Crossbow Update

[bradymsu]

A hearty thanks to everyone who has commented on crossbows over the past two weeks on this forum and the several dozen people who have e-mailed Rep. Sheltrown and I on this issue. We are learning a lot from the various perspectives and are in the process of sorting through and analyzing the data from other states and provinces who have made changes to their crossbow laws in recent years.


Thanks as well to NRC Commissioner Madigan for his work to examine the problems with the disability portion of current crossbow rules. Commissioner Madigan and the NRC Crossbow Disability Workgroup will continue that effort to address the disability issue (which can be changed by the NRC) while Rep. Sheltrown leads the effort to examine the broader issue of whether to restrict crossbow use to the disabled and/or hunters of certain age groups (statutory law which can only be altered by the Legislature).


Next month, the House Natural Resource Committee will take action on the crossbow issue. Members of the committee will consider whether to restrict crossbow use only to the disabled per current law, whether to simply treat crossbows as other bows or whether to eliminate the need for crossbow permits for seniors and/or youth hunters. In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities. I think I can safely say that contrary to some of the rumors floating around, we are not considering a distinct crossbow season. We are solely looking at whether to expand crossbow use during the existing archery season.


I recognize that emotions run high on this issue. Please keep in mind that you are all hunters and have a shared interest in supporting each other. Rather than worrying about another hunter taking your deer or having to share your preferred hunting location, be thankful for the competition. Unless we work together to reverse the decline in the number of people hunting in Michigan and get more people in the field in October and November, HSUS and PETA may make any discussion regarding who gets to hunt with what bow or firearm irrelevant.


Also, on an unrelated firearms note, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to take the CPL pistol safety training course this past week from an NRA instructor through MCRGO. Even if you've never considered owning a handgun or getting a CPL, I would strongly suggest taking the course. It will give you a whole new perspective as a gun owner.

[swampbuck]

Thats great news! Once again thanks to You and Rep. Sheltrown for all the hard work! I hope crossbows become legal for everyone, at least now we know that its on the table.

[malainse]

Thank You for addressing this issue......

[marty]

Thanks to you and Rep Sheltrown for your support om this matter;)

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

thank you bradymsu and representative sheltrown for your interest in seeing that this VERY IMPORTANT issue gets addressed correctly for all of us crossbow hunters :Dand those who wish to hunt with crossbows.:help:
will you keep us informed as to what comes out of the nrc meeting when it is over next month?
THANKS IN ADVANCE DMZ:D

[bradymsu]

I don't think the NRC will be done with the disability portion by next month. They are making some progress on the technical issues of how to determine disability in a manner that is more fair, but they have yet to really address the disability threshold level. Rep. Sheltrown has suggested lowering the threshold from 80% to 60% and no longer requiring an annual re-examinaiton for a person with progressive neuromuscular disease. Why these folks were ever singled out is beyond me; the current rules are almost cruel. While I'm not yet sold on full legalization, a key benefit is that it's a lot simpler than having to codify disability testing.

[wildcoy73]

nice to see the issue being looked at. but i still believe lowering the percent from 80 to 60% is still wrong. to due this properly we as sportsman and as a state need to open our arms and allow the person to choose the weapon they hunt with. let everyone hunt unrestricted this one act will bring more does home to the freezer than an early gun doe season in the long run. as you see from other post on this site the majority of us support unrestricted use of the crossbow and as the facts show it will not hurt the current archery season, but an early doe season will hurt the archery season and this may be my opinion and that of many others, but ask those in the tb zone and most will tell ya it hurt the archery season in november and it did put a hurt on the heard. plus with 80% of hunting done on private land after a few years of this early season they will quit shooting does. it has happen in the tb zone and it has shown up in a raise of tb cases in the area and a slow spread southward. so in conclusion the best thing i see for us is to allow crossbows for all and increase our numbers

[Whit1]

In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities.

Brady, thanks for not only the work you and Rep. Sheltrown are doing, but also effort to keep us informed.

I sincerely hope the NRC, as well as the legislature if they do take any action, focus, as you say on "the management impact" of any changes in the crossbow regulations. There are a lot of "facts" tossed out by those opposed to any changes including a dubious "talking points" paper put out by the North American Bowhunting Coalition. There are a lot of opinions foisted upon the unknowing that have no basis in reality as demonstrated by the experiences of state's that have eased their crossbow regulations.

One member of MBH (a former member of their board) stated to me in an email that, "I also do believe that adding hundreds of thousands of gun hunters in the bow season using crossbows will hurt the resource. A lot of breeding bucks would be harvested before the rut, but that is of little concern to the crossbow manufacturers." Not only is his number of "hundreds of thousands of gun hunters" ludicrous (no state that liberalized crossbow regs has seen anything remotely close to that number). As for the issue of taking "breeding bucks" I have to particularly laugh at that comment. In the SLP bowhunters, who can automatically take a doe with the purchase of a bow license have been shown (DNR harvest stats) to be a major taker of antlered bucks over does.

I have sent emails, through the "contact us" feature found on their sites, mesages to both MBH and MTB as to why they oppose changes to crossbow regulations here in Michigan. The message was a bit complicated as I also included a number of talking points for them to use in answering my basic question. It may take some time for a response.

Thanks again for all the work you've done.

[Joe Archer]

In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities..
I don't believe anyone could ask for anything more.
Thanks for all your efforts.
<----<<<

[beervo2]

Thanks Brady & Rep. Sheltrown for taking on such a touchy issue...:D

[Luv2hunteup]

Thanks for your help with the crossbow issue. Your quote pretty well sums up how I feel.
Rather than worrying about another hunter taking your deer or having to share your preferred hunting location, be thankful for the competition. Unless we work together to reverse the decline in the number of people hunting in Michigan and get more people in the field in October and November, HSUS and PETA may make any discussion regarding who gets to hunt with what bow or firearm irrelevant.

[fisher210]

Thanks for taking this on and I hope it becomes legal for everyone that wants to hunt with one.


Howard

[One Eye]

I have no problem with making it easier for "disabled" hunters to get a crossbow as long as Mr. Sheltrown doesn't forget his "other" bill to make it easier to get a modified bow permit. Rather than pandering to the special interests that are giving him money, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about the disabled hunter and making it easier for them to modify their current equipment at a much lower expense. Funny how this seems to be forgotten in these crossbow "discussions", isn't it?

I am opposed to legalization of crossbows in the general ARCHERY season (what is left of it) for reasons I have stated many times on this forum.

Allowing a huge influx of hunters with an easier weapon in the early season will definitely have negative impact on the resource, especially in the UP and the NLP. Unless of course your desire is to further restrict opportunity by taking the next step and pushing OBR. Ever wonder why firearm season is only 16 days long?

It really saddens me how some have "devalued" a great game animal such as the whitetail doe and view them as a pest.
Dan

[Riva]

I have no problem with making it easier for "disabled" hunters to get a crossbow as long as Mr. Sheltrown doesn't forget his "other" bill to make it easier to get a modified bow permit. Rather than pandering to the special interests that are giving him money, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about the disabled hunter and making it easier for them to modify their current equipment at a much lower expense. Funny how this seems to be forgotten in these crossbow "discussions", isn't it?

I am opposed to legalization of crossbows in the general ARCHERY season (what is left of it) for reasons I have stated many times on this forum.

Allowing a huge influx of hunters with an easier weapon in the early season will definitely have negative impact on the resource, especially in the UP and the NLP. Unless of course your desire is to further restrict opportunity by taking the next step and pushing OBR. Ever wonder why firearm season is only 16 days long?

It really saddens me how some have "devalued" a great game animal such as the whitetail doe and view them as a pest.
Dan

As Ronald Reagan once stated during a presdential debate, this immortal phrase: "There you go again!" Well, Dan, there you go again!

The very fact that you have placed the word "disabled" in parenthesis, to me, indicates a bias on your part that only the most severely disabled person should be allowed to use a crossbow during the archery season. Am I reading you wrong or, do you agree that if a person simply has a disability that render him/her unable to pull and or hold a long-, or compound bow, shouldn't that person have the opportunity to be an equal participant during the archery season?

If we quantify disabilities, as the current and even the proposed criteria now reads, does that not leave the possibility of a person not meeting that criteria yet, still being unable to pull and or hold a long-, or compound-bow, aka ... “falling through the cracks?” To me, that constitutes discrimination. And, we all know that the LAW states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability. The last time I looked, that law didn't say which specific disability, nor did it say the degree of severity of the disability, it merely stated the word--disability!

To your second point regarding “what is left of the archery season”, I'm interpreting your drift as that the archery season has somehow denigrated from what is once was to something less desirable today. To this writer, the only logical factors that one could formulate an opinion surrounding this purported denigration could be fewer deer, more hunters using compound-bows and/or more disabled hunters during the archery season. I for one do not see the latter two factors as denigrating anything.

As to your point for allowing a huge influx of hunters with an easier weapon into the archery season strikes me as strange. I think it's a little too late for that argument, as it should have been brought up, along with the introduction of the very first compound bow, decades ago. That is, if you feel that participants in Michigan's archery season be relegated solely to using long-bow weaponry. That would truly make it:"your" archery season and exclude those who choose to use a compound bow and/or the disabled.

And, finally, we simply have to move off this "ABC" mentality, specifically: "Anything But a Crossbow" in defining what is and what is not, a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability to have the opportunity to participate equally in Michigan’s archery season. We have already established the fact that a crossbow is a reasonable accommodation in this regard. It's no longer debatable; if you meet the criteria, you can use a crossbow. Furthermore, I, for one, believe the current, and even the proposed criteria, to be overly restrictive and thus, discriminatory within the context of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, I will work vigilantly to bring this fact to the attention to all those currently reviewing these matters in order to make 100% sure that Michigan is in 100% compliance with a the ADA.

[NoWake]

Why the big push for this "modified bow" permit? Since those in support of crossbow expansion often get accused of having ties to crossbow manufacturers. Is there somebody in these anti-crossbow special interest groups with ties to "draw loc" company?

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Why the big push for this "modified bow" permit? Since those in support of crossbow expansion often get accused of having ties to crossbow manufacturers. Is there somebody in these anti-crossbow special interest groups with ties to "draw loc" company?

i don't know if they have any ties to the draw lock, but thats their way of trying to stop crossbows. JUST MORE SPIN!

[wally-eye]

It deeply saddens and troubles me that there are people out there and groups that are opposed to the crossbow. A bow that has far far far more history than any recurve or compound bow. And those people and groups against crossbows do a disservice to all sportsmen in this state and devalue the whitetail deer with their self serving uninformed unscientific reasons.

[bradymsu]

Just to put this on the record, Rep. Sheltrown hasn't taken any money from crossbow manufacturers or retailers. In fact, he hasn't had any personal contact with the crossbow industry and I didn't until this past Friday at the NRC meeting when a Michigan based distributor spoke to me about the issue. Neither Rep. Sheltrow or I own crossbows, plan to own a crossbow or have a financial connection to anyone making a living off crossbows. The people Joel Sheltrown are pandering to are the hunters of Michigan, originally three older bowhunters in his Baptist church at West Branch who can't use their compound bows anymore.

Joel Sheltrown has been a far bigger advocate for ORVs than he has for crossbows. Yet, like with crossbows, he hasn't taken any money from ORV manufacturers and neither he, nor I, or any members of our immediate families own ORVs (not that I wouldn't like to in the future provided I can drive it legally in the Higgins Lake area).

I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities. It's good for the state's economy, it's good for the DNR and their conservation programs, it's good for our district in northern Michigan, and it's good in the general sense for public health and welfare. It would be far easier for Joel Sheltrown as a legislator to bury his head in the sand and not invite personal attacks on his ethics by bascially doing nothing productive on natural resource issues. Plenty of other elected officals and bureaucrats are doing that already. That's not what he's about.

We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up.

[Whit1]

"Just to put this on the record, Rep. Sheltrown hasn't taken any money from crossbow manufacturers or retailers. In fact, he hasn't had any personal contact with the crossbow industry and I didn't until this past Friday at the NRC meeting when a Michigan based distributor spoke to me about the issue."

That is part of the shellgame that is used by those who oppose crossbows. I've been accused on these boards of being a rep and/or having financial interest in a crossbow commercial enterprise and I have none.

"Neither Rep. Sheltrow or I own crossbows, plan to own a crossbow or have a financial connection to anyone making a living off crossbows."
_______________
That's were I'm at also. I have no plans at all to purchase a crossbow let alone get into using one for hunting. I used to hunt with a compound bow, but no longer do so.

"I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities. It's good for the state's economy, it's good for the DNR and their conservation programs, it's good for our district in northern Michigan, and it's good in the general sense for public health and welfare. It would be far easier for Joel Sheltrown as a legislator to bury his head in the sand and not invite personal attacks on his ethics by bascially doing nothing productive on natural resource issues. Plenty of other elected officals and bureaucrats are doing that already. That's not what he's about."
_______________
That about sums up my interest in seeing meaningful changes in the regulations for disabled and also hunters who have put some years under their belts eased. This includes not only the process by which a permit may be obtained, but also the lowering of the threshold of 80% disability which, in effect, eliminates at least 90% of those who are disabled.

I would also add that crossbows would be another tool to use for managing our deer herd and there are certainly areas, especially in the SLP, where herd reduction is getting to the point of being a major priority.
_______________
"We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up."

Don't hold your breath while waiting for "solid data showing how it would create negative management impact." A question asking for any such data has been posted many times on these boards and has yet to be answered. I've gone out on the 'net looking and asking for it, but other than wild, unsubstantiated claims it isn't there. If it was I'd oppose crossbows with the vigor that is shown by those who already do so.

One of the claims made by those who are against having crossbows in the archery season (this is distinct from the issue of easing crossbow regs for the disabled as it should be) is that it will add too many deer hunters to the archery season. The claim that crossbows would add "....hundreds of thousands of hunters...." (the guy was referring to firearms hunters) to the archery season was made to me in an email to me by a former board member of MBH. I would add that he said his thoughts did NOT necessarily reflect those of MBH.

This claim of adding too many new bow hunters and how it would harm the bowhunting experience and/or the resource is bogus. No state that has, either by easing restrictions for disabled hunters, putting in an age requirement (55, 60, 65 years old) for using a crossbow during the archery season or allow crossbows during their archery season, has experienced this huge influx of new archery hunters.

In the past ten years or so MI has lost at least 50,000 archery hunters. Munster would have the exact data on this. That is significant. If crossbows can get some of those hunters back or add new ones to the fold that is a positive for Michigan and its deer herd. With the way things go, both economically and in regard to the influence that anti-hunting groups have (do we remember the Dove Bill?) we need an increase in hunter numbers rather than a decrease.

[WHITE CLOUD]

is it legal to use a crossbow during gun season

[huntingfool43]

is it legal to use a crossbow during gun season


Yes, anyone can use a crossbow during the firearm season. But you must wear the same amount of hunter's orange as anyone else.

[WHITE CLOUD]

Yes, anyone can use a crossbow during the firearm season. But you must wear the same amount of hunter's orange as anyone else.
thank's for the info happy hunting

[Luv2hunteup]

The application for a crossbow or draw lock is not that easy. Click on the link.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PR9134E_149461_7.pdf

Believe it or not there are people in the legislature that actually are working to put more hunters in the field when hunter numbers are declining. Everyone in Lansing is not lining their pockets as someone elses expense.

Thanks for clearing things up Brady. I wasn't at the March NRC meeting but I did read the minutes and it appears that the crossbow issue is moving forward. They are now posted on the DNR's website for those who are interested.

[Whit1]

I wasn't at the March NRC meeting but I did read the minutes and it appears that the crossbow issue is moving forward. They are now posted on the DNR's website for those who are interested.

Link to the minutes and the page where it is posted on the DNR's website please!

[Riva]

Link to the minutes and the page where it is posted on the DNR's website please!

The agenda is posted but can't find the minutes. From past experience, the minutes are usually not posted for a couple of weeks after the meeting.

Here was the agenda: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/agnAPR07_228811_7.pdf

[skipper34]

How does one provide "hard data" proving selfishness and greed? This is the opposition to crossbows proponents' true driving force. There are, sadly, some who view deer hunting as a competition. Hunter against hunter.

[November Sunrise]

I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities.

From the DNR's annual Michigan Deer Harvest Reports:

1998: 380,583 archery hunters
2006: 309,140 archery hunters

Opening crossbow use to all hunters will not even come close to permitting us to regain the 70,000 archery hunters that we've lost, but there's a solid likelihood that it will at least slow down the decline in numbers. It's even possible that it will lead to a mild increase of 20,000 to 30,000 more hunters in the short term.

[November Sunrise]

We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up.

I'm reasonably well versed in survey methodology and research, so I recognize that polls on this web forum are not exactly candidates for research publications in the world of academia.

Nonetheless, as you're aware, there have been numerous polls on this forum that have gauged the support of hunters in respect to making crossbows legal for everyone. They may not meet textbook requirements of survey methodology but they do mean something, and the level of support you see on here is real. Everything that I've seen on this forum and in conversations with many hunters indicates that a strong support level of crossbow use for all hunters is very real.

Keep that in mind as you go through this process because you're going to be submitted to an organized campaign of emails and phone calls that could give the impression that archers as a whole are against this. Now, I recognize that mini campaigns by organized opposition groups is something you've undoubtedly experienced many times in the political process, but since I've observed these schemes have an impact on crossbow legislation in other states, I thought that it would make sense just to provide you with a forewarning, even at the risk of stating the obvious:).

[Riva]

I'm reasonably well versed in survey methodology and research, so I recognize that polls on this web forum are not exactly candidates for research publications in the world of academia.

Nonetheless, as you're aware, there have been numerous polls on this forum that have gauged the support of hunters in respect to making crossbows legal for everyone. They may not meet textbook requirements of survey methodology but they do mean something, and the level of support you see on here is real. Everything that I've seen on this forum and in conversations with many hunters indicates that a strong support level of crossbow use for all hunters is very real.

Keep that in mind as you go through this process because you're going to be submitted to an organized campaign of emails and phone calls that could give the impression that archers as a whole are against this. Now, I recognize that mini campaigns by organized opposition groups is something you've undoubtedly experienced many times in the political process, but since I've observed these schemes have an impact on crossbow legislation in other states, I thought that it would make sense just to provide you with a forewarning, even at the risk of stating the obvious:).

Great response NS.

They have already put all their cards on the table for everybody to see. In fact, here's a link to it: http://www.nabowhuntingcoalition.com/BowhuntingIssues.html (http://www.nabowhuntingcoalition.com/BowhuntingIssues.html). >>.Clink on link to: "Crossbow Talking Points"

Still, to your point, it's good to be prepared for the inevitable, that is, if the discussion ever gets around to allowing unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season.

Frankly, I don't think that the Anti Crossbow Society (ASC) desires to debate the merits of unrestricted crossbow use whatsoever. The reason for that is they know that they can, and probably will, lose that battle. So, rather than expose themselves to that possibility, they avoid the "big battle" and aggressively try to retard any smaller discussion toward expansion of crossbow use whenever and wherever it may emerge. Case in point; the current process surrounding expansion of the criteria that will allow a person with a disability to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. They know that if they can stunt that effort, the less likely it will be to create a dialogue regarding unrestricted use of crossbows overall. As I stated before, it's actually some pretty smart thinking the ACS's part, that is, if it wasn't so egregiously immoral.

Think about it...The ABS has gone on record stating that they oppose expanding the criteria that will allow a disabled person to hunt with a crossbow. By its own definition, this means that some may meet the narrowly defined criteria but most will not. Yet, there is a 100% certainty that there will be some within the latter category (not meeting the criteria), that are still unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound bow. They know this, endorse this, and, accept it simply as the price somebody must pay in order to keep crossbows out of the archery season. Is "egregious" too much of a word to describe this type of immoral behavior? I think not.

I don't have a dog in the fight regarding the effort to allow unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season. I do however; have a dog in the fight regarding this expansion of the criteria for persons with a disability to have the opportunity to be an equal participant in Michigan’s archery season. And, the answer is to have NO criteria other than requiring an individual obtain and produce a letter from one's personal physician (NOT a physical therapist) stating that in his/her profession opinion, the individual has a temporary or permanent disability that is of a degree of severity that render the person unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound bow!

This gets the government out of the "criteria" business and keeps these highly personal and private matters where they belong, specifically: between the individual and your personal physician.

That's it. It's that simple. Plus, it's the right thing to do!

And let me resond to the ABS even before they pose their inevitable, predictable diatribibe: This isn't about me wanting to hunt with a crossbow. The fact is, I already hunt with a crossbow because I meet the current medical criteria and have an 80% permanent disabity (and, it's none of your frick'n business what it is). So, that dog wont hunt.

And, for the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with a crossbow manufacturer nor any other industry that could benefit from an expansion in crossow use. Again look elsewhere because that dog too, wont hunt!

I'm doing this, because, at the end of the day, it's the right thing to do!

[awshucks]

RE: NABC "Talking Points"

Think they got Arkansas wrong. The 06-07 deer harvest was up 25% over previous year, 4 deer limit, not counting extra does or urban permits, I was able to hunt from 10/01 to 02/28. The vert crowd took 10,614 deer while xbows got 4,608 out of a total kill of 165,663 deer.

edited to add link: http://www.agfc.com/!userfiles/pdfs/reports/deer_report_2006-07.pdf page 10

[awshucks]

Here's two links on what's going on in Va. with xbows. They went full inclusion a few years ago and are doing well.

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife...estsummary.asp (http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/deer/harvestsummary.asp)
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...ex_html?page=1 (http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/022007/02152007/259896/index_html?page=1)

[hda31]

great work guys, just wonderin if theres somewhere we can look up more information on this issue???

[Whit1]

Here's a report about a survey done in New Jersey concerning crossbows.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2008/xbowsurvey07.pdf

As for there being other sources of information, as asked above the answer is "Yes". There's a ton of it out there.

Three years ago the only way the issue of crossbows crossed my mind is as a moderator. When I'd see (most of the other mods feel the same way) a crossbow thread my first reaction was "Oh no!" Any crossbow thread was a sure sign of trouble brewing.

After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.

I was particularly curious about the claim by anti-crossbow guys and gals that if crossbows were legalized for MI's bow season we would see an influx of thousands (the phrase "hundreds of thousands" was used recently) and the deer herd would be wiped out (as posted by someone from the Thumb area last December).

"Did these claims have any basis in facts?", I asked myself. It didn't take long for me to discover that the answer to that question was a resounding "No". Those claims were........and still are......all smokescreen.

Through a couple of members on the site Wall-eye, Munster, Riva, as well as a few others I learned. Those guys caused me to sit back and take stock of what was going on here in Michigan. I was especially concerned over the 80% disability requirement and how it excluded over 90% of all those who are disabled in one way or another.

Recently I was accused of, to paraphrase, picking on bowhunters. That is not what I'm doing at all. Maybe it's a penchant that I have for cheering for the underdog, maybe it stems from guilt feelings over the many years I spent being so unaware or lacking of caring. I don't know.

What I do know is that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and right.

[NoWake]

http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Georgia Study Link
Georgia Crossbow Study

Georgia Crossbow Study Dispels Many Myths

By Bob McNitt

Following its decision to legalize hunting with crossbows, starting with the 2002 archery season, the State of Georgia's DNR has kept accurate records to reflect the impact the decision would have, on both the deer and the hunting community. Following the two-year study, the data collected dispelled several myths regarding the horizontal bow's impact on the resource and the hunting force.

In a report prepared by Nick Nicholson, Senior Wildlife Biologist for the DNR, the number of archery deer hunters and archery deer harvest increased significantly by 11.6-percent and 44.3-percent, respectively, during the 2003-04 season. Statewide, 36.7-percent of all deer hunters hunted with archery equipment during the 2003-04 season.

In 2003-04 there were about 9,300 additional archers, the majority of that increase being attributed to crossbow legalization. However, the data indicated that any additional deer harvest attributed to the legalization of crossbows was not significant at a statewide level. Nicholson notes, "If we assume all additional archers hunted with crossbows and the 0.49 deer per hunter harvest rate for crossbows is additive, then about 4,550 additional deer would be attributed to these new archery (crossbow) hunters."

The success rate for crossbows (0.49 deer/hunter) proved to be comparable to that of compound bows (0.51 deer/hunter). The survey indicates that 78.5-percent of archers use compounds. "It is less likely that a traditional archer would switch to a crossbow," Nicholson wrote. "Even if they did, the traditional archer success rate (0.46 deer/hunter) is only slightly lower than that of crossbow hunters. The data showed that older archers are more likely to report hunting with a crossbow. Archers over 50 years old were significantly more likely to report using a crossbow than archers under 50 years old."

Nicholson also notes that "The debate among hunters about legalization of crossbows is reminiscent of a similar debate on the 1977-78 legalization of compound bows. The technological leap from recurve bows to compound bows was much greater than the current move to crossbows. (Crossbows actually are more "primitive" than compound bows, having been around since the fourth century BC.) Crossbows provide the opportunity for older archers to participate in archery deer hunting longer. They also introduce additional hunters into the sport of archery. It is likely that many of them will seek increased archery hunting challenges and change to compound or recurve bows. Recruiting new archers and retaining older ones is a positive event for all hunters."

For more information visit the Georgia DNR website.
http://www.gadnr.org/index.html (http://www.gadnr.org/index.html)

http://www.realtree.com/community/n...tail.tpl?ID=709 (http://www.realtree.com/community/news-detail.tpl?ID=709)

[Liv4Huntin']

Here's a report about a survey done in New Jersey concerning crossbows.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2008/xbowsurvey07.pdf

As for there being other sources of information, as asked above the answer is "Yes". There's a ton of it out there.

Three years ago the only way the issue of crossbows crossed my mind is as a moderator. When I'd see (most of the other mods feel the same way) a crossbow thread my first reaction was "Oh no!" Any crossbow thread was a sure sign of trouble brewing.

After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.

I was particularly curious about the claim by anti-crossbow guys and gals that if crossbows were legalized for MI's bow season we would see an influx of thousands (the phrase "hundreds of thousands" was used recently) and the deer herd would be wiped out (as posted by someone from the Thumb area last December).

"Did these claims have any basis in facts?", I asked myself. It didn't take long for me to discover that the answer to that question was a resounding "No". Those claims were........and still are......all smokescreen.

Through a couple of members on the site Wall-eye, Munster, Riva, as well as a few others I learned. Those guys caused me to sit back and take stock of what was going on here in Michigan. I was especially concerned over the 80% disability requirement and how it excluded over 90% of all those who are disabled in one way or another.

Recently I was accused of, to paraphrase, picking on bowhunters. That is not what I'm doing at all. Maybe it's a penchant that I have for cheering for the underdog, maybe it stems from guilt feelings over the many years I spent being so unaware or lacking of caring. I don't know.

What I do know is that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and right.

EXCELLENT, Whit1 !! I applaud you heartily !!
~ m ~

[NoWake]

The Kentucky dept. of fish and wildlife hired Cornell University to do a study on crossbow expansion. As a result the 2006 hunting season was the first year for a broad expansion.

Here is a link for the final report: Epansion Study (http://fw.ky.gov/pdf/crossbowfinalreport.pdf)

Here is a link for harvest reports for Kentucky's 2006 deer season: Harvest Report (http://fw.ky.gov/harvest/deerharvest.asp)

[Riva]

great work guys, just wonderin if theres somewhere we can look up more information on this issue???

This organization spearheaded the efforts to change the laws in many states regarding persons with disabilities using crossbows. Their "hammer" if you will, to bring focus on these issues was principally rooted in and with The American with Disabilities Act (ADA). While this organization is not as active as before, as you can see by some of the outdated material on their website, their approach to these matters, then and now, is 100% spot on! http://www.disabledrights.org/

And, by the way, Whit1, you are also 100% spot on with your comments about "that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and right."

That said, allow me to apply a homphone to the last word in your sentence:

Rite: The form for conducting a ceremony, i.e. "The annual rite of Michigan's archery season."

Right: An entitlement; a direction; accurate or correct, i.e. " You have a right to participate as an equal in the annual rite of Michigan's archery season."

Write: to enscribe; form letters; compose text, i.e. "You need to write the NRC to ensure your right to participate equally in the annual rite of Michigan's archery season."

Am I right?

[Munsterlndr]

From the DNR's annual Michigan Deer Harvest Reports:

1998: 380,583 archery hunters
2006: 309,140 archery hunters

Opening crossbow use to all hunters will not even come close to permitting us to regain the 70,000 archery hunters that we've lost, but there's a solid likelihood that it will at least slow down the decline in numbers. It's even possible that it will lead to a mild increase of 20,000 to 30,000 more hunters in the short term.
Lets keep in mind that during that same time period that we lost 71,000 archery hunters we also lost 155,000 firearms hunters. That means that 226,000 more hunters participated in deer season just ten short years ago, roughly a 25% reduction in deer hunter numbers.

And vertical bow hunters think that crossbows bringing some of those 226,000 Michigan hunters back into deer hunting would be a bad thing? :coco:

[November Sunrise]

After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.

I've hunted for about a decade with a compound, I've went out a handful of times in Ohio with a crossbow, and I've taken my oldest children out extensively (25+ times) on hunts in Ohio where they've been using a crossbow.

The clear benefit of hunting with a crossbow as compared to a long bow is not having to draw and hold back while a deer is nearby. This becomes an increasingly significant benefit once all of the foliage is down late in the fall. Also, without extensive practice, a crossbow is easier for the average person to be accurate with at short distances (under 25 yards).

The primary drawback to hunting with a crossbow as compared to a longbow is that crossbows are a major pain in the rear to handle in a tree stand - big, bulky, and awkward are the nicest words I'd use to describe them. In addition, they're also much louder than a longbow and don't offer a reasonable ability for a second shot. While second shots are admittedly not common with a longbow, most longbow users (including myself) have on occasion been able to get second shots, but there's almost no likelihood of that occurring with a crossbow.

Those are the primary differences that I've experienced.

[awshucks]

A little more info:

Here's a compilation of harvest data for those interested:
condensed from "The Crossbow is Here to Stay by C.J. Winard
The states of Arkansas (1973) and Ohio (1976) have one of the longest running crossbow seasons. Both states allow vertical bow and crossbows within the same archery season. In 1989, the crossbow deer harvest in Ohio exceeded the vertical bow harvest for the first time. This same trend has continued. In 2004, crossbow hunters took about 29,000 deer (58 percent) and vertical bowhunters took 21,000 (42 percent). Additionally, both crossbow and vertical bow hunters enjoy about 1.8 millions recreational days each.
In 1994, Ohio established urban deer units. Deer in these urban areas were prone to under-harvest and overabundance. Typically, these areas account for five percent of the total deer harvest. Once established, crossbows accounted for about 35 percent of all deer harvested in these urban areas. By comparison, crossbow hunters take 15 percent of the total deer harvest outside the urban areas, while vertical bowhunters take 10 percent. Overall, the success rate between crossbow and vertical bowhunters are similar, averaging about 14 percent.
In Arkansas, the latest survey indicates a success rate of 12 percent for crossbows, while vertical bowhunters enjoy a 17 percent success rate. Last year’s data shows that Arkansas crossbow hunters only took 3.3 percent of the total deer harvest, while vertical bowhunters took 6.6 percent. Interestingly, this data has been consistent through the last number of years. Participation rates for Arkansas and Ohio have also been similar, increasing from less than five percent in the early 1980s to over 35 percent of all deer hunters.
Data from deer biologists in both states say, “Contrary to claims by anti-crossbow groups of herd decimation and severe restrictions on hunting opportunity and harvest, neither one of our states have modified our respective regulations as a result of the crossbow. Modern firearms have and will always account for the majority of the harvest and have the greatest impact on deer populations in both Ohio and Arkansas.”
Although each state has large differences in crossbow harvest, the data clearly states that crossbows are not causing any negative impacts on their deer herds. In fact, the opposite is true, especially in the area of urban deer management. Data from Ohio also suggests that about 20 percent of all bowhunters hunt with both vertical and crossbows. It’s believed many of these hunters use their vertical bows in the early season and then switch to the crossbows for the late season.
The state of Georgia made crossbows legal during the archery season in 2002. Wildlife biologist, Nick Nicholson of the Georgia DNR reports that during the second year of crossbow use an estimated 9,300 new archery hunters participated in the archery deer season. The vast majority of these new crossbow hunters, or over 6,900 hunters, indicated that they were new to archery hunting.
Additionally, Nicholson reports a large portion of these crossbow hunters were over 50 years old. Many of these folks were most likely retired archery hunters who came back to archery hunting through the use of crossbows. The Ohio data also reflects a crossbow preference among older hunters. They found that among regular (non-senior) archery hunters, participation mirrored the harvest. Approximately 55 percent of archers hunted with a crossbow and 45 percent used a vertical bow. However, among senior hunters, the split was closer to 80:20 in favor of crossbows.
The Georgia data from 2003-04 indicates that the number of crossbow hunters comprised 24.8 percent of all archery hunters (or, 1 crossbow hunter per 4 compound / traditional bowhunter) and 9.1 percent of all hunters. The Georgia DNR also calculated the success rate of crossbow hunters. Crossbow hunters took 21.8 percent of the total archery harvest and only 2.6 percent of the total deer harvest. When you compare the success rate of crossbow hunters (.49 deer per hunter) with compound / traditional hunters (.51 deer per hunter) the data is almost identical. These results suggest whatever additional deer are taken with crossbows are not significant on a statewide basis. In fact, with the very liberal deer season limit in Georgia, any additional deer taken with whatever weapon is most welcomed.
In addition to Arkansas, Ohio and Georgia the states of Alabama (2004), Kentucky and Virginia (2005), and Wyoming (no one knows the actual year crossbows were legalized crossbows, evidently, it’s always been on the books as a legal weapon) allow crossbows during the entire archery season. In these states the bow season has not been shorten or restricted. In fact, some of these states have increased their archery season length and bag limits due to burgeoning deer populations

In addition to that, Wi, Md, and most recently, Il. have opened up xbows for "seasoned" archery hunters.
Wi added them in 2002 had 5,976 tags sold.
in 2005 had 9,974 " "

Md added for 03-04 had 699 tags sold
05-06 had 1,798 " "

[both of the above are for over 65]

These are the most recent stats I have, and of course none are available yet for Ill.
[over 62]

[Luv2hunteup]

Here you go Whit. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Minutes_3-8-08_231280_7.pdf

CROSSBOW DISABILITY WORK GROUP

Present for the Work Group

John Madigan, Co-Chair
J.R. Richardson, Co-Chair
Mike Bailey
Rex Darlington
Cecelia Gilson
Jane Gordon
Jeff Johnstone
Chuck Jordan
Jerry Keck
Dennis Knapp
Bruce Levey
Ashley Mckellar
Tim Minge
Doug Miron
Brian Osterwalder
Bill Pemble
Merle Shepard
Stan Sokolowski
Patricia Spitzley
Amy Spray
Jim Trinklein
Mark Velthouse
Tom Wilming

Work Group Chairman John Madigan convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m.

Chair Madigan recognized Brady Schickinger from Representative Sheltrown’s
Office.

The following information and documents were reviewed:

• Current Permit Application for crossbows and modified bows
• Current crossbow law (451 PA 1994, Section 324.40114)
• Current crossbow regulations (Wildlife Conservation Order, 5.95)
• Archery Trade Association – Fundamentals of Crossbow Dynamics and Usage
• House Bill 5741 of 2007
• Archery Trade Association Crossbow Position Statement

Currently, Dennis Knapp said the law only allows the State to issue permits to
permanently disabled individuals.

Increased funding to the Game and Fish Protection Fund is not the objective of this
Work Group.

Cecelia Gilson, DNR’s administrator for the crossbow program, reviewed the
requirements to qualify for a crossbow permit. Currently, an individual must have
Natural Resources Commission Minutes
Page 13
March 6, 2008

certification by a physician of a spinal cord injury above C-8 or an amputation, or, by a
physical therapist’s evaluation certification that an individual is 80 percent or more
disabled.

Approximately 2000 crossbow permit applications are received per year. One to two
percent are denied or are not eligible. Those who apply for a modified bow generally are
issued one. Jane Gordon would like this issue reviewed and possibly remove the
conservation officers from issuing permits.

Crossbow Permits issued to date:

19,495 Indefinite permits exist
2,300 2-year permits
For Seniors 65 and older: 8,859
2-year permits for Seniors 65 and older is 1,024

Stan Sokolowsi said he has arthritis in his chest and that a physical therapist is unable
to measure his pain.

Jerry Keck asked if there is any way to track if a crossbow permit is being utilized or if a
permit holder is deceased. Ms. Gilson responded that there is no means of determining
if a crossbow permittee utilizes their permit. However, she will be able to determine how
many crossbow permit holders buy a hunting license. She noted that there is no way to
determine if permittees are deceased.

Dennis Knapp reviewed other state/province crossbow regulations. In tallying up the 50
states only, following is the breakdown:

1 state has no recognized crossbow season
22 states allow crossbows if physically challenged only or have a special permit
16 states allow crossbows for all hunters in specified or gun seasons
11 states allow for all hunters in archery season

Bruce Levey stated that bow hunters are concerned that if the age is lowered, it will
continue to go lower, and they believe that age is not a disability.

Chuck Jordan noted that in states which allow using crossbows during archery season,
the harvest is low during that season.

Discussion ensued relative to age versus disabled.

Mike Bailey, Wildlife Division, said it is important to consider the effects on the
resource of allowing crossbows during the bow season. It is important to increase
recreational opportunities while maintaining protection of the resource.

Mark Velthouse said a lot of attention goes to crossbows when training young and old
because it’s easy and draws attention.

Bruce Levey said there are other species to hunt in Michigan and suggested the use of
crossbows for these other species.
Natural Resources Commission Minutes
Page 14
March 6, 2008


Amy Spray questioned whether the efficiency of the weapon is factored in developing
deer harvest numbers. Mr. Bailey said the weapon type cannot be factored in at this
time. Discussion ensued.

Doug Miron noted there may be some who would hunt with crossbow but do not want to
hunt in later seasons when colder weather sets in.

Commissioner Richardson said age and disability should be separate considerations
during the discussions in this Work Group.

Ms. Gilson reported that students from Saginaw Valley College are developing a
standardized form for all physical therapists to utilize when evaluating an individual for
crossbow eligibility. The current application is vague.

Chairman Madigan went around the room and asked everyone to identify their one
priority issue that they would like addressed by the Work Group:

Bruce Levey recommended getting modified bow included into the process to help
those who have temporary issues, i.e., develop a “temporary permit.”

Jerry Keck wants to see everyone who needs help will get help and also wants to
preserve the integrity of bow season in Michigan.

Bill Pemble recommended standardization of the permit qualifications for all physical
therapists.

Merle Shepard said hunters are part of the resource. Focus needs to be given to
disabled hunters and getting the permit done, then decide whether age is a disability at a
later date.

Cecelia Gilson encourages standardizing the physical therapist’s format; define
disabilities that cannot be evaluated by a physical therapist; and make the physician a
larger part of process.

Mark Velthouse would like to see more consistency in the permitting and more
opportunities for individuals to hunt with a crossbow.

Mike Bailey asked for standardized permitting procedures to allow for increased
opportunities and to not endanger the resource.

Dennis Knapp emphasized the need to recruit and retain hunters.

Jane Gordon stated that the Law Enforcement Division wants to do what is best for
hunters and resource groups and suggested separating the crossbow from modified bow
permits.

Jeff Osterwalder asked for standardized permitting criteria, and to discuss the age
issue in the future.

Natural Resources Commission Minutes
Page 15
March 6, 2008

Doug Miron is interested in considering permitting seniors without disabilities.

Brian Osterwalder wants to recruit and retain hunters.

Stan Sokolowski would like the regulations changed for everyone.

Amy Spray said MUCC has no official policy but personally would like to see expanded
opportunities and to look at permanent versus temporary permits.

Rex Darlington wants to improve handicap accessibility and the ability to hunt with a
crossbow without a crossbow permit.

Chuck Jordan wants to increase the opportunity to hunt without impacting the
resources.

Tim Minge has no opinion at this time.

Ashley McKellar recommended standardizing the permitting process in determining
“disability” and at the same time preserving the integrity of Michigan’s bow hunting. She
does not support an age factor.

Merle Shepard encouraged the Work Group to stay focused on the charge of the Work
Group as reviewed earlier.

Dr. Tom Wilming requested a better definition of “disabled.”

Comments from those not on the Work Group were:

Ed Beckley supports recruitment and retention with an age limit.

Ed Beckley recommends setting an age limit and allowing hunting with a crossbow after
that age limit without a permit. He also recommended standardized procedures for
crossbow permitting.

Jim Lubkowitz recommended simplification of the permitting process and creating a
hunter’s choice process.

Tim Klein recommended streamlining the permitting process and allowing the
permanently disabled a “hunters choice” weapon.

Judy Jordan suggested better definition of “disability.”

Dan Leonard suggested making the crossbow a weapon of choice.

Millard Holton qualifies for a crossbow but would like to know how many with permits
are actually alive or hunting with a crossbow.

Greg Sokolowski recommended streamlining the permitting process and lowering the
disability requirements. He asked for equal access.

Natural Resources Commission Minutes
Page 16
March 6, 2008

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

[Whit1]

Thanks Luv2

[swampbuck]

just a reminder that.....

The nrc can not remove the disability requirement for x-bows in archery season. that can only be done by the legislature.

If you want the disability requirement modified contact the nrc, It wouldnt hurt to pass along your thoughts on full inclusion also.

If you want full access to crossbows in archery, you should lobby the House committee and your representative.

http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=Tourism,%20Outdoor %20Recreation%20and%20Natural%20Resources

[Joe Archer]

From the DNR's annual Michigan Deer Harvest Reports:

1998: 380,583 archery hunters
2006: 309,140 archery hunters

Opening crossbow use to all hunters will not even come close to permitting us to regain the 70,000 archery hunters that we've lost, but there's a solid likelihood that it will at least slow down the decline in numbers. It's even possible that it will lead to a mild increase of 20,000 to 30,000 more hunters in the short term.
I think the overall decline in hunting numbers is a much more of a problem, than is the decline in archery hunters. It is a national problem, and not just something that we are seeing in Michigan. Quoting the same report that you refer to; (graph on page 12) http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/deer_06harvest_198710_7.pdf
from 1997 to the present we have lost 200,000 rifle hunters. Archery hunters have always been a sub-group of firearms hunters with the vast majority of archery hunters purchasing both firearms and archery permits.
I sincerely doubt that allowing cross-bows will have a significant impact on new hunter recruitment, but it will allow the dwindling number of hunters who participate to do so in both seasons. As I have stated earlier, as long as this does not have a negative effect on season length or current archery regulations; it is fine by me.
<----<<<

[Munsterlndr]

I think the overall decline in hunting numbers is a much more of a problem, than is the decline in archery hunters. It is a national problem, and not just something that we are seeing in Michigan.


There is an overall decline in hunting nationally but it is almost overwhelmingly a decline in Small Game hunter Numbers. Deer Hunter numbers are not declining in every state. For example Ohio, had about 220,000 deer hunters in 1980 and they had very close to 500,000 in 2005. Since 1982 Crossbows have played an important role in the recruitment to the ranks of archery deer hunters in Ohio.

[Kurt4253]

Hey there awshucks, - good to see you come on board here. I have read some of your postings on other sites & yo have a lot of REALLY good FACTS & DATA to share. --- SOOOO KEEP IT COMING

Kurt

[Kurt4253]

After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.

"Did these claims have any basis in facts?", I asked myself. It didn't take long for me to discover that the answer to that question was a resounding "No". Those claims were........and still are......all smokescreen.

What I do know is that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and right.

Very well said Whit 1, --- the FACTS & DATA, as well as INTEREST show that ultimately, - in the end, - FULL INCLUSION is the ONLY real & justifiable conclusion. --- Anything else only serves personal views of "special interest" on the foundations of prejudice discrimination.

Kurt

[Riva]

just a reminder that.....

The nrc can not remove the disability requirement for x-bows in archery season. that can only be done by the legislature.

If you want the disability requirement modified contact the nrc, It wouldnt hurt to pass along your thoughts on full inclusion also.

If you want full access to crossbows in archery, you should lobby the House committee and your representative.

http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=Tourism,%20Outdoor %20Recreation%20and%20Natural%20Resources

Feel free to cut and paste then MAIL!

Your name
Your address
C,S, Zip

April 14, 2008

Representitive Joel Sheltrown
House of Representatives
State of Michigan
S1387 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909

RE: HB 5741, Eligibility Requirements for a Crossbow Hunting Permit

Representative Sheltrown:

The State of Michigan has established that a crossbow is a reasonable accommodation that will allow a person with a disability to hunt game during the established hunting seasons. Currently, the Natural Resources Commission as well as your Committee in the Michigan House, is considering expanding the criteria that defines a disability and/or its degree of severity in order to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow. I applaud this noble effort however; it is my contention that the very manner and methodology surrounding the efforts to establish new and/or expanded criteria to be, in and of itself, fundamentally flawed and, I respectfully suggest that this entire line of thinking should be abandoned.

It’ s a fact that the way that the Michigan system is set up, regardless of any broadening of the definitions, will still result in people with certain disabilities from being ineligible for a crossbow permit. This fact denies them a fundamental right that is granted them under the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The only reasonable way to avoid having individuals fall through the cracks, and thus avoiding a violation of the ADA, is to totally do away with “specific” criteria and leave the determination up to a licensed physician, a method that is currently used by many of the states that make provisions for the use of a crossbow by disabled hunters. Anything short of this is going to set the stage for a judicial determination of the legality of excluding those with certain disabilities from the right to have the opportunity to become an equal participant during any/all of the established hunting seasons.

Furthermore, by doing away with specific criteria your policy should then state that, for a person with a disability to obtain a permit to take game with a crossbow, the individual merely be required to obtain and produce a letter from their own personal physician (not a physical therapist) stating that in his/her professional opinion, the applicant has either a permanent and/or temporary condition of a degree of severity that render him/her unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound-bow.

Again, this places the onus of defining, establishing and, determining the degree of severity of a disability squarely on the shoulders of the applicant and the physician and not the government. Of equal importance, is the fact that these matters, which are of a highly personal nature, will be kept within in a totally-confidential, doctor-patient environment and not in the public domain.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts and recommendations with you.

Respectfully yours,

your name

[Whit1]

RE: HB 5741, Eligibility Requirements for a Crossbow Hunting Permit
Representative Sheltron:
The State of Michigan has established that a crossbow is a reasonable accommodation that will allow a person with a disability to hunt game during the established hunting seasons. Currently, the Natural Resources Commission as well as your Committee in the Michigan House, is considering expanding the criteria that defines a disability and/or its degree of severity in order to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow. I applaud this noble effort however; it is my contention that the very manner and methodology surrounding the efforts to establish new and/or expanded criteria to be, in and of itself, fundamentally flawed and, I respectfully suggest that this entire line of thinking should be abandoned.
It’ s a fact that the way that the Michigan system is set up, regardless of any broadening of the definitions, will still result in people with certain disabilities from being ineligible for a crossbow permit. This fact denies them a fundamental right that is granted them under the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The only reasonable way to avoid having individuals fall through the cracks, and thus avoiding a violation of the ADA, is to totally do away with “specific” criteria and leave the determination up to a licensed physician, a method that is currently used by many of the states that make provisions for the use of a crossbow by disabled hunters. Anything short of this is going to set the stage for a judicial determination of the legality of excluding those with certain disabilities from the right to have the opportunity to become an equal participant during any/all of the established hunting seasons.
Furthermore, by doing away with specific criteria your policy should then state that, for a person with a disability to obtain a permit to take game with a crossbow, the individual merely be required to obtain and produce a letter from their own personal physician (not a physical therapist) stating that in his/her professional opinion, the applicant has either a permanent and/or temporary condition of a degree of severity that render him/her unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound-bow.
Again, this places the onus of defining, establishing and, determining the degree of severity of a disability squarely on the shoulders of the applicant and the physician and not the government. Of equal importance, is the fact that these matters, which are of a highly personal nature, will be kept within in a totally-confidential, doctor-patient environment and not in the public domain.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts and recommendations with you.
Respectfully yours,
your name

Let me see if I can get this down to a nutshell.

It is your contention that the government should not be installing itself as a monitering/determining agency that steps into the personal lives of free individuals, but rather the decision be left to the individual AND his or her personal physician.

In other words you are advocating that the government stay the hell out of a person's life as far as a medical condition and how severe it is (or not).

Is that about right..........or is it write........hmmmm!......maybe rite?....:lol:

This sounds like a very conservative concept that, one might think, would appeal to many, many sportsmen and women as indicated by what I have seen and heard over the years.

By the way, when did MI first institute a crossbow permit system? I assume that it was not too long after 1990.

[Riva]

Let me see if I can get this down to a nutshell.

It is your contention that the government should not be installing itself as a monitering/determining agency that steps into the personal lives of free individuals, but rather the decision be left to the individual AND his or her personal physician.

In other words you are advocating that the government stay the hell out of a person's life as far as a medical condition and how severe it is (or not).

Is that about right..........or is it write........hmmmm!......maybe rite?....:lol:

This sounds like a very conservative concept that, one might think, would appeal to many, many sportsmen and women as indicated by what I have seen and heard over the years.

By the way, when did MI first institute a crossbow permit system? I assume that it was not too long after 1990.

As I recall, the first crossbow permits were issues in 1995, perhap earlier. The review process took several years before that.

What I am advocating is the government should not establish ANY criteria surrounding people with a disability because there is a 100% certainty that someone will fall through the cracks. Bt "falling through the cracks", I mean thay a person has disability that is (1) not of the "type" or (2) degree of severity, that entitles them to obtain a crossbow permit yet still, cannot pull and or hold a long-, or compound bow.

The ONLY way to avoid that type of discrimination is to abolish the criteria with one exception....
That in order to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow, a person simply obtain and produce a letter from ones personal physician (not physical therapist) attesting to the fact that, in his/her professionional opinion, the applicant has a temporary or permanent disability od a suffiect degree of sevcerity that render the person unable to pull or hold a lon-, or compound bow.

IT'S THE ONLY WAY, otherwise, the State of Michigan would not be in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. "So what", you say. Well, I'll tell you what it could mean...It could mean the suspension of the entire archery season unless/until the discrimination is remedied. Think it couldn't happen? Ask the folks putting in the new seats at the UM stadium if it can't happen. Also, it could mean the loss of Federal Wildlife funds. Think things are tight now? Lose those ducats and we are in some serious hurt, baby!

BTW, did it occur to anybody why the Anti Crossbow Society (ACS) now advocates that the evaluation be conducted solely by a physical therapist? Hmmmm? Could it be that they know that this test would be 100% discretionery and not covererd under someone's medical insurance unless you have a pre- existing condition and its prescribed by a doctor? In other words, forcing you to spend perhaps hundreds of dollars on a test that in all likelihood, only the most severely-disabled would pass (or "fail" as it would be better defined). Most folks don't have those kinds of funds to "roll the dice" and the ACS knows it! Oh, what a evil web we weave....

Folks.....Write, for the right to be in the rite!!

[weatherby]

Good news

[beervo2]

Riva, great letter it's been mailed !!!!

[swampbuck]

riva,

Why are you opposed to full inclusion for everyone?

Rep. Sheltrown is now researching full inclusion and we have a good chance of it happening. You seem to be making a very eloquent attempt to divert the focus from full inclusion to maintaining the limiting of crossbow to persons with a disability only.

Do you have a sound reason to deny able bodied people the right to use crossbows in archery season? Or are you of the same opinion as the "acs" or mbha except for the lower disability level. You indicated that you would support full inclusion in a previous post if it was proposed. While a proposal hasnt been written, It has been made clear by Brady that it is on the table. As far as we know your proposal has not even reached that level.

So what is it. Do you as a permit holder see a reason why we all shouldnt have the crossbow option. Or does it go back to the same old my season, my spot, my deer thing. or maybe its because if we could all use x-bows that would mean that handicap persons would no longer have the exclusive right to use crossbows.

You letter was well written, I hope that those who support the full inclusion of crossbows read it and understand that it does not support full inclusion and only serves to maintain the status quo.

riva [quote] "Frankly, I don't think that the Anti Crossbow Society (ASC) desires to debate the merits of unrestricted crossbow use whatsoever. The reason for that is they know that they can, and probably will, lose that battle. So, rather than expose themselves to that possibility, they avoid the "big battle" and aggressively try to retard any smaller discussion toward expansion of crossbow use whenever and wherever it may emerge. Case in point; the current process surrounding expansion of the criteria that will allow a person with a disability to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. They know that if they can stunt that effort, the less likely it will be to create a dialogue regarding unrestricted use of crossbows overall. As I stated before, it's actually some pretty smart thinking the ACS's part, that is, if it wasn't so egregiously immoral"[quote] PRETTY SMART THINKING INDEED!

[Kurt4253]

Hello Riva

The very first thing I want to do is applaud you on your clearly evident passion for the disabled & your commitment to advocate for the rights of the disabled. I don't know, but can only speculate that this is the result of a disability that you have &/or the result of working with the disabled &/or having close family &/or friends with disabilities. Regardless of the reason, your cause & passion is a noble one.

However, I must respectfully disagree with your position that the crossbow be reserved ONLY to people with disabilities, - even under the conditions that you propose, - which if I understand correctly, - is to have NO defining criteria in the letter of the law, that defines a thresh hold (or point) at which a persons disability is so great, so as to constitute use of crossbow, - & rather a person only need have a letter from their doctor stating that it is their professional opinion that said person qualifies for disabled crossbow use.

There is no question about it, the ADA makes it CLEAR that the government (& its laws) MUST make exception & or provision for the disabled, - so that the disabled have the opportunity to equal participation in our social activities as people without disability. --- However, - when it comes to the crossbow, I believe, - without question, - that ANY law that restricts the use of the crossbow, - to ONLY those with a disability, whether it be a simple note from a doctor, or other law that defines disability "to qualify" is still a RESTRICTING law of prejudice &/or discrimination.

There just flat out is no REAL arguable reason why the average able bodied person should not be allowed to simply go buy an archery license & go hunting with a crossbow.

I come to this conclusion as the result of being a bow hunter for 37 years now. 30 of those years I hunted with NOTHING but a recurve. For the last 7 years I have hunted with crossbow, as a result of being qualified for disabled crossbow permit & I hold such a permit in 2 different states.

In the last 7 years of hunting with crossbow I have harvested 17 deer with my crossbow, - & here is the thing as to why I believe, - without question, - that ANY law that restricts the use of crossbow, - by ANYONE is a law that discriminates.

In 7 year & 17 deer harvested with crossbow, - NOT ONCE, - did my hunting with my crossbow give me an advantage over when I hunted with my recurve !!!!!! WHY ???????

Because the REAL TRUTH is that logistics is what ACTUALLY defines archery hunting, - NOT the equipment !!!! (& yes I understand that current law defines it by equipment) But that is "in fact" where the law is wrong !!!

The fact of the matter is that logistics really defines "THE HUNT" --- What I mean by logistics, - is the situation REQUIRED in order to "get & take" the shot to harvest the animal you are in pursuit of. --- This, - the logistics of the HUNT, - DOES NOT CHANGE, - when hunting with a crossbow.

My crossbow DOES NOT allow me to shoot a deer, - beyond, - the range, - of ANY current acceptable archery equipment. Therefore the deer MUST be within the SAME range as hunting with conventional excepted archery equipment. Also my crossbow gives me NO magic bullet. My shot MUST be as absolutely CLEAR of obstruction as ANY other archery equipment, - so again NO logistical advantage. - AND, - in order to set up the situation, - to get & take that shot, - I MUST put EXACTLY the SAME hunting SKILLS to work, - OR - I am going to go home hungry.

There is absolutely NOTHING that changes when it come to "getting & taking" the shot when hunting with a crossbow. --- Therefore, - WHY??? should it be regulated AT ALL???? --- Bow hunting is BY FAR, - more about the skill to "setup" to get & take the shot, - then it is about the equipment being used, - unless the equipment give a person some GREAT advantage, - & I am sorry, - but the crossbow DOES NOT give a person a GREAT advantage. --- SOOO to restrict its use, by ANYONE is prejudice discrimination. PERIOD

Kurt

[Kurt4253]

Good questions swampbuck & VERY well said

Kurt


riva,

Why are you opposed to full inclusion for everyone?

Rep. Sheltrown is now researching full inclusion and we have a good chance of it happening. You seem to be making a very eloquent attempt to divert the focus from full inclusion to maintaining the limiting of crossbow to persons with a disability only.

Do you have a sound reason to deny able bodied people the right to use crossbows in archery season? Or are you of the same opinion as the "acs" or mbha except for the lower disability level. You indicated that you would support full inclusion in a previous post if it was proposed. While a proposal hasnt been written, It has been made clear by Brady that it is on the table. As far as we know your proposal has not even reached that level.

So what is it. Do you as a permit holder see a reason why we all shouldnt have the crossbow option. Or does it go back to the same old my season, my spot, my deer thing. or maybe its because if we could all use x-bows that would mean that handicap persons would no longer have the exclusive right to use crossbows.

You letter was well written, I hope that those who support the full inclusion of crossbows read it and understand that it does not support full inclusion and only serves to maintain the status quo.

riva [quote] "Frankly, I don't think that the Anti Crossbow Society (ASC) desires to debate the merits of unrestricted crossbow use whatsoever. The reason for that is they know that they can, and probably will, lose that battle. So, rather than expose themselves to that possibility, they avoid the "big battle" and aggressively try to retard any smaller discussion toward expansion of crossbow use whenever and wherever it may emerge. Case in point; the current process surrounding expansion of the criteria that will allow a person with a disability to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. They know that if they can stunt that effort, the less likely it will be to create a dialogue regarding unrestricted use of crossbows overall. As I stated before, it's actually some pretty smart thinking the ACS's part, that is, if it wasn't so egregiously immoral"[quote] PRETTY SMART THINKING INDEED!

[Whit1]

Because the REAL TRUTH is that logistics is what ACTUALLY defines archery hunting, - NOT the equipment !!!!


One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?

[Kurt4253]

One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?

I am not sure I fully understand your question Whit 1. --- Have to head to work right now & will give it more thought.

Kurt

[awshucks]

One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?

Not sure if those "mindsets" can ever be rectified, however for those that hunt out of a ground blind or up in a tree 20-25' it starts to become a moot point. Anyone that has sat in a stand for 4-5 hrs knows those heavier xbows get just that, heavier. Laying them across your lap becomes uncomfortable, alot of times guys stand them up w/ the stirrup resting on the platform for their feet. Once you spot your quarry, you have to get them in position w/o getting busted, much like the vert guys having to draw. With todays high let off compounds, they can do so far in advance of taking the shot. Some stands have rails one can rest the hollow plastic stock of an xbow on. That's not the can of corn the opposers think it is as it's alot like trying not to play the drums while you hunt, every little movement makes alot of noise. And finally, it all goes back to the harvest stats. If their was a marked advantage, it would have showed up somewhere by now.

[awshucks]

Here's a post from another forum on a mind set that got altered. I think it says alot, imho.

Ouch!
As most here know I'm pro xbow. There was a time I wasn't. My first one was purchased to show everyone how I was going to slay the deer with this easy to shoot highly advantageous weapon. That never happened. I never even came close. Why? It's still a 30 yard deer weapon and that close range is the determining factor not anything else. Stats here in VA after the second year showed a less than 1% difference in success rates. The hype and negative things over xbows are for other reasons, not a hunting advantage.

I've been able to get my kids out with one, older guys I know are now looking forward to bow season, not gun season. And it generates some $$ for the state at a time when hunter participation is declining. Everyone without a personal agenda wins. After finishing year 3 here with one it's still much ado over nothing. There are bigger and more important issues to worry about than what some guy you'll never see is hunting with.

[Kurt4253]

Whit 1

I see awsucks posted a reply to your question, which I agree with!!! --- I have some more thoughts that I would like to add, but they will have to wait as I have to go into work early this morning. Will try to post later today, - or tomorrow.

Kurt

[Whit1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whit1 http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2089546#post2089546)
One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?



Kurt, maybe I should have said "How does one counter the mindset that states, "If you can't draw it on the game...................it isn't a bow"?

By the way, the mags arrived. Thanks a ton. I'll read them over and then take the to the high school library.

[Riva]

Some here have posed the question, why I am am opposed to unrestricted use of crossbows, "full inclusion", as some refer to it?

Let me respond by saying it is presumptuous to assume that I am opposed to this concept. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that I support the concept. The fact is, I have not stated my opinion on the matter, nor am I currently proactive in resolving these matters, either pro or con. I have my reasons for that and, for the moment, they'll stay private.

I am an advocate for dismantling and then restructuring the criteria surrounding a person with disability being able to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. At the moment, that is my sole agenda even though a legislative body is considering unrestricted use amongst other things, including the criteria issue I just mentioned. The basis for my argument is deeply rooted in the fact that:

-- The current (and proposed) criteria is overly-restrictive

-- Many disabled persons will not qualify yet still can not pull/hold a conventional bow-- which is discrimination

-- The ADA states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability (any disability!)

-- The DNR should not be in the business of defining disabilities.

-- The definition and determination of a disability should be made solely be between the individual and his/her personal physician (NOT a physical therapist)

I also believe that the State of Michigan is at risk of serious repercussions
as a result of not being in compliance with the ADA, up to and including:

-- Severe fines and penalties.

-- 100% Suspension of the entire archery season unless/until it becomes compliant

-- 100% Loss of all Federal Wildlife Funds

-- Exposure to Individual and Class-Action Litigations

Accordingly, I have formally contacted and communicated with virtually every governmental entity that could possible affect these matters. My opinion is that it is wiser to fix the problem beforehand than suffer the consequences from flawed policy afterwards.

If, at the end of the day, this agenda has the result of giving just one person with a disability, the opportunity to participate equally in the same activity (archery season), so be it!

If, at the end of the day, this agenda has the result of giving countless persons with a disability the opportunity to participate equally in the same activity (archery season), so be it!

No matter if, ultimately, that number it is one person, one million or, ten million, if you are disabled with either a temporary or permanent disability, that is to a degree of severity that, in the opinion of your own physician, render you unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound bow then that person has the right to participate on an equal basis. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with unrestricted crossbow use, herd management, OBR, quotas, personal opinions for or against crossbows. If you are disabled to the degree as described above, by law, you must be allowed to participate in THE EXACT SAME ACTIVITY! Again, 1 or 1,000,000; it makes no difference!!

I sincerely hope that if you desire to work toward unrestricted use of crossbows during the various hunting seasons that your energies are directed outside of this Internet chat room. Otherwise, your efforts are and will remain, "a candle under a bushel", if you catch my drift. To that end, I wish you luck in your endeavors. For my part, I will stay this course until the matters at hand are resolved.

And that, my friends, is Riva's really relevant response.

I strongly encourage you to write for the right to be in the the rite!!:)

[jeffm80]

Great debate guys !!! very civil, very informative, great reading, keep it going

[Riva]

Great debate guys !!! very civil, very informative, great reading, keep it going

....it's less filling and taste great!:lol::lol:

[swampbuck]

Riva,
I resect your answer, although I disagree with your proposal. And yes I have been lobbying every relevant official. Since a few months before Brady began posting here.

[Riva]

Riva,
I resect your answer, although I disagree with your proposal. And yes I have been lobbying every relevant official. Since a few months before Brady began posting here.


At the risk of giving the ACS (anti crossbow society) the impression that we are bickering amongst ourselves, let me try to understand, and perhaps redefine your statement (above).

Do you mean to say that you categorically disagree with my position that I advocate expanding opportunities for persons with a disability in order for that person to participate equally during the archery season? Golly, I sure hope not. However; you could indeed disagree with my opinion and, I respect that.

I really think that what you're saying to me is that your agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?

As I said previously, I do not have an "official position" on the unrestricted use issue. Hopefully, you do not "disagree with my proposal" based on my "neutrality" on this other agenda.

Finally, I admire the fact that you are for pushing this (your) cause to the powers that be. It's the right thing to do. Lord knows, the ABS has had preaching from this pulpit for far too long a period of time. It’s my personal opinion that this group, will cast dispersions upon any/and all who they arbitrarily consider, not to be of “the one true faith”. Too bad. So sad.

[swampbuck]

"I really think that what you're saying to me is that your agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?"

Exactly right. If unrestricted use does not happen then I would support reducing the restrictions. I would still have a couple issues with your proposal, such as how are we to know that the doctor is going to make an unbiased decision whether that be to issue a permit to a buddy or to not issue one because he does not support hunting. I also see some enforcement problems. Another difference is that if unrestricted use is not an option I would support an "old age permit".

I will however continue to support unresticted use until it either passes or until it has been beaten to death. and absolutely eliminated from consideration. And from what I am hearing here and elsewhere I think It will be passed sooner rather than later.

[Kurt4253]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whit1 http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2089546#post2089546)
One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?



Kurt, maybe I should have said "How does one counter the mindset that states, "If you can't draw it on the game...................it isn't a bow"?

By the way, the mags arrived. Thanks a ton. I'll read them over and then take the to the high school library.

Hello Whit 1

To start with, - as awshucks said, - " for those that hunt out of a ground blind or up in a tree 20-25' it starts to become a moot point."

The foundation for the argument that you need to "draw on the game" - is that the "movement" could get you busted. Hunting from a tree stand or ground blind (which covers the VAST majority of bow hunters) does not just "start" to make movement a moot point, - it makes it moot period. Movement is still a factor in bring a crossbow to bare on the game animal. The crossbow hunter stands "just as much" chance in getting bust in bringing the crossbow to bare, as the conventional bow hunter. Movement is movement & CAN get you busted.

SOOOO, - the claim then goes, - ya but, - with the crossbow locked & loaded, - you can have it up & ready LOOOONG before the animal comes into range. ---- Crossbows are VERY heavy, - with the majority of the weight out & away from you. There is "no way" I can hold that weight for any time GREATER then I can hold a conventional bow at full draw. --- IN FACT, - with the technology of today's compound bows (80% & greater let off) you can IN FACT hold a compound bow, at full draw, far longer then you can hold a crossbow up & at ready.

The "proof" of that is in a current recognized Pope & Young record, where in a compound shooter drew & held for a full 3 minutes with his 80% let off compound bow. There is NO WAY I can hold my crossbow up that long!!!!

So, the next argument is, - ya but, - you can use a rest with a crossbow. --- The problem with a rest, - is that it creates an anchor point that "limits" your range of motion left to right &/or up & down. You would have to "predict" exactly where the deer is going to be, when it comes into shooting range, -without having to go through a GREAT deal of motion to change your point of rest. Far greater motion (to change rest point) then just drawing on the game.

So again (thanks to the compound bow & the advances in let off) the motion of "drawing on game" has become completely irrelevant, - null & void, - & moot to boot!!!!!!

Kurt

[Kurt4253]

Riva

Thanks for the reply. I need to go in to work early again today, - so will post more later. --- For now let me say again, that I think you desire to "fight" for the rights of the disabled is a noble one!!! Also, - I don't think our position on the crossbow is all that different (relaxing the law to give more opportunity) rather it is our view on how to approach the changes that is different.

Kurt

[Riva]

"I really think that what you're saying to me is that your agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?"

Exactly right. If unrestricted use does not happen then I would support reducing the restrictions. I would still have a couple issues with your proposal, such as how are we to know that the doctor is going to make an unbiased decision whether that be to issue a permit to a buddy or to not issue one because he does not support hunting. I also see some enforcement problems. Another difference is that if unrestricted use is not an option I would support an "old age permit".
.

I knew eventually somebody was going to pose some "what ifs" about the physician within the scope of my proposal. To begin with, physicians do not make "unbiased" decisions; at least I hope they don't. Their decisions are based on medical knowledge accumulated through many years of study, internship and residency. This allows them to make medical decisions that affect other human beings based on their intuitive thinking and deep experience. In other words, "biased". Remember how my criterion is phrased: "In my "professional" opinion (aka: "biased opinion") John Doe has a disability of a degree of severity that render him unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound bow."

As for a doctor arbitrarily signing a document for a friend who may not be disabled to the degree of severity to qualify, that scenario exists even today under the current criteria. At the end of the day, we have to trust in the integrity of both the physician and the applicant. We do now; why would things change under the revised process?

And, finally--if a physician would not sign a form because he/some has some agenda against hunting---simply find a different doctor! It's the same scenario that forces a woman to find a new doctor when the first physician she goes to states that he refuses to do abortions based on his moral and personal convictions. It has nothing to do with your disability; it's just that the individual won't sign your form. Go to a doc that will sign your form, provided of course, you have a disability to the degree of severity that in the physician’s professional (biased) opinion, render you unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound-bow!

You also see an "enforcement problem". What is there is to enforce?? My doctor attest to the fact that I have a disability. Again, what is there to enforce? We do not challenge people parking in a handicapped parking spot do we? No! That's because they have the permit dangling on their mirror.

That said; let me share with you how the enlightened people of Kentucky handle crossbow permits for persons with a disability. Down there, the physician signs the form and the "form" becomes the permit. There's no mailing the signed form off to the state capital, there's no entering your name into a computer, there's no clerk toiling all day trying to put forms into filing cabinets (like we currently do here in Michigan). There's no mailing of a rubber stamped permit back to the applicant. The person merely keeps the form on their person while afield and, must produce it upon demand from a DNR official. If they don't have the form on them when asked, they are ticketed. If they don't have the form on them because they are not disabled but hunting with a crossbow, they are arrested! That's some pretty clear thinking in my book. Think of the cost savings too.

[TNL]

I've been following this debate and only can surmise 1 thing, that the archery hunters want the deer all to themselves. This same arguement has been going on with the youth waterfowl hunt, the disabled veterans hunt, and the youth deer hunt. Some very selfish people trying to keep a public resource to themselves.

The real downside of a broadbased opening of crossbow use is what??? More competition for deer during the 90 days you can use a bow? Selfish.

The upside is:

More hunter particpation =
More money for the DNR.
More public "voice" in sportman's matters.
More money for the sagging economy.
A chance to better help manage the herd.
And more people getting enjoyment in Michigan's outdoors!

Unrestrcited use is a No-Brainer.

tnl

[TNL]

FYI- I've worked with hundreds of physicians over the years in Michigan from Iron Mountain to Monroe. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that even with very clearly defined symptoms or deficits, you won't get the same opinion at every office. Medicine is very subjective. Missing limbs might seem the easiest to define, but even the marginally close calls will never be equal for everybody.

The only fair and equal way under the law would be unrestricted use for all, much the same as compounds.

TNL

[Riva]

FYI- I've worked with hundreds of physicians over the years in Michigan from Iron Mountain to Monroe. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that even with very clearly defined symptoms or deficits, you won't get the same opinion at every office. Medicine is very subjective. Missing limbs might seem the easiest to define, but even the marginally close calls will never be equal for everybody.

The only fair and equal way under the law would be unrestricted use for all, much the same as compounds.

TNL

That is a very insightful comment and thanks for sharing. Medicine is indeed subjective and certainly not, "unbiased". My proposal pretty much makes that issue a moot point by merely requiring the physician to evaluate and determine that if the disability, whether temporary or permanent in nature, is of a degree of severity that, in the physician's profession (subjective) opinion, the person is rendered unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound-bow! That’s some pretty simple, black and white stuff, if you ask me. Plus, it keeps the State from being in violation of the ADA.

Again, instituting "unrestricted use" will certainly "trump" any need to address the disability issues that I am advocating. But unless and until that day comes, and it may never come, I continue this crusade, as should we all!

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Hello everybody, I was talking to Aweshucks today, and he said he thinks we should come up with away to start a CB association here in MI. and I think its a great idea. I have no knowledge about how to do this , but after reading all these post about CB s I can tell we have some leaders here who can help with this subject , I sure would be willing to do my part to help & more . I would really like to hear what you think & if you think we could start a CB association . I know it would'nt be easy to do but I think it's something we must do. There's more power in #s and we really need to find away to make ourselfs be heard..

SIGN ME UP!:woohoo1:

[awshucks]

Here are links to three state associations that I'm aware of:

http://www.oklahomaxbowshooters.org/
http://www.ucbk.org/ [Ky]
http://www.uxbnj.com/ [NJ]

There's also an organization in Mn but don't believe they have a website up yet. MCCH

Here's a link to DSA, the group of fine people that got Mark O'Brien, the NY vet that lost an arm and leg in Iraq a hunt in Tx because he wasn't disabled enough to hunt in NY w/ an xbow.
http://dsahunt.proboards53.com/index.cgi

No pro xbow discussion would be complete w/o a word on the American Crossbow Federation and it's quarterly publication HBM, link:
http://www.horizontalbowhunter.com/

I have a list of about 20 xbow forums to pm those interested to ask for them. {Don't know all the rules here and don't want to chance violating them.}

[Whit1]

I have a list of about 20 xbow forums to pm those interested to ask for them. {Don't know all the rules here and don't want to chance violating them.}

Welcome to MS!

As for our policy about posting links to other forums it is okay as long as it does not compete with something we have here or MS' owner has made arrangements in a quid pro quo. MS does not have a crossbow forum at this time.

[Kurt4253]

Some here have posed the question, why I am am opposed to unrestricted use of crossbows, "full inclusion", as some refer to it?

Let me respond by saying it is presumptuous to assume that I am opposed to this concept. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that I support the concept. The fact is, I have not stated my opinion on the matter, nor am I currently proactive in resolving these matters, either pro or con. I have my reasons for that and, for the moment, they'll stay private.

Hello Riva

Again (at the risk of repeating my self) I think that your passion to "fight for the rights" of the disabled is an honorable one.

Also, I would like to say that I am sorry if my questioning you on your position has caused you to think that I "presume" you are opposed to unrestricted &/or full inclusion of the crossbow. - That simply is not the case!!! Rather, I am simply trying to understand why you think the discussion on the issue should be held ONLY to the concerns of the disabled, - & not be inclusive of unrestricted use.

Let me put it this way. --- I could understand your position (that the discussion be held only to the concerns of the disabled) & would even give my full support to your position, - IF, - the concerns of the disabled was, in fact, the ONLY thing that the committee was taking into consideration. --- But its not!!! --- Based on what Brady has posted, concerning what the committee is asking for, - is feed back, - not only on the current proposal, - but feed back on "changes" up to & including unrestricted use.

Consequently, - feed back on unrestricted use is on the table for discussion. --- So NO I am not presuming that you are opposed to unrestricted use, - nor am I accusing you have having a hidden agenda. Rather I am simply trying to understand why you think the issue discussion be held to disabled issue only.

Being as how full inclusion is on the table, - wouldn't full inclusion solve - ALL - of the disabled questions/issues/problem??? Meaning with full inclusion, - the disabled could simply go buy a license & go hunting!!! --- No need to even have to go see a doctor!!! --- the following, - posted by Brady, - indicates that full inclusion is on the table.

Kurt

From the original thread (Thoughts Wanted) by Brady

We have already been approached by legislators and hunters proposing amendments to move the automatic age to 65, 55 or to simply not to discriminate between crossbows and compound bows for anyone.

We would appreciate the feedback of Michigan hunters regarding this proposal and suggestions for changes.

From this thread (Up Date) by Brady

Next month, the House Natural Resource Committee will take action on the crossbow issue. Members of the committee will consider whether to restrict crossbow use only to the disabled per current law, whether to simply treat crossbows as other bows or whether to eliminate the need for crossbow permits for seniors and/or youth hunters.

While I'm not yet sold on full legalization, a key benefit is that it's a lot simpler than having to codify disability testing.

[Kurt4253]

-- The current (and proposed) criteria is overly-restrictive

-- Many disabled persons will not qualify yet still can not pull/hold a conventional bow-- which is discrimination

-- The ADA states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability (any disability!)

-- The DNR should not be in the business of defining disabilities.

-- The definition and determination of a disability should be made solely be between the individual and his/her personal physician (NOT a physical therapist)

Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these concerns!!!

With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are doctors that would no longer be able to collect $$$ for office visit to sign of on disabled permit.

Hmmmmmmm

Kurt

[Kurt4253]

I also believe that the State of Michigan is at risk of serious repercussions
as a result of not being in compliance with the ADA, up to and including:

-- Severe fines and penalties.

-- 100% Suspension of the entire archery season unless/until it becomes compliant

-- 100% Loss of all Federal Wildlife Funds

-- Exposure to Individual and Class-Action Litigations

Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these actions!!!

With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are lawyers that would no longer be able to collect $$$ by taking disabled cases to court.

Hmmmmmmm

Kurt

[Riva]

Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these actions!!!

With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are lawyers that would no longer be able to collect $$$ by taking disabled cases to court.

Hmmmmmmm

Kurt

Allow me to state that I am fully aware that unrestricted use is on someone's legistative agenda. That said, I hope that you are working vigilantly with the powers that be for its passage rather than simply scribing random thoughts here in this chat room. And yes, I fully agree that if unrestricted use is approved, there would be no need to toil with all the matters surrounding rights for the disabled. While indeed, two somewhat parallel discussions are taking place, I have personally chosen to be involved in only one of those discussions, specifically: matters relating to persons with a disability. It's not that I don't support you nor, that I oppose you. It's just that I dont have a dog in that hunt. Just leave it at that, OK?

And to your other point..I don't have any problem with lawyers making money if they are part of a process to rectify an injustice and/or discrimination.

Likewise, I don't have any problem with doctors making money if they are part of a process that helps a person participate equally in an activity that they might not otherwise participate in because of a disability.

Thinking pragmatically, if my proposal was approved, a person would already have a ongoing dialogue with their personal physicial who is treating that person for a disability. In many cases, probably in most cases, the treatment is covered by some sort of insurance. My point is, you are already seeing the doctor so, having him/her sign, or not sign, the "form" is almost anctedotal in the total scheme of things.

Do I think that as a result of my proposal a plethora of men and women will now proactively seek out a doctors opinion as to whether their disability is severe enough to allow them to use a crossbow? My opinion is that those rats have already found the cheeze and they have been hunting with crossbows since the issuance of the first permit back in 1994.

Again, I do wish you luck in your endeavors. :)

[Kurt4253]

Quote: "I hope that you are working vigilantly with the powers that be for its passage rather than simply scribing random thoughts here in this chat room."



YES, of course I am doing ALL that can be expected from Joe Blow average citizen on this matter !!! That includes both letters & personal contact with politicians, F&G officials, & a ever expanding number of other organization associated to this issue, as well as taking part on as "many" discussion forums (such as this one) as time allows.

Concerning your comment that my thoughts posted to this forum are "random" --- It should be clear by now, with as much as I have posted, - that my thoughts are in no way random. --- I have put a GREAT deal of time & energy into researching ALL sides in this matter & I can back up my argument for full inclusion with "absolute" facts, data &/or truth. --- I am so certain of my position, - that IF I where a lawyer &/or had the money to hire a lawyer, - I would take this matter into the federal court system as a matter of a civil rights violation. Specifically violations of the 5th amendment (to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law) the 9th amendment (Enumerated Rights) and the 14th amendment (Equal Protection of the Law)

There is NO question in my mind, - that ANYTHING, - other then full inclusion of the crossbow, violates all three of these constitutional amendments, - & I believe, without question, that a REALLY GOOD civil rights lawyer could take this before the federal court system & win, hands down. --- I just wish I had the money to take it through the process, - because I would jump on it in a heart beat.

Again, my thoughts on this are in NO way random, - I have researched this through, - & if you wish to discuss it further, - I can "prove" - beyond ANY reasonable doubt, - that anything other then full inclusion is a violation of "basic" civil rights, let alone a violation of the disabled.

WE can do so ether privately, - or on this forum, if you so wish.

Concerning doctors & lawyers making money if they are part of a process to rectify an injustice and/or discrimination. --- I MOST CERTAINLY have no problem with that, --- What I have a problem with, - is having laws that throw EQUAL PROTECTION out the window, in order to establish "special privilege" &/or "special interest" - so that money can be made, - "at the expense of the RIGHTS of the average Joe Blow citizen & the expense of his tax &/or insurance paying money.

Another words, - staying focused on disability rights, - still does NOT over come the problem of discrimination &/or RIGHTS violations. --- Rather, - it still caters to special privilege &/or special interest, - which is "unconstitutional"- AND - therefore still laws made that are in & of them self laws against THE LAW!!!

Here is a hint, - The above 3 amendments I posted encompass a thing called substantive law &/or substantive due process. --- Meaning, the law, in & of its self, can not discriminate, - or it is a law, against the law, - which is exactly what ANYTHING other then full inclusion does.

Kurt

[Riva]

While on a recent business trip to a big city, a street preacher barked at me in a loud voice as I walked by his corner: "Brother, make peace with the Lord". To which I responded, "That's funny, I didn't think that we had quarreled."

On the surface, it sure appears that someone is quarreling with somebody else. For my part, I'm not the one quarreling--and it takes two. Do the math.

I have a singularly focused agenda in order to hopefully to get a few things changed with regards to allowing a few more people to participate as equals during the archery season. It is my sole agenda at the moment. However; a word of caution...by dissecting my and/or other peoples’ comments, point by point, can give the appearance of serious disharmony amongst those same people that are pushing for change--albeit for different reasons. This is exactly what the ABS (anti-crossbow society) desires to occur, specifically: bickering amongst ourselves so that the status quo is maintained.

That said, I would be interested what any professional legal minds hereabouts have to say surrounding your comments regarding the current limitations put on crossbow use as it relates to somehow being in violation of the US Constitution and personal rights. If nothing else, it’s a novel approach. However: I may warn you, getting things to change using “big books” is typically a long and laborious process with very few people interested in listening to you; the same way I pretty much ignored the aforementioned street preacher.

Again, I wish you luck in your endeavors.

[Kurt4253]

Thinking pragmatically, if my proposal was approved, a person would already have a ongoing dialogue with their personal physicial who is treating that person for a disability. In many cases, probably in most cases, the treatment is covered by some sort of insurance. My point is, you are already seeing the doctor so, having him/her sign, or not sign, the "form" is almost anctedotal in the total scheme of things.

Do I think that as a result of my proposal a plethora of men and women will now proactively seek out a doctors opinion as to whether their disability is severe enough to allow them to use a crossbow? My opinion is that those rats have already found the cheeze and they have been hunting with crossbows since the issuance of the first permit back in 1994.

Actually Riva, this is where your proposal has a hole in it. In fact IMO a HUGE hole.--- There is a huge number of people in this country that DON"T have insurance nor do they have a "disability" that "requires" them to have an on going need to vist a doctor & with the BEST of your intentions, these people are still going to fall through the cracks.

I am , - as a matter of FACT, - one person (but CRETAINLY not the only one) that your above "presumption" does not cover.

I have pinched nerves in both my upper back/neck & lower back (5th lumbar) as the result of 17 years of logging. Also I lost half my thumb, half my middle finger, & sever nerv & tendon damage to my index finger as the result of an accident with a table saw (to my draw hand)

These are "impairments" that prevent me from drawing a conventional bow back, - AND I live with them every day. As much as these "impairments" prevent me form drawing a conventional bow, - they are not so debilitating as to "require" my continued seeing a doctor under a on going medical disabilities claim covered by insurance.

Even if I did have insurance, - I seriously doubt any insurance company would cover the cost to go see a doctor for the "sole" purpose of getting a disabled crossbow permit.

Consequently, insurance or no insurance, - the cost is out of pocet for me & lets look at that cost.

$300.00 (plus or minus a "few" dollors) plus the time off work to see doctor, - so well over $300.00 --- that is an UNDUE burden , - which in turn contitutes discrimination. --- Especially, - when you consider that the impairment to my draw hand is CLEARLY evident, - with or without a doctor saying so !!!!

Now consider that there is NO "great" advantage of "hunting" with a crossbow, - compared to "hunting" with todays modern compound bow!!!

WHY ???? Should I have to do ANYTHING other then go buy a archery hunting license & go hunting with my crossbow???

Isn't FORCING me to go see a doctor, under letter of law, that places an undue burden on me, - in & of its self "discrimination" ????

Kurt

[Riva]

Kurt, since you so intent on dismantling my position, allow me to respond that I used the word "probably" to position my statement about people having medical insurance. Sheesh!:)

Perhaps we agree on one thing..It’s highly probable that, even if you had insurance, it is going to be somewhat costly for a person with a disability to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow. There's the time off from work thing but, more to the point, the costs for testing and evaluation is more than likely to borne by the applicant. I recall that I had to pay about $300 to have my test performed by a PT (back in 1994). Incidentally, I met the criteria. Subsequently, I simply had my physician validate the test while at his office taking my annual physical a few month later.

However, I wouldn't call that $300 "discrimination", as you infer. Rather, I'd simply call that good business: as doctors and physical therapists are not necessarily in the habit of giving away their services for free. Trying to connect those two dots (aka discrimination) is a real stretch however, that may be your position. Again, have at it and, good luck.

Incidentally, did you know that here in Michigan, it is no longer necessary to have the PT's testing validated and signed by a physician? I didn't until just a few weeks ago. All that required now is for an applicant is to have the test done by a PT. If you meet the criteria, you get the permit. If you don't meet the criteria, you don't get the permit. My issue is the criteria but, that's a different story.

Bottom line..it still costs money out-of-pocket and guess who also knows this? You bet--the ACS!

-- They (the ACS) know that the test is inconvenient.

-- They know that is discretionery

-- They know that it is costly.

-- They know that the cost is mostly likely to be borne by the individual.

-- And, they know, that by keeping the criteria as narrowly-defined and overly-restrictive as possible, will result in two things: (1) excluding as many people as possible because they simply don't meet the criteria and(2) dissuading people from even applying in the first place because they is a very good chance they will not meet the criteria and thus "wasting' their hard-earned money (aka "rolling the dice"). Believe me, they know this. In fact, in their position statement, they even advocate stepping up enforcent efforts:

We therefore support removal of the physician from the evaluation process as a means of addressing both issues. Also, we would be very supportive of a more vigorous scrutiny of crossbow permit applications by the DNR Law division to further address the abuse issue.

I mean for God's sake, here we have a person with a medical disability, who has already taken the test, has paid for the test, has met the criteria of the test and, these guys still want the DNR Law Division to run interference for them by becoming what is essentially the "Disability Police”!.

Does this not strike anybody but me as being morally and ethically repulsive? It simply amazes me just how low these people will stoop to maintain what they perceive to be, "the one true faith".

[Kurt4253]

Riva

(quote) On the surface, it sure appears that someone is quarreling with somebody else. For my part, I'm not the one quarreling--and it takes two. Do the math. (end quote)

In the first place, I am certainly not "quarreling" with you!!! - Just like you, - I am expressing my views on the matter, which happen to be different, - AND I have maintained doing so in an absolute civil manner!!! --- Please don't try to distract from the real discussion by "accusing" me of making this some kind "personal" quarrel (which you have done in the past as well) This is a open discussion forum, which I am taking part in, as well as are you.

Here is a word of caution for you. - I can not, nor will not be "baited" into uncivil posting!!! --- It solves nothing!!!

Also, concerning your comment of, - "the appearance of serious disharmony" - as you point your finger at me as the cause of such, - keep in mind that you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.

The only REAL difference I can see between you & I, - is that you want the disabled to have a right to "special privilage" - where as I want everyone to have the SAME right, "including" the disabled

Kurt

[Kurt4253]

Kurt, since you so intent on dismantling my position, allow me to respond that I used the word "probably" to position my statement about people having medical insurance. Sheesh!:)

Perhaps we agree on one thing..It’s highly probable that, even if you had insurance, it is going to be somewhat costly for a person with a disability to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow. There's the time off from work thing but, more to the point, the costs for testing and evaluation is more than likely to borne by the applicant. I recall that I had to pay about $300 to have my test performed by a PT (back in 1994). Incidentally, I met the criteria. Subsequently, I simply had my physician validate the test while at his office taking my annual physical a few month later.

However, I wouldn't call that $300 "discrimination", as you infer. Rather, I'd simply call that good business: as doctors and physical therapists are not necessarily in the habit of giving away their services for free. Trying to connect those two dots (aka discrimination) is a real stretch however, that may be your position. Again, have at it and, good luck.

Incidentally, did you know that here in Michigan, it is no longer necessary to have the PT's testing validated and signed by a physician? I didn't until just a few weeks ago. All that required now is for an applicant is to have the test done by a PT. If you meet the criteria, you get the permit. If you don't meet the criteria, you don't get the permit. My issue is the criteria but, that's a different story.

Bottom line..it still costs money out-of-pocket and guess who also knows this? You bet--the ACS!

-- They (the ACS) know that the test is inconvenient.

-- They know that is discretionery

-- They know that it is costly.

-- They know that the cost is mostly likely to be borne by the individual.

-- And, they know, that by keeping the criteria as narrowly-defined and overly-restrictive as possible, will result in two things: (1) excluding as many people as possible because they simply don't meet the criteria and(2) dissuading people from even applying in the first place because they is a very good chance they will not meet the criteria and thus "wasting' their hard-earned money (aka "rolling the dice"). Believe me, they know this. In fact, in their position statement, they even advocate stepping up enforcent efforts:

We therefore support removal of the physician from the evaluation process as a means of addressing both issues. Also, we would be very supportive of a more vigorous scrutiny of crossbow permit applications by the DNR Law division to further address the abuse issue.

I mean for God's sake, here we have a person with a medical disability, who has already taken the test, has paid for the test, has met the criteria of the test and, these guys still want the DNR Law Division to run interference for them by becoming what is essentially the "Disability Police”!.

Does this not strike anybody but me as being morally and ethically repulsive? It simply amazes me just how low these people will stoop to maintain what they perceive to be, "the one true faith".

It just seems to me that full inclusion would eliminate ALL of the problems!!!

No ADA law suits!!!
No "undue" expence to see doctor & get "permision"!!!
No law enforcement problem!!!

If it were not for the compound bow, - which actually was some very real advatages over the crossbow, - I could see the need for restriction. But the modern compound bow makes ALL arguments against the crossbow "null & void" !!!

Show me ONE good argument, - that gives the crossbow, - a GREAT advantage over the modern compound bow & I will give SERIOUS consideration to changing my position.

Untill then, - I will hold my position, & I will mantian that a GOOD civil rights lawyer could win in a court of law. (I just can't afford that lawyer, or I would)

Kurt

[Riva]

Again, Kurt, I wish you luck in your endeavors.

As for me, it's time to watch mass for shut-in's on cable channel 688. One has to keep the faith, you know! :)

Over and out.