybe you should try it.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Terry Williams said:


> The organzation works for bow hunters, maybe you should try it.


I expected that type of response. If you can't say anything to defend your organizations actions, say something really, really stupid. :lol:


----------



## Terry Williams (Dec 20, 2000)

I think we are doing fairly well defending ourselves. No crossbows yet and you and some of the others have a trail of tears all the way to Lansing. Your turn to say something stupid, I don't have the market cornered.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

I am not a huge fan of MUCC and I find myself on occasion at odds with the NRA ... but I am a member of both. Until something better comes along I will continue to support MUCC because we need them now more than ever (warts and all. )

While MUCC has certainly "lost their way" from where they first started, they still have the basic mechanism in place to be a loud and effective voice for sportsman should they ever admit their mistakes and regroup.

I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt and continue to support them during these tough times. A faulty life jacket is still better than no life jacket at all ... (I just made that up


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

All organizations have a shelf life. Objectivity is lost with friendships, income dependency and ambitions as time passes. New organizations need to either cycle out the old, or a total house cleaning of the old must take place. If not, most become archaic. Sound familiar? :lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Ranger Ray said:


> All organizations have a shelf life. Objectivity is lost with friendships, income dependency and ambitions as time passes. New organizations need to either cycle out the old, or a total house cleaning of the old must take place. If not, most become archaic. Sound familiar? :lol:


 You know, we seem to spend a lot of time on opposite ends of the field on a lot of issues. I think this time we agree. :yikes::lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

ESOX said:


> opposite ends of the field


I like to refer to it as, mutual misunderstandings. :lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> You don't have to lecture me on the ADA as I have cited it several times myself in the past to help convince people that nobody should be excluded from the bowseason because of disabilities. I fought for the original use of crossbows in MI and I will continue to fight for laws to allow anybody to use a crossbow that can't shoot a bow due to phisical disabilities. I've been in the trenches on this one for over 15 years now and it's not becuase I want to be able to use a crossbow eithor.


Only disabilities TS? What about physically underdeveloped people? Children, women, and even men?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

MUCC and Michigan was once in its prime as the model for protecting the Great Lakes and natural resources. That MUCC credibility took a dive when they destroyed their responsibility to protect the "Public Trust" and literally got in bed with Nestle Ice Mountain to divert the Great Lakes as a product. The other states and Canada know well how MUCC was bought off to sell out their integrity. MUCC now "claims" to protect the Great Lakes, shhh, except when it lines the right pockets. Even if the Nestle man can save MUCC financially in 2 more years, their integrity will still be lost for violating the 'Public Trust" of the Great Lakes.


----------



## TLWOODS (Feb 22, 2005)

Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.

Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> I like to refer to it as, mutual misunderstandings. :lol:


Ray, you are running for what political office? :lol:

In reality, for the most part, most of the posters in MS can find more points of agreement with each other than differences.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Michihunter said:


> Only disabilities TS? What about physically underdeveloped people? Children, women, and even men?


What about them? If someone can phisically pull back a bow, even a light poundage one, then they can participate in archery hunting and are not being denied anything. To me people that choose not to put the effort into mastering archery equipment are a lot less of a priority than people that are forced out of the sport due to disabilities.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> What about them? If someone can phisically pull back a bow, even a light poundage one, then they can participate in archery hunting and are not being denied anything. To me people that choose not to put the effort into mastering archery equipment are a lot less of a priority than people that are forced out of the sport due to disabilities.


Thank you for your response. I certainly don't agree but that's for another topic.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

TLWOODS said:


> Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
> I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.
> 
> Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.


The current format of the magazine is directly related to the management of the organization.

Why would you keep your personal feelings to yourself and why not give us a full report on what Mr. Hanson has to say since he doesnt seem interested in letting a large number of sportsmen and women know what his organization thinks.

It is obvious that many of us would support their efforts more if we felt we had a voice. If MUCC wants our money without our input, they will continue to decline. As sportsmen and women we need an organization like MUCC but only if they can be responsive to the needs of the sporting community.

Look at John Muirs Sierra Club today or the Audubon Society founded by hunter and fisherman John Audubon. Although they support some hunting, remember the Dove Bill.

National Wildlife Federation supported by Franklin Roosevelt. Their three tenets. connecting people to nature reversing global warming protecting and restoring critical wildlife habitats. Wow global warming,

All of these organizations do good work, but have morphed into something much different than the founders ever expected especially when it comes to hunting and to a lesser degree fishing.

All of these organizations are much different then MUCC in regard to hunting and fishing but still losing touch with their charter because of internal politics.

It also seems strange to me that MUCC would not take the opportunity to openly reach out and discuss these issues and concerns with sportsmen and women on this web-site. Probably good PR to just avoid controversy and the issues, but the silence makes many think we are right about the organization. are correct.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

TLWOODS said:


> You can maybe use this as creative criticism.


I think they are getting some.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> Look at John Muir&#8217;s Sierra Club today or the Audubon Society founded by hunter and fisherman John Audubon. Although they support some hunting, remember the &#8220;Dove Bill&#8221;.
> 
> National Wildlife Federation supported by Franklin Roosevelt. Their three tenets. connecting people to nature reversing global warming protecting and restoring critical wildlife habitats. Wow global warming,
> 
> All of these organizations do good work, but have morphed into something much different than the founders ever expected especially when it comes to hunting and to a lesser degree fishing.


That's a solid point Ray and it can be applied to other names as well. Aldo Leupold and "Ding" Darling were two other sportsmen who hunted and fished. They were early pioneers of the environmental movement and habitat restoration. Yet their names have been kidnapped by groups that are trying to bend the arc of history into realms that are decidedly anti hunting and angling.

To get my post on topic MUCC has had it's problems, as do all organizations, and the need to hear about them is vital. This thread does supply some of that, but, perhaps it would be better if the path of discussion this thread has taken might better be put into a new thread.

Hmmm! Does "Two paths diverged in a woods and I, I took the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference", apply elsewhere?


----------



## Barry (Sep 19, 2001)

TLWOODS said:


> Boy, has this thread got way off base. I did not intend to get into a MUCC debate. I was looking for your thoughts on the current format of the magazine. A few people did reply on the magazine but it quickly turned to a bash MUCC thread, not what I wanted. Overall I have no problem with what MUCC does or doesn't do on our behalf. The facts are you can not please everybody.
> I will heep my personal feelings about the mag. to myself since I have already had discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is well aware of my feelings and I will leave it at that.
> 
> Please anymore replys, back to the original topic.


Oh sure! :lol::lol::lol: Just like saying we didn't really want the fire department to respond after yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Well not only did the Department bring the white shirts to this call but looters showed up to exploit the chaos. :tdo12: 

And my last wish is for the genie to go back into the bottle while we talk about the magazine. :lol:


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Ever see the video of the pack of baboons clubbing the dead cheetah? Once the pack knew it was dead they all took their turn whacking it. This thread reminds me of that video.


----------



## thetreestandguy (Dec 16, 2005)

From the perspective of a former employee I would use the word "culture". You hear sports teams as well as businesses saying they "need to change the culture of the organization", see the Detroit Lions. I left a job I absolutely loved because the culture at that place was sucking my soul out. 

I agree with those that say MUCC can be and had/has been a vital organization for outdoorspeople. There simply isn't another organization around doing this work on our behalf. It's been really sad to see an organization I once loved slowly go down the drain!

To go back to the Lions analogy, Mr. Ford is a nice enough man by all accounts. His leadership has led to a historical win/loss record though. I sure hate to think of MUCC setting all the wrong records in the near future...no TV show, historic low membership, etc, etc, etc.

I hope they change for the better, we all need them looking out for us!


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Again, as I stated before, if you or anybody else gets turned down for a permit under the new guidlines, then that would be a good story with a good purpose. I'm not going to write about how terrible the new guidlines are until I see evidence that people are still falling through the cracks. And I'm not talking about someone who can no longer pull his bow back at heavy poundage as a reason to fault the current guidlines. I have to adjust my bows poundage all the time to compensate for my bad shoulder when it flares up. It's not a deal breaker.


Trophy Specialist;
Does my dad who is 81 years old qualify for your request? He didn't quite get turned down as he did not qualify and hence fell through the cracks. My dad was not even able to apply!

My dad tried getting a crossbow permit two years ago. Doctors would not sign off because he was old, not disabled. This year he was giving up bowhunting because of the light weight he was forced to pull. Low and behold new guidelines were released.

I called a couple physical therapists and they said they could not test my dad because he did not have a disability as listed on the applications. I was told he would have to get his Doctor to sign off.

My dad again asked his Doctor who refused to sign off because he was old and not disabled. He was told the application was a legal document and they could loose their licensing by signing it declaring him as disabled when he is not. I e-mailed MUCC and asked for help. Never got a response. I e-mailed MBH twice and was told the difference between cams and round wheels and something about a 100 year old man shooting a target league. No offers of real help from these-mails.

With no sign of help and nothing left to loose I filed Age Discrimination against the MDNR September 15, 2009 on behalf of my father. I also called anyone else I thought could help, ATA, NRA, AARP Three days later I received a call from three DNRs Lawyer, She asked if we would accept this and I quote Have my dad go to his doctor and on their letter head recommend him be allowed the use of a crossbow to hunt due to his age and muscle tone. I accepted this offer with the condition she assured me others like him would not be left out. My dads doctor had no issue signing this new request and also put it on a prescription letterhead!

Oddly the NRC now has Crossbow on the agenda and one thing not being disputed is getting an age added. Even stranger, I found out was the newer application did make provisions for an age but before it was accepted and passed the MBH wanted the age removed. I wonder now did MUCC agree with them?

Two newspaper articles were written about his and even after my dads permit was granted the MDNRs press agent would only tell the reporters it was under investigation.

So my questions is does my dad qualify for your offer?

Skinner


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

Well, I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll try and address some of the issues.
First, Troy obviously didn't want me or anyone from MUCC to respond and said so in his opening post. There was also a post recently about me or MUCC trying to avoid the controversy by not responding and a post that said I'm not interested in spreading the message of MUCC to the hunters. Huh?

I haven't responded before now for two reasons only: 1. I was on a plane traveling and 2. I hadn't seen the thread until now.

I'm not afraid of controversy or standing up in front of anyone, anytime to talk about the things I believe in. That's exactly why I live by one simple motto: Do what you feel is right. I have no problem whatsoever addressing any questions about what I do or what MUCC does because I do what I think is right.

I have never, ever tried to hide from anyone and I'm not going to start now. I answer calls, I respond to emails. My name is Tony Hansen, for those who I've not yet met, and I'm the Editor of Michigan Out-of-Doors Magazine. My email is [email protected]. My phone is 517-346-6483. I live in Eaton County and I've lived there basically my entire life. If I can explain anything, if you have a question, comment or concern -- contact me. Troy did. He didn't like my response but I did, in fact, respond and I didn't duck any of his questions. I won't duck yours either. Do any of you remember any other editor or MUCC leader responding on this site? I have nothing to hide and I want people to tell us what they think -- but you must also realize that the whole notion of dropping your MUCC membership because you disagree with a policy doesn't solve anything. It only weakens your position.

I don't set MUCC's policies. The staff does not set the policies. The membership does. And, yes, I realize that non-club members do not have an equal voice. I wish I could solve that. The fact is, it's not something that's so easily solved and it's being worked on. The structure was in place for about 50 years before I was born. But if you'd all like to lay that on me, go ahead. I'm not afraid to shoulder that load either. 

When you choose not to be an MUCC member, you have no vote, no voice, no say. Seems to be that it's a very, very silly decision to just turn your back on the only organization in the state that focuses solely on state-level hunting and fishing issues as well as general conservation issues.

Do I myself agree with every MUCC policy? Yeah, right. I'm as much an individual as any of you. I have my own thoughts, my own views. But I am a staff member and I WILL uphold the policies set by our members. 

It's funny that the same people who claim the magazine is getting smaller (it hasn't changed page count since I started by the way) and complain about getting 10 issues instead of 11 are the very same ones that would howl should we ever increase the dues. Yet I'm pretty sure they've expected to pay more for just about everything over the last 10 years and I'm pretty sure they expected their employers to increase their pay as well. Nothing is static right? Except, of course, the things they expect to receive. 

Here's what I've heard about me in this thread and in the last three years:

I don't write about deer hunting enough.
I write too much about deer hunting.

I don't support deer management.
I support deer management too much.

I'm a lackey for the DNR.
I've had two DNR employees and an NRC commissioner tell me I'm too critical of the DNR.

I'm afraid to stand up for the hunters.
I'm too pro-hunting for a conservation organization.

I've had MUCC members themselves (on more than one occassion) howling over what I wrote because they didn't think I was upholding MUCC's policies. Yet, in this thread, I'm painted as a mouthpiece for the DNR and MUCC's "good old boy network" -- which is strange since two of the leaders in the organization are under age 35. 

I could go on and on.

But here's the bottom line. I've worked my tail off making the magazine the best it can be. I'm sorry if some don't like it. Contact me and give me your suggestions -- but, believe it or not, I actually do research our membership and create content that appeals to MOST. I can't please everyone. Compare it to previous years and tell me that it's not more about hunting and fishing and trapping than ever before. And, yes, I know it needs more trapping stories. I need a writer. I'm not a trapper and I don't write about things I don't know. I'm working on it.

MUCC has reduced its club member dues. We have not raised IAM dues and we continue to provide 10 issues of a high-quality, gloss-cover magazine. That's more issues than any other conservation organization.

Unlike anonymous posters on Internet sites, I put my name on the things that I write and I stand by them. If you don't like the content, submit your work. You will need to put your name on it and you will need to realize that about 100,000 people are going to see it. You will be required to use your real name and I'll need a photo to go with it. Any mistakes, errors or ommissions will be there for all to see -- and you'd better be willing to face up to them. It's not television. It's not going to disappear from the screen in a few seconds. It's there for all time to be analyzed, scoured and picked apart. Just get those stories written and send them in. But keep in mind that I have high standards for the work that appears in the magazine -- I don't want any stories about wildlife mounts in an airport or wild flower identification. I don't think that's that what you guys want to read about.

I'm not perfect and neither is MUCC. But I can guarantee this: Change is happening, it has happened and I will personally do everything I can to see that MUCC is the organization of the hunter, for the hunter.

And, by the way, I believe that 90 percent of our staff hunts or fishes. So the statements made about that simply aren't correct.

I honestly appreciate the feedback generated through these discussions and I try to learn from all of it. But I think it's high time the hunting and fishing community in this state stop working so hard to find fault with the people and the organizations that are willing to fight for them and start spending that energy to support them.

There are a few people on this site that know me personally. I would be shocked if they agree with anyone that claims I would be willing to work for a place that doesn't have the interest of the outdoors at heart. For anyone to ever doubt my total conviction and passion for the outdoors is flat-out ridiculous. I really don't care if people beat me up about what I write because I know that it's part of my job. If you're willing to stand up, you also have to accept the fact there will be people looking to knock you down. It's just the way it is.

I'd much rather get beat up for doing something than settle for doing nothing.


----------



## Scott K (Aug 26, 2008)

Mr. Hansen, you make some good points, but I'd really like to hear you respond to this.



Munsterlndr said:


> The crossbow issue is a good example of the problems with MUCC. A majority of members voted for a motion to support the crossbow bill that was pending in the house. Because a 2/3rds majority was needed the motion failed. Ok, I think the 2/3 rds majority is kind of silly but if that is the way the bylaws read, fine so be it. *But you would then at least expect that MUCC would remain neutral on the issue, given that a majority of members supported the bill. But at the legislative hearing that I attended in the Senate, the MUCC liaison testified in front of the committee that MUCC did not support the crossbow bill.* Now that hardly seems neutral and it left the definite impression among the committee members that MUCC was opposing the bill. Now legislators who think that MUCC and the members of it's 500 affiliates are opposed to legislation will certainly take that into account when considering how to vote. While the issue was moot in the Senate because it never came to a vote, it still struck me as being extremely disingenuous that the MUCC Liaison couched the response in such a manner to cloud the issue. If a majority of your members support it but the motion failed, why even testify at the meeting?


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

Sure Scott -- thanks for the opportunity.

The by-laws are pretty clear -- a 2/3 majority is needed to adopt resolutions that call for a change in law. The motion to support crossbow expansion did not receive 2/3 majority. Thus it does not pass.

The issue on remaining neutral is a very valid point -- and I'm going to have to punt that one for now. Not because I'm afraid to answer but because I simply don't know when or what the exact language on the resolution that was approved. I believe that MUCC's members approved a resolution against crossbow expansion and thus that policy remains because a vote did not gather the 2/3 majority to pass that would have reversed that policy.

Speaking now entirely as an individual member -- I do think that the 2/3 rule is outdated and should be revisited. And I'm not alone in that thinking. Clearly when you have a simple majority support an issue, it makes all involved think about how to make that majority stick. It's been discussed and I don't know the current status. But the important thing is that the leadership of the organization has discussed the issue. Keep in mind, a simple majority vote doesn't win a Presidential election either. And our national legislature requires 2/3 support on certain issues as well. I'm not defending the by-laws, I'm just trying to illustrate that there was precedence and reasons behind the way they were originally written is all.

Amy Spray, our policy person working on the crossbow issue has worked very, very hard to honor MUCC's policies while dealing with an issue and a set of proposals that aren't anywhere near cut and dry as they relate to the resolution that was passed. It's a sticky and tricky deal.

I'm sorry I can't offer a more firm answer but that's the way the by-laws are written and until they're changed, MUCC's staff must abide by the by-laws and uphold the vote of the members.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I personally think that your post is one of the main reasons MUCC doesn't garner the support it once did. These by laws most definitely need to be revisited when an issue as divisive as the crossbow must revert to past policy of an issue REGARDLESS of a majority vote. And then to take it a step further and Lobby that position as something that is favored by MUCC when in fact it is not. Nothing good can come of proactive works (ie: lobbying) that are not representative of the majority's wishes.


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

How and who decides which issues should trump the by-laws? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand how you make that work without degrading the entire voting process.

A resolution was passed that did not support crossbow expansion and had the 2/3 majority. 

A resolution to reverse that policy did not gain the 2/3 support thus the current policy remains. 

Again, I'm not sure that I have everything on this particular issue correct -- I'm not the policy person on the issue. But just use it as a hypothetical example: You have existing policy that received 2/3 support. A counter proposal gets simple majority support but not 2/3. What do you do? You honor your by-laws -- or change them.

How do you change them? By becoming involved in the organization and fixing a problem that you care about fixing. 

Heaering from members like you on these types of issues is VITAL to the growth and future of the organization. No one will address an issue unless it's raised.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

MOODMagazine said:


> I don't set MUCC's policies. The staff does not set the policies. The membership does. And, yes, I realize that non-club members do not have an equal voice. I wish I could solve that. The fact is, it's not something that's so easily solved and it's being worked on. The structure was in place for about 50 years before I was born. But if you'd all like to lay that on me, go ahead. I'm not afraid to shoulder that load either.
> 
> When you choose not to be an MUCC member, you have no vote, no voice, no say. Seems to be that it's a very, very silly decision to just turn your back on the only organization in the state that focuses solely on state-level hunting and fishing issues as well as general conservation issues.


Tony, are you serious. Do you really think the members set the policies. That is unless you mean the special members.

Your right the structure has been in place since the thirties and it needs to change. Instead of a page and a half defending yourself, why didnt you address the issue I raised about giving all members a voice with an Internet-site.

Even if you belong to a club, you dont have a voice. Even as president of the Capitol Area Sportsmans League I didnt feel like I had a voice even when I invited MUCC to hold their annual meeting at our club. Every time I asked a question, I was told I just didnt understand.

If I disagreed with just one or two issues, it would be different. The fact is I disagree with many of the stances MUCC has taken in recent years and I believe it is because of the archaic system that has been in place too long. 

With a forum similar to this one MUCC could limit access to dues paying members who could participate in the discussions so management would know what the membership really wanted.

The transparency of a system like this would dispel all the rumors and innuendo about how decisions were made and help MUCC become much more responsive to the needs of their members.

I would have no problem if the membership took a stance different than I wanted as long as I felt I could have my say and voice my opinion with a vote. Only delegates vote now and I never could figure out how the issues that were voted on at the yearly convention were decided to begin with.

Most members dont have the time to get involved on the delegate level, but with a web-site members could voice their opinions anytime night or day. If MUCC wants to represent what a majority of the membership deems prudent they need to change the system. Let me know what they think.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

The organiztion needs a clear agenda and mission statement that is driven by common sense, accountability and enough political savy to make a difference. They need a LEADER who will *LEAD*and not simply follow guidlines. MUCC needs to blow up it's current methodology and create a mission statement that can't be undermined by members, who other than having enough money to pay dues, may not have a clue!! 

MUCC needs to take a page out of the PETA and HSUS playbook and have a purpose and stick to it and not rely on membership to water everything down, making the whole group impotent out of some warped sense of political correctness. If enough tree huggers infiltrate the MUCC ranks do we really want to allow them any chance of influence?? 

MUCC must quit being so damn wishy washy and inconsistent. It's all about leadership and a CRYSTAL CLEAR sense of direction. You may not attract everyone right out of the gate but the bandwagon will fill if you are passionate and work to do what is right and not just politically expediant. Just my opinion.


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

bentduck, splitshot:

You'll get no argument from me on your points. You're correct. The structure does need to be addressed and IT IS. Again, as long as the current system remains, that system will be honored and should be. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But change, yes, that's needed and the board tends to agree. These processes are ongoing and it's what I'm excited about -- there are certainly internal issues and discussions that I'm not going to air publicly. Other than to say the leadership (of which I'm a part on the staff side) hears you and we're moving. The board is doing the same. It does take some time but you can't begrudge that -- it's a fact of life in everything that change takes some time.

The on-line voting, the delegate system -- it's all being reviewed and analyzed. I'm not going to lie and say that I know it will be changed becuase I don't. But the fact that the leadership is looking at such changes is a testament that change is in the air and is needed. But if you're expecting a system where the staff or leadership ignores the desires of the membership that will not and should not happen. If anti-hunters start infilitrating MUCC and creating policy, then my point is served exactly. We ALLOW that to happen by letting petty disagreements over past history keep you from being a member. You forfeit your voice and you open the door for others to dictate the direction.

All I'm asking is that people be involved and supportive. Does that mean agree and be quiet? Heck no. It means be a member and raise some cain if you want. Involvement is the ONLY solution.

In regards to clarification of mission -- dead on. And it is absolutely being addressed and there are major internal discussion occurring on that. 

Again, it's not my place to air that publicly yet. When the process is complete (it will be sooner rather than later) those communications will be made.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> Involvement is the ONLY solution.


How do you explain that aging population whom one of your representatives not only failed to represent, but objected to them being issued crossbow permits? They should pay dues? Hand you the knife with which to stab them in the back? I don't think people are that gullible.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

> But if you're expecting a system where the staff or leadership ignores the desires of the membership that will not and should not happen.


Isn't that EXACTLY what happened when MUCC lobbied against the crossbow?


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

No, that's not what happened with crossbows. We've already went down that path. Current, voter-approved policy is against crossbow expansion. The resolution seeking expansion, while gaining majority support did not gain 2/3 support as required by the by-laws. Thus the current policy against expansion remains. And I want to reiterate again that I do not know the specifics on that policy. I'm using that as a hypothetical example in an attempt to explain how the 2/3 ruling applies. 

Guys, we all agree the system needs work and that work is ongoing. But the by-laws are the guiding principles at this time. To not honor them does a great disservice to the organization and the membership. Again, the simply majority support and the 2/3 issue is one that's been identified as an issue and is being discussed. I can't tell you the outcome because I don't know. I'm sorry but I am not going to mislead you on that.

If your views on the crossbow issue were against expansion, would you want the process to be altered? You must have standards and policies for voting. If they aren't working, then you change them following the proper procedures. Otherwise you have a group with no consistency or regulation and that's not good for anyone.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

And please, I really would like to see this story published.


ESOX said:


> *On the science MUCC and it's sister club presented to the NRC to get the disability level set where it is?* On just how fair this is to all those who don't qualify? How fair this is to those who simply can't afford to do what is necessary to qualify? How it doesn't violate the Americans With Disabilities act? I can't wait to read the story. It ought to be a good one.


And I would like to add, Why the stance against crossbows for senior citizens? And maybe a story on all the troubles crossbows have caused in states with full inclusion.


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

If you'd like to research and write that story, sign your name to it, I would certainly review it as I review all submissions.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

UH-Yea. I am fully confident I would get straight answers to my questions at MUCC headquarters. Who was it from MUCC or it's sister organization that tried to get the disability levels set so as to exclude even more people from hunting than we ended up with? I'd like to start by interviewing him.
Never mind, I would probably puke.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Members are dropping because they don't like how things are run. You admit to a problem and say nothing you can do. Problem can be fixed if more people join to replace unhappy members. You as new member make things change.

Here is an idea. Since you admit to problems and agree with some of what is said.

Change the problem, show people it has changed, and they join! Coming in here defending the stand with I can't do anything is not helping! Heck I could not even get a return e-mail, What the 189 member that voted in favor must not have been allowed the use of the computer that day.

If you build it they will come!

BTW I liked the trapping part today. Nice bit about a elderly gentleman You should show more like him!

Skinner


----------

