November Sunrise
06-16-2008, 02:04 PM
Dear fellow Michigan hunters:
If you're an archery deer hunter like I am, you may have been contacted recently with some false information regarding House Bill 5741 and my motivations for introducing it. I realize that all Michigan hunters aren't going to agree on the crossbow issue or any other issue related to hunting. But that is no reason for some of the emotional attacks we've seen over the crossbow issue. I'd like to share my thoughts with you on this legislation and set several things straight.
When I was first approached by hunters in my district requesting changes to Michigan's crossbow law beyond the permanently disabled permit currently available, I was skeptical. It's not because I buy the argument that a crossbow is more like a gun. I recognize that the mechanics and ballistics of a crossbow are far more like other bows than firearms and the advantages a crossbow offers are offset by many of their disadvantages.
I introduced HB 5741 to encourage the NRC to start workgroup discussions on the issue. Prior to the bill's introduction in February 2008, the NRC had taken no action on the issue since it ordered the formation of a workgroup in July 2007. Once the NRC began its workgroup discussions on crossbows in March 2008, it informed me that it would only be considering changes to how it issues permits for permanently disabled people and that I would consider changes in state law beyond that sub-group.
I then began to examine data from other states that have crossbow laws that are less restrictive than Michigan's. I discovered that accidents rates are similar to vertical bows and that allowing expanded crossbow use has very little impact on the deer herd. While fears of herd decimation and restrictions on future hunting opportunities by those opposed to crossbows were expressed in those states just as that are now in Michigan, those results never materialized.
Lacking sound scientific data to provide a rational argument against crossbows, crossbow opponents have instead turned to emotional arguments and personal attacks. For example, some have said that I was in the pocket of the crossbow industry. For the record, please know that I have never solicited, accepted or been offered campaign contributions or any type of gift from the crossbow industry or other proponests of crossbows. And I will not in the future. The crossbow industry had no part in my decision to draft and pursue this legislation.
Also, I have read in some e-mails that the committee hearing on House Bill 5741 last week was somehow unfair, that unequal time was provided to supporters and opponents of crossbows. This is not the case. There were a large number of people present at the hearing for both sides. Everyone who requested to speak was allowed to. Supporters of the bill were given about 40 minutes to make their case and take questions. Opponents of the bill, including the leadership of the Michigan Bowhunters Assn., were given an unlimited amount of time to make their case and take questions. Supporters and opponents of the bill were called up in alternating turns until everyone was heard from. The committee, which normally adjourns at noon, went until 1:30. The supporters of the bill presented a far more organized argument backed up by data than opponents. But both groups have had four months to prepare their case. And unlike many committee chairs, I don't take an immediate vote on bills during their first committee hearing in order to provide all parties an opportunity to make their contacts on any pending legislation.
If Michigan is going to restrict hunters from using crossbows, it ought to have a sound scientific reason for doing so. Fears about negative management impact or other concerns should be able to be backed up by hard data. Instead, the preponderance of the evidence shows that we have no compelling reason to treat crossbows any differently than we do other archery equipment. For that reason, I support removing the current legal restrictions on crossbow use. If Michigan should happen to experience a negative hunter safety or herd management impact resulting from full inclusion, I would support geographic and/or seasonal restrictions on crossbow use in the future. But given what we have seen in other states, I doubt that will be the case.
On a final note, I would like to thank you for supporting Michigan hunting and your fellow hunters.
Sincerely,
Joel Sheltrown
State Representative
103rd House District
If you're an archery deer hunter like I am, you may have been contacted recently with some false information regarding House Bill 5741 and my motivations for introducing it. I realize that all Michigan hunters aren't going to agree on the crossbow issue or any other issue related to hunting. But that is no reason for some of the emotional attacks we've seen over the crossbow issue. I'd like to share my thoughts with you on this legislation and set several things straight.
When I was first approached by hunters in my district requesting changes to Michigan's crossbow law beyond the permanently disabled permit currently available, I was skeptical. It's not because I buy the argument that a crossbow is more like a gun. I recognize that the mechanics and ballistics of a crossbow are far more like other bows than firearms and the advantages a crossbow offers are offset by many of their disadvantages.
I introduced HB 5741 to encourage the NRC to start workgroup discussions on the issue. Prior to the bill's introduction in February 2008, the NRC had taken no action on the issue since it ordered the formation of a workgroup in July 2007. Once the NRC began its workgroup discussions on crossbows in March 2008, it informed me that it would only be considering changes to how it issues permits for permanently disabled people and that I would consider changes in state law beyond that sub-group.
I then began to examine data from other states that have crossbow laws that are less restrictive than Michigan's. I discovered that accidents rates are similar to vertical bows and that allowing expanded crossbow use has very little impact on the deer herd. While fears of herd decimation and restrictions on future hunting opportunities by those opposed to crossbows were expressed in those states just as that are now in Michigan, those results never materialized.
Lacking sound scientific data to provide a rational argument against crossbows, crossbow opponents have instead turned to emotional arguments and personal attacks. For example, some have said that I was in the pocket of the crossbow industry. For the record, please know that I have never solicited, accepted or been offered campaign contributions or any type of gift from the crossbow industry or other proponests of crossbows. And I will not in the future. The crossbow industry had no part in my decision to draft and pursue this legislation.
Also, I have read in some e-mails that the committee hearing on House Bill 5741 last week was somehow unfair, that unequal time was provided to supporters and opponents of crossbows. This is not the case. There were a large number of people present at the hearing for both sides. Everyone who requested to speak was allowed to. Supporters of the bill were given about 40 minutes to make their case and take questions. Opponents of the bill, including the leadership of the Michigan Bowhunters Assn., were given an unlimited amount of time to make their case and take questions. Supporters and opponents of the bill were called up in alternating turns until everyone was heard from. The committee, which normally adjourns at noon, went until 1:30. The supporters of the bill presented a far more organized argument backed up by data than opponents. But both groups have had four months to prepare their case. And unlike many committee chairs, I don't take an immediate vote on bills during their first committee hearing in order to provide all parties an opportunity to make their contacts on any pending legislation.
If Michigan is going to restrict hunters from using crossbows, it ought to have a sound scientific reason for doing so. Fears about negative management impact or other concerns should be able to be backed up by hard data. Instead, the preponderance of the evidence shows that we have no compelling reason to treat crossbows any differently than we do other archery equipment. For that reason, I support removing the current legal restrictions on crossbow use. If Michigan should happen to experience a negative hunter safety or herd management impact resulting from full inclusion, I would support geographic and/or seasonal restrictions on crossbow use in the future. But given what we have seen in other states, I doubt that will be the case.
On a final note, I would like to thank you for supporting Michigan hunting and your fellow hunters.
Sincerely,
Joel Sheltrown
State Representative
103rd House District