"If you could please send your letters to me at either this email address ([email protected]) or at [email protected], I will make certain your correspondence gets to each commissioner. The link to their personal addresses is http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-65134_65145-26986--,00.html . Thank you. Cheryl Nelson Executive Assistant to the NRC 525 W. Allegan St. PO Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 517-284-6237 [email protected]"

Dear Commissioners,

Thirty-five other states allow hunting with suppressors and there is no legitimate reason for limiting their use in Michigan.

First of all “silencers,” which are more accurately described as “suppressors,” do not render a gun’s report silent. Like the

muffler on a car, a suppressor reduces the noise signature from the discharge of a firearm to a more reasonable level. You see,

guns are loud—loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss. While most shooters wear hearing protection on the range, most hunters

do not wear hearing protection in the field because they want to hear their surroundings. A suppressor can reduce the risk of

hearing damage associated with discharging a firearm

Suppressors allow hunters to maintain full situational awareness, while still protecting their hearing. The result is a safer

hunting experience for the hunter, and for those nearby.

There are numerous benefits associated with the use of suppressors, including reduced noise pollution, increased accuracy due
to reduced recoil and muzzle blast, and protection from hearing damage.

There are no known poaching incidents using a firearm suppressor that is registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of
1934, which is a branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

Those who claim that hunters who use suppressors to lower the sound will somehow become poachers or violate game limits are
only exposing their bias and lack of understanding of the issue. Again, the majority of states allow hunting with suppressors and
poaching with registered sound-suppressing devices simply doesn't happen.

I am compelled to question the ethics of any hunter or hunting groups who disparage the character of other law-abiding hunters by
using such arguments — since most hunters would never contemplate such illegal activity.

Do these same opponents of suppressors claim that allowing archers to hunt with bows enables or facilitates poaching or the
taking of illegal limits? After all, arrows are much more quiet than a suppressed firearm. In fact, arrows are virtually silent

while suppressors are not.

Just as opponents of compound bows and crossbows tried to paint them as tools of evil intent, time has proven them just as
wrong as they are now about suppressors.

Using firearm suppressors to lower noise is not only logical but it is effective in protecting hunters' hearing and increasing
accuracy. It is an appropriate use of technology.

Increased use of suppressors will help to eliminate noise complaints, which have been used more frequently as an excuse to
close shooting ranges, informal shooting areas and hunting lands throughout the country.

Again, I fully support the use of firearm suppressors for hunting. I urge your support in
removing this ban on hunting with suppressors, from the outdated regulation.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE