States Want Money For Tree Stand Research
Posted by Tom Remington on December 24, 2007
Eight states are seeking money that comes from excise taxes on sporting equipment to study tree stand accidents. Some feel that tree stand accidents cause more injury and death than any other hunting related mishaps.
The question from me has to be is the use of this money for this purpose a wise choice?
We all want to see hunting be as safe as it can be. But who should be paying the bill in this case? We have to first ask ourselves why is it there are tree stand accidents? Do these accidents come from a poorly designed piece of equipment or from improper use or a combination of both?
There are many more questions that can’t be answered easily but should we be using tax money paid by the sportsmen to do work that should be done by the companies that manufacture the tree stands? Regardless of whether the equipment could be designed better or more educating needs to be done about using tree stands, isn’t this at least equally the responsibility of the manufacturers?
One suggestion I read about, which I think makes sense, is that it should be mandatory to report all accidents that result from tree stands. It needs to be clearly stated what exactly a “tree stand” is. It has to involve any means by which a hunter leaves the ground in order to achieve a better perspective. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a manufactured tree stand.
With mandatory reporting, then information can be gathered to find what is causing the accidents. Once this information is put to use, then we can determine in what direction we need to take. I would also think it would be in the best interest of those who make tree stands to get involved. If they are making a poor product, if they want to stay in business, improvements are needed. If the vast majority of accidents come from concocted tree stands and/or improper usage, then it is also in the best interest of tree stand companies to educate users to the safe use of tree stands. In other words, they will sell more products.
I would much prefer to see any research and studies paid for by the manufacturers and not the users and/or state fish and game departments.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
December 24th, 2007 at 9:13 am
No money has to be spent! The Treestand Manufacturers Association has all the data these states are looking for, all they have to do is ask!
Requiring all T/S accidents to be reported (and who do we report to???) is nearly impossible to enforce so why bother making a new law?
Now, if you buy a treestand and it doesn’t have a sticker on it from the T.M.A. I would suggest you take it back and let the store know why.
It would be impossible to regulate home made/built stands as they will most likely be on private land and that would interfere with landowners rights . . . again.
Every stand is sold with warning labels all over them so if someone is too stupid to read and understand them…well!?!?
Hunters really do not need more regulation.
Why does society always try to save the dumb ones when nature tries to eliminate them?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
This unworthy study on treestand safety is just not necessary. I am sure that the manufactures already have this information. I wonder just who this study would ultimately benefit. Wouldn’t this be considered “Pork Barrel” spending?
I am 67 years old and have hunted out of trees and elevated stands way before the manufactured stands came along. So far, I have not had an accident while hunting elevated stands, manufactured or otherwise. All manufactured stands that I am aware of include plenty of safety instructions and most provide some sort of safety belt or harness. You can provide all the instruction and equipment you want but you cannot force people to use it if they dont want to. So, this treestand information is useless to the people that will ultimately pay for it. I say, forget about it, we dont need it!
George C Atkinson
Killeen, Texas
December 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
George - Your feelings seem to be the consensus!
December 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
With all the tree stands localy made by the owners, all the different land other than public, that people hunt on; requiring a report of each accident is worthless. It makes about as much sence as a requirement for every person to report each and every knife injury. Think what that would do to the restaurant industry alone, not even counting the little accidents in every home kitchen. What would be next, if that happend? Ban all knife manufacture, or would the manufacturing companies be held responsible? Common sence tells me that to regulate items which cause injury to others, is wasted effort. Why make tons of regulations for the few who don’t have any common sence, and misuse these items. For those kind of people, experance is the best teacher, IF they are capable at all. If not, nobody can help them as it is not legal to put each of them in a padded room and lock the door.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
If they want money to study tree stands, then let them set in one while they are studying……
December 27th, 2007 at 1:23 am
And the “studiers” would still only sit on their fat asses and TALK about it and still never climb into a treestand!
December 27th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Ok, ok! So can the idea of reporting accidents. Bad idea and I know that now.
Here are the eight states that have met and discussed this proposal. Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio.
This is what the DesMoines Register said:
“Meeting attendees decided to seek money for a survey that would encompass all eight states. Participants at the meeting are from each of the eight states that receive money from the hunting and fishing equipment excise tax called the Pitmann Robertson Act. The money is filtered back to the states through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
December 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.
More Government waste!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I hadn’t thought of it in this way that it may be a violation of the PR Act. Hmmm. I’ll have to look into that more I guess. Thanks, MadJack!
December 27th, 2007 at 11:44 am
[...] Comments Tom Remington: I hadn’t thought of it in thisMadJack: Yes the P/R Act was to improveTom Remington: Ok, ok! So can the idea ofMadJack: And the [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
[...] Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
[...] Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm