# Hunter Orange Update



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

The House Natural Resources Committee approved a bill providing for changes in hunter orange law today. Amendments were made to the proposed bill based on the feedback from the Michigan Sportsman Forum.

The bill would now exempt crossbow deer hunters (in archery deer season), falconers and predator hunters from having to wear hunter orange. Bobcat was added to the list of predators based on a suggestion made in this forum.

Also based on suggestions made on this forum, the requirement in the bill that all blinds be marked with hunter orange on private and public land was changed to just pop-up blinds on public land. The 144 square inches language suggested here was also added to the bill.

We're not only listening to you, we're acting on many of your suggestions. The Michigan Sportsman Forum has provided the Michigan House, or Rep. Sheltrown anyway, with a valuable tool to craft better natural resource policy and make the process far more democratic. Thanks to those of you who make this site happen.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Thanks for the report Brady and all your and Rep Sheltrown's efforts.

Skinner


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Thanks for the update Brady, that sounds fair enough


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

I did not have a chance to check out the link, sorry. Will the 144 sq inch of orange be applied to all pop up blinds including waterfow blinds that pop up such as on boats and field hunting blinds ?


----------



## whitetailmonster (May 13, 2009)

Thanks for the update and the effort to make it easier to be out in the woods.


----------



## Huntmich (Sep 4, 2008)

is this 144sp total on the whole blind? does it have to be visible from all sides?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Will this bill now be referred to the Senate Committee for Hunting Fishing and Tourism? And if so, do you have an idea of how it will be received in that committee or an estimated time upon which it will be heard?


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Huntmich said:


> is this 144sp total on the whole blind? does it have to be visible from all sides?


Yes and yes. The pop ups I've seen have the square foot of orange at the top.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> Will this bill now be referred to the Senate Committee for Hunting Fishing and Tourism? And if so, do you have an idea of how it will be received in that committee or an estimated time upon which it will be heard?


To be diplomatic, the Senate is unpredictable.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Bellyup said:


> I did not have a chance to check out the link, sorry. Will the 144 sq inch of orange be applied to all pop up blinds including waterfow blinds that pop up such as on boats and field hunting blinds ?


Orange on blinds would only be necessary to take deer, not ducks.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

bradymsu said:


> the requirement in the bill that all blinds be marked with hunter orange on private and public land was changed to just pop-up blinds on public land.


Absolutely fantastic news.


----------



## bumpbottom (Jan 3, 2006)

Thanks for listening!:woohoo1:


----------



## beervo2 (May 7, 2006)

Thanks Brady!!!!
Sounds fair to me...


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

Good job, that proposal makes perfect sense. Works for everybody.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Good news, the change to public land only though, is ridiculous.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

unclecbass said:


> Good job, that proposal makes perfect sense. Works for everybody.


i concur, but when something makes perfect sense the senate will screw it up with some ding a ling add on. i sure hope they leave it as it is and progress forward from this point. SAFTEY IS NUMBER ONE!


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Justin said:


> Good news, the change to public land only though, is ridiculous.


Justin, I agree. Hunting accidents happen on both public and private land. But your and my perspective took the backseat this time to the property rights advocates. It's my hope that people voluntarily use hunter orange on blinds on private land, not only for their own protection, but for the peace of mind of other hunters on the same property or neighboring properties. There are more victims in an accidental shooting than the person being shot.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I must say, sounds about perfect. A rarity. I'm not 100% on some orange "in motion" for varmit, but probably impossible to enforce and regulate. Very good compromise, all in all.


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

That's GREAT news!!

It's nice to know for sure that SOMEONE is out there actually listening to sports persons who actively pursue the sports and not just the whimpering of the anti-hunting crowd!

Good Job !!! :coolgleam


----------



## shawnfire (Nov 5, 2005)

thats great news


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It's more often the masses of hunters who aren't so perfect. 

Our opinions here aren't usually speaking for the masses. To the contrary. In fact, our job is more often than not to fight off the mob mentality.

The flaw in thinking is often that the majority of hunters are sportsmen. From 15 years in the hunting/fishing sporting goods business, I'd say it's more like 20-30% are sportsmen.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

It may very well be those masses of " sportsman" are the ones sticking together more so than the high horse riders of these forums


anyhow it's probably good they took it off or the whole thing might have been flushed down the crapper


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I'll take the high road over the low road anytime. 
After dealing with those "masses" for some 15 years, you might find your opinion changes of the "masses" as you learn of their desires and intentions. 
The masses aren't on M-S. 
You'll often find the masses have little interest in what they can give back and somehow believe the resources are only there for them to take and take and take, and put nothing back, other than maybe $15. And for that $15, they expect world class everything, as seen on TV. IMHO.
It doesn't work that way.

Be it the guy that complains that he "only hooked 4 salmon all day" in a river or "only saw 4 deer all day" on opening day, too many have become spoiled, IMHO, and demand game laden land and water everywhere they go, everytime they go out. They have little care or knowledge of the potential damage that "too much" year-round can bring, longterm. It's usually only about them and what they can take. My .02


----------



## sullyxlh (Oct 28, 2004)

> (3) A PERSON SHALL NOT USE A GROUND BLIND TO TAKE DEER FROM PUBLIC LAND WITH A *FIREARM* UNLESS 144 SQUARE INCHES OF HUNTER ORANGE IS VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THE GROUND BLIND FROM ALL SIDES.


 So the way this is worded

It does not apply to me taking a deer with my bow during firearm season.

If I use my bow during the firearm season I am only required to wear the orange on me and not have it on my blind.

This only states I cannot take a deer with a* firearm* in a blind with no orange
It states nothing about taking a deer by bow in a blind during firearm deer season.

It states _Firearm_ as in method of taking
Not _Firearm season_ as in the time frame of taking game.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

sullyxlh said:


> So the way this is worded
> 
> It does not apply to me taking a deer with my bow during firearm season.
> 
> ...


Correct, but that subsection is history...eliminated, and the bill is now in the Senate after passing the House without dissent.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> The masses aren't on M-S.
> You'll often find the masses have little interest in what they can give back and somehow believe the resources are only there for them to take and take and take, and put nothing back, other than maybe $15.


I don't know Bob, when you see those on this site that oppose QDM because it interferes with their God given right to kill any buck, I think there are plenty of the masses on M-S.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bradymsu said:


> Correct, but that subsection is history...eliminated, and the bill is now in the Senate after passing the House without dissent.


 Thanks to the good Rep. for getting that ammended in such a timely manner.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Yeas 107 Nays 0
Thanks congressmen, now the senate!


----------



## bowhuntr81 (Sep 13, 2007)

I see that predator hunters would be excluded from wearing orange. Trappers would still be required to wear orange if carrying a firearm for dispatch correct? I see those as two separate endeavors and wouldn't link trappers into the exemption, but out of curiosity I figured I'd ask.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Pinefarm said:


> It's more often the masses of hunters who aren't so perfect.


I understand what you're saying. The bottom line however is that we live in a democracy. The masses are the ones in control. The masses own the resources. The majority opinion may not be the right one all the time, but it is then the obligation of the minority to make its case to the majority and attempt to alter viewpoints.

Whether we like it or not, popular opinion rules in a democracy. Those that lose touch with that reality and attempt to create mechanisms like Proposal G to insulate the policy making process from popular opinion always end up suffering as a result. The current state of MUCC and the DNR is testament to that.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Very well said Brady, you chose those words very well. I was going to comment on that statement as well but could have never said it as well as yourself.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

bowhuntr81 said:


> I see that predator hunters would be excluded from wearing orange.


While stationary. That means you have to wear it in and out from hunting. 


"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person engaged in the
taking of deer with a bow or crossbow during archery deer season, a
person taking bear with a bow or crossbow, or a person engaged in
the taking of turkey or migratory birds other than woodcock, a
person engaged in the sport of falconry, or a person who is
stationary and in the act of hunting bobcat, coyote, or fox."


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

bradymsu said:


> I understand what you're saying. The bottom line however is that we live in a democracy. The masses are the ones in control. The masses own the resources. The majority opinion may not be the right one all the time, but it is then the obligation of the minority to make its case to the majority and attempt to alter viewpoints.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, popular opinion rules in a democracy. Those that lose touch with that reality and attempt to create mechanisms like Proposal G to insulate the policy making process from popular opinion always end up suffering as a result. The current state of MUCC and the DNR is testament to that.


If memory serves me right, Proposal G was put in place by a vote of the people, i.e.: "the masses". Thus, as you say, democracy works.

IMHO, what we are seeing here, is a textbook example of the body charged with maintaining the spirit and letter of Proposal G, the NRC, failing in its duties to create policy based solely on science and thereby causing the legislature in to sweep up the mess.

Now that you have successfully addressed the hunter orange issue (at least in the House), we should not forget the other glaring disregard of Proposal G that emerged from the March 2009 NRC surrounding crossbow expansion, specifically as it relates to age, eligibility, hunting zones and the folly of that silly 350 fps proviso. A 3-year sunset is no way to mask a gigantically flawed policy that is in direct contradiction to the singular mandate that serves as the rudder that steers the entire vessel: science! The day is not over. 

In any event, thanks for fixing the hunter orange thingee. How are its chances in the upper chamber?


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Riva said:


> How are its chances in the upper chamber?


Start e-mailing your senator, especially YOUR senator.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

bradymsu said:


> Start e-mailing your senator, especially YOUR senator.



I have no doubt MY senator will respond accordingly. He drives the bus.

What is the bill #? Where was the bill placed?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology".
Carl Sagen


Brady, running wildlife management on popularity is where we strongly disagree. Biologists should have far more say in managing our resources, not the scientifically uneducated user. 

Popularity, and endless resistence to change is why Michigan deer hunting is where it's at today.

See Passenger Pigeon, Bison, Grayling and what happened to 2 feet of our top soil from timbering in the 1800's, from when the masses run the show. 

Or take the bait ban, for example. You ask the average guy who hunts a few days a year if he wants bait to be legal and he'll likely reply "hell yeah". 

As wildlife management becomes more complex and more based on complex scientific models, continually relying on uninformed opinions is a fatal mistake.
As we drift away from a more rural society to a more urban one, the average voice becomes less and less informed on what happens in the natural world.

Add a world where instant gratification is the norm and you have a dangerous mix. We need to focus on what will happen 5 or 10 years from now, not just for next years opening day deer campfire or drop-freezer.

If wildlife management is a democracy, even though we live in a representative republic, then you need to open it all up to a vote, for the 80% of non-hunters and anti-hunters alike.

And then you need to open up the floor of the legislature for public comment on each issue.

One could strongly argue that the current state of MDNR is due to the failure of the elected legislature to get past politics in election years. Hence the license fee disaster in Lansing a while back. 

The epitome of doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. 

Yet, when the legislature fails on protecting wildlife, it's not a big enough "one issue" to swing an election and to remove that legislator from office. In a sense, wildlife management gets short shrift from the legislature because it's not their main focus, like it would be a wildlife agency filled with wildlife experts. Not even remotely close.

This is also the real reason why MDNR doesn't want buck tag changes. They know the legislature has 90% of it's members who have no clue about complex deer management, other than popularity contests and they don't want the legislature making things worse.

Basically, the experts don't want the laymen close to it. I don't blame them.

On M-S, you can find some very informed voices on a myriad of hunting and fishing issue's. There's biologists here, retired CO's, professional guides and even opinionated former sport shop owners. 

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, and opinions are like certain sun-starved parts of the human anatomy that everyone has, I'll make the controversial statement that not all opinions should necessarily be weighed equally when important and needed wildlife changes are to be considered.

From behind the counter, you hear all the myths. A large number of hunters believe MDNR secretly imported coyotes to kill all the deer. I'd guess a majority believes "the insurance companies" run deer policy. Many hunters believe MDNR "falsified" CWD because of some hidden agenda to ban baiting. 

And while I certainly claim to be no biologist or deer expert, I believe I know better than nearly anyone here about what impact a license rule change could have at the license counter, as far as if it's too complex or confusing, or will be well received.

That's not from some arrogance on my part, it's from having sold several $1,000,000.00's in licenses and dealt with an individual on each basis. It's no different than as I wouldn't claim to know more about the engine in my Chevy than that repairman who's fixed 5000 of them.

Frankly, since license agents probably answer more license rule questions than anyone, even CO's just due to sheer volume, asking a list of some 30-40 higher volume license agents on the impact/confusion/viability about any new rule would be a good idea. 

It's akin to asking Captains, Lieutenants and Sargeants about how things are really going on the ground. Or how they will work.

Or take the combo tag. The amount of confusion was so bad on that, that when a guy came to the counter on Nov.14 and said "I want my deer license", we got to the point where we wouldn't even mention the combo tag option if he didn't bring it up first. Because, if you did, invariably the guy would say "what's a combo license" you'd end up with a 5 minute "who's on first" conversation and the line of guys wanting tags would grow and grown. If someone asked for a combo, then we sold it. But even then, many still had questions about the combo and more often than not, they had the rules wrong. 

The point is, many if most "regular" guys buying a tag on Nov.14 don't even fully understand the combo tag. Things like herd structure, sex ratio's, etc may as well be chinese and in another dimension.

Brady, I do commend you for looking for input. But it depends what you're looking for and how you gleen the info.

Is it angry emails to your office? If so, do you then judge a rule on it's merits or it's potential political fallout? If a rule change, or fee incease, is dismissed mainly due to fear of political fallout and not benefit to the resources, then what good is that process either?

One could argue that that process is potentially even worse than the NRC. 

Is it better to put weight on the viewpoints of those immersed in the genre 365 days a year or to give equal weight to any opinion that may only spend one day a year within the genre?

The act of buying a license should not be seen as making all equal and giving all opinions equal weight. Taken to the end, why even have a DNR with biologists at that point? Why not let voters decide seasons and bag limits at that point?

As far as the angry emails of those who claim our fee's are too high, even though they're cheapest in the Midwest or that "the DNR wants all the deer killed" from guys that only spend a few days dealing with deer, at all, keep this in mind...

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
Edward R. Murrow

More and more online bashing of MDNR reminds me more and more of listening to guys down at the end of the bar bash MDNR.

Those who endlessly bash the bait ban online typify the guy down at the end of the bar. Yet, if they merely picked up the phone, called MDNR and talked to possibly the worlds best expert on deer to deer disease transmission over bait, they'd know better.
But they won't. They don't want to know. They enjoy their role as MDNR basher.

Keep in mind that many you hear from have never sold a license or endlessly explained rules, yet alone $1,000,000's of dollars worth. Keep in mind many you hear from have never seen a Winter deer yard. Keep in mind that many who say there's no deer left never see fields full of deer, in the same area, at Spring meltoff. Keep in mind most you hear from couldn't identify a severe browse line if they stood in the middle of one. Keep in mind than many don't understand that buying a license simply allows them the opportunity to hunt and that it doesn't entitle them to a deer in their freezer every year. And on and on.

My children would like candy and chips for dinner. And if left to a vote, they'd have it. But the role of knowing the right thing and doing the right thing should be left to those who have the experience to know otherwise.

For that reason, many more of the biological nuts and bolts rules should get more input from MDNR, not less. 

And for an opinion piece about opinions, that's my opinion and mine alone.
I'm sure many will suggest I take that opinion and forcefully insert it in my sun-starved anatomy. :lol:

But in an age when specialization is the future vs mass produced, going back to the Michigan mass product model for wildlife management vs utilizing specialists/experts is a mistake that we will pay for, yet again.

Unfortunately, that seems to be something that Michigan is actually adroit at doing well.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Riva said:


> I have no doubt MY senator will respond accordingly. He drives the bus.
> 
> What is the bill #? Where was the bill placed?


I believe it's in the process of being submitted.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Pinefarm said:


> "We live is a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology".
> Carl Sagen
> 
> 
> ...



Robert, very nicely stated. I am saving this one. Most excellent.


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

Ditto here as well,.. that was a hell of a GOOD READ !


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Pinefarm said:


> Brady, running wildlife management on popularity is where we strongly disagree. Biologists and should have far more say in managing our resources, not the scientifically uneducated user.


Pinefarm, you need to realize that irony in this though is that scientific management of our natural resources cannot exist without popular support. And it's the withdrawal of that popular support that has put the DNR in its current funding situation.

Having a degree in natural resource management from MSU and a degree in public administration from WMU combined with 15 years as a legislative staffer focusing on natural resources issues has convinced me that we must have sound scientific management of our natural resources, but that management must exist, and can exist, within a democratic system where user input is a major contributing factor in making conservation policy. Too heavy a focus on what's popular results in mis-management such as the examples you describe. Too little focus on user interests, results in a loss of support for management programs. There has to be balance to make it work.

To jump off topic briefly, let's consider just what sound scientific management is. To many people who aren't involved in the academic or applied sciences, science may appear to be black and white, with one right answer. No scientist making progress in her or his field is going to agree with this. Science is highly political often with conflicting theories. And applied science is even more political. Take deer management, for example. There are various way that Michigan's deer population can be managed scientifically depending on your intended result. Do we want a high population of bucks or do we want high quality bucks? There are tradeoffs and different scientists, just like different users, are going to have different priorities and varying opinions.

To get back to the hunter orange issue, I personally believe that the requirement for hunter orange on all blinds is a good idea. Statistics show that hunter orange laws works and people are being accidently shot in blinds that are not easily visible. However, I also realize that I personally am more pro-government regulation on public safety issues like this than the average user is. But I'm just one voice in a large society, much of which has strong concerns about an increasing amount of regulations on personal behavior. Policy makers have an obligation to strike a balance betweeen public safety and the role of government in people's lives and they need to suspend their egos and personal views in doing so. This is what happened on the hunter orange issue in the Michigan House. I don't agree with the result, but I recognize that it was the right result.

Legislative bodies directly accoutable to the public have the ability to strike this balance. This is why both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution put elected legislative bodies at the top of the policy making process. Even Proposal G only gives the NRC the ability to approve administrative rules which can be overruled by an act of the Legislature.

A lot has been said on this forum and elsewhere about the failure of Proposal G to live up to expectations. There has also been criticism about some of the NRC members. I don't think the problem is the concept of sound scientific management or the personalities on the NRC. The problem is the imbalance and struggle created by Proposal G between the public, their elected legislators, the NRC and the DNR. Given the legislative term limits that were approved in the 1990s along with Proposal G, this imbalance and struggle won't end without a change in structure.

I certainly don't believe the Legislature should be handling day-to-day natural resources policy. As you said, most legislators don't have the long term interest or understanding of natural resource issues to make these decisions and the focus on sound scientific management would be lost. But there does need to be meaningful legislative oversight of the process. One possibility is to return rule making authority to the DNR director and create a joint legislative natural resources rules committee made up of the 6 natural resources committee chairs and vice-chairs from the House and Senate, 4 of which would be able to rescind a conservation order. Regardless of what the solution is, there needs to be more cooperation between the DNR and the Legislature or natural resource management in our state is going to continue to suffer.

You are welcome to send me a private message on the various issues you brought up, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. On the issue of hunting fees for example, my objection to raising fees isn't based on the current or proposed fee levels themselves but instead on the economics no-no of raising prices with a declining customer base and more importantly on how a focus on fees avoids a focus on hunter retention and recruitment, which is where the real problem is. Of course, the NRC is loath to get too deep into the hunter recruitment and retention issue because it knows this will upset some of its key political supporters such as with the Michigan Bow Hunters and the crossbow issue.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Thunderhead said:


> This thing jumped the tracks a long time ago........... What happened to the hunters orange thread ?


 
Good question!


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Tom Morang said:


> Term limits was the worst thing to ever happen to the Michigan Legislative scene.


 
Absolutely!

We'd better be careful Tom; we're agreeing on too many items in a row.........:lol:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Riva said:


> Do you find it strange that this thread started off talking about hunter orange? You can blame a moderator for that, in case you're curious.:lol:


 
Find where that mod lives and hang the crud!..........:lol:


----------



## hellbilly (Aug 17, 2008)

Time to lock?


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Probably one of those ol crusty senile mods that can't remember what day it is.....:evilsmile :lol:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Term limits have brought us far more pain than gain. Does anyone think the last budget mess/showdown would have happened in the days before term limits?
IMHO, the "old experts" would have made a compromise deal. We'd have also probably seen license fee increases and all these debates would be mute.

Many were for term limits a while back, and I was one. But it's quickly become clear that that was a huge mistake.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Pinefarm said:


> Many were for term limits a while back, and I was one. But it's quickly become clear that that was a huge mistake.


I rarely do this Bob, but you'll understand.........................."I told ya so, I told ya so nya-nya-nya-nya-nya!" Of course I didn't know Bob back then, but our oldest son was totally in favor of term limits and I did converse with him (we rarely talk politics and for good reason) about it and told him it would be damned in a few short years.

Ballot proposals are not the way to get things done. Look at the mess California is in and in good part because of an unending stream of propositions over the years that have been passed by the voters.

We'll have to end this thread shortly as it is getting into politics and this is the wrong forum for that. I'll keep it open for a day or two in order for members to get in their last shots.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Yup, having lots of newbie's in Lansing before they can figure out everything and create relationships isn't working.

BTW, this thread and many others about hunting issue's and fee's ARE about politics.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Pinefarm said:


> Yup, having lots of newbie's in Lansing before they can figure out everything and create relationships isn't working.
> 
> BTW, this thread and many others about hunting issue's and fee's ARE about politics.


Bringing these collective topics full circle, I believe it prudent that first term legislators be required to wear full hunter orange while the House or Senate is in session. Second term legislators are given minor separation by being allowed to wear blaze orange, but it may be in a camo pattern, if they so choose. Term-limited legislators, in deference to their seniority and accumulated experience are required only to wear a 12" x 12" patch on both the front and back of one's apparel, (heart-shaped on the front side permitted and back side may be sewn to the seat of one's trousers) Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.


----------



## Big Nic (Apr 23, 2004)

Riva said:


> Bringing these collective topics full circle, I believe it prudent that first term legislators be required to wear full hunter orange while the House or Senate is in session. Second term legislators are given minor separation by being allowed to wear blaze orange, but it may be in a camo pattern, if they so choose. Term-limited legislators, in deference to their seniority and accumulated experience are required only to wear a 12" x 12" patch on both the front and back of one's apparel, (heart-shaped on the front side permitted and back side may be sewn to the seat of one's trousers) Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.


 
Funny Stuff Riva  That's one proposal thast would get my YES vote


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Riva said:


> Finally, legislative aides are merely required to wear a blaze orange beany cap (with spinner) at all times when within Lansing City limits.


Change it to a ball cap and you have yourself a deal.


----------



## dougdad (Nov 11, 2007)

It's a good sense move to help improve safty for all of us. The manufactures of blinds will prob. put the req. amount on the top of the blinds by perminent attachment then provide a easily installed cover for those who want to use them on private land and chose to cover it.

Thanks for your support guys !!!


----------

