E-mail from Joel Sheltrown

[Erik]

Nice that he got my e-mail address from here.
I suspect many others received one as well.
I wasn't going to post anything here anymore since this became the michigan-crossbow site but I figure I deserve equal reply time so heres my reply.


Dear Mr Sheltrown, I feel you have been deceptive in the way you have gone about getting this bill passed. I do not share your opinions. I have examined all the same data from other states just as you and I conclude that MI is different. Once more you deceived people into believing HB5741 was about helping the disabled. If not "deceived" you let them continue to believe that it was, even after you yourself knew better. One of my biggest concerns about this whole thing is that, as it stands now we have no way of reversing these changes to our archery season rules should the crossbow/halfbow/halfgun, prove to negatively effect the archery deer season as many of us fear. If you were so sure there would be no problems why didn't you amend this bill to include a re-evaluation period? Where we could examine the effects of these new rules, both on public perception, as well as the resource, and allow for changes if necessary? Many of us are emotional about this because the archery deer season is what we live for. I don't expect you to understand that, but at least respect it. Many bowhunters feel they are being attacked right now because this is being forced on them by you and others like you. That is why some feel they must attack back. Let me ask you why you didn't push for a crossbow season of it's own? Why is it you and those whom you support will only be happy if crossbows are combined to another season? Why is it you didn't listen or work with michigan bowhunters towards a solution? What you have done is deplorable!

Thankyou for your time

[Whit1]

Nice that he got my e-mail address from here.


Erik,
Please explain!

[ESOX]

If he emailed you through the site, he won't have your address unless you reply.

[Munsterlndr]

Why is it you didn't listen or work with michigan bowhunters towards a solution?

I mean after all, history has shown us that they are such a reasonable bunch of guys that they would bend over back wards to compromise and come up with a reasonable accommodation. :lol:

You can't be serious here,Erik! MBH has opposed crossbows for all but the most seriously disabled, and would not even consider them for youth, for women, for seniors and for any other demographic for the past 20 years.

Their idea of a "solution" is to keep crossbows in firearms season with no compromise of any sort. Rep. Sheltrown asked the NRC to take a reasonable look at changing the level of disability needed to qualify for a permit and the response was to appoint an ad-hoc committee that was loaded with MBH/MTB members, who never had any intention of making any sort of a reasonable compromise. Had MBH taken a reasonable approach we would not be looking at full inclusion today.

The NRC does not have the statutory authority to regulate the use of crossbows, other than to issue permits for the disabled to use them. They refused to take any action that would reduce the level of disability and provide a reasonable accommodation. That is why this became a legislative issue. The MBH has been aware of this issue for 20 years. The idea that they did not have enough time to mount a reasonable defense for their position is laughable. They have succeeded in stopping crossbows in the past because they have a disproportionate amount of influence with the NRC. This is not the case with the legislature and they quickly found that their "emotional" arguments that have no basis in fact and have no data to support them did not go very far with legislators.

Bow hunters had lots of opportunities to make a reasonable compromise. They chose not to. This is about the allocation of resources among diverse groups of hunters. No one group is entitled to a monopoly of days on the calendar or time in the woods. You wanted it all and were not willing to compromise. That was an unreasonable and indefensible position since we are talking about a public resource. The result is that forces beyond your control will now dictate how seasons are allocated. Now you are crying that it's not fair and that those forces are acting in an unreasonable manner. Maybe you guys should have thought about the consequences when you took an "all or nothing" approach and drew your line in the sand against any accommodation.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Why is it you didn't listen or work with michigan bowhunters towards a solution? What you have done is deplorable!

gee thats a toughy!:lol: they wouldn't talk, they wouldn't compromise, they wanted to make it even harder to get a permit.:dizzy: who in the HELL would listen to that line of crap when the answer is always no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no.
what the MBH DID WAS not only DEPLORABLE BUT DESPICABLE, not to mention an unlimited amount of other words. when only one side wishes to negotiate it really doesn't matter now does it ?
it appears to be quite apparent that you haven't been to any of the meetings and heard the nonsense they spewed now have you? mbh wants to police those who obtained permits after jumping threw that circus arena enviroment they were put through. now thats deplorable MISTER! I'LL STOP HERE NOW BECAUSE IF I CONTINUE I'LL GET IN DEEP DOO DOO! ALL MY WADERS ARE UP NORTH!

[IceDaddy]

Please Erik, If you would be so kind, post his reply here for all to see.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Please Erik, If you would be so kind, post his reply here for all to see.

Still waiting for that response Erik!

[butter21]

Still waiting for that response Erik!
Maybe he doesnt live on here like most of us have been.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Maybe he doesnt live on here like most of us have been.

what ?:lol::lol: with 3180 posts:D:dizzy: yep i guess he only visits once a year or so.:lol::lol:

[butter21]

what ? with 3180 posts yep i guess he only visits once a year or so.
He also joined in 2000...Maybe he is busy this right now and cant get on as much as you and me. ;) :lol::lol::lol::lol::dizzy::lol::dizzy::lol: :lol:

[TOW]

Still waiting for that response Erik!

I don't normally carry a post from another site, but here is the answer from Joel Sheltrown to Erik..........

Subject: RE: HB 5741 (Crossbows)

Dear Erik:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please know that I have never had any intention of being deceptive about HB 5741. The bill was introduced in February 2008 to change the disability threshold from 80% to 60% and eliminate the need for a permit at age 69.

Over the past four months I have been very up front in telling those who contacted me on the bill that I was continuing to study the issue and was open to discussing changes to the bill.

The bill was introduced primarily to encourage the NRC's crossbow workgroup to meet and to discuss the broader issue of crossbow use beyond the permanently disabled; particularly allowing seniors above a certain age to use crossbows without a permit or opening the use of crossbows up to the general public.

While legislation would be necessary to make those broader changes, it was my hope that the NRC workgroup would make a recommendation to the Legislature. Instead, the NRC opted not to discuss the broader issue of crossbows beyond their use by the disabled and I consequently made the decision to move forward with the legislation.

Unlike many committee chairs, I require that almost all bills moving through the committee I chair to have a two part committee process. I do this to give the committee members a full week to consider any amendments and to give the general public a full week to contact committee members on proposed amendments. I feel this is especially important as many people are unable to attend committee hearings either due to work/school schedules or the expense of driving to Lansing. Most committees will introduce and vote on any amendments or substitutes at the same committee meeting where public testimony is taken preventing any real opportunity for the public to contact legislators.

The substitute version of the bill providing for full inclusion that was adopted by the committee at the second hearing on the bill this week shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. I mentioned at the first committee hearing that I was leaning in that direction. The Michigan Bow Hunters had sent an e-mail to its membership to that effect after the first hearing. And I, my staff and internet hunting forums in Michigan had been discussing full inclusion for weeks prior to the vote. I find it ironic that you feel I have been deceptive when I've gone well beyond the normal legislative process for the very purpose of better opening the process up to the general public.

I have been working with Michigan bow hunters on this bill. A number of Michigan bow hunters testified in support of full inclusion at the first committee hearing. I recognize that the organization called Michigan Bow Hunters does not support the bill as introduced or the version that passed the House. The membership of this organization represents less than 1% of Michigan bow hunters and even then, several dozen of its members have contacted in support of full inclusion despite the organization's official position.

The organization's leadership has never contacted me to request a meeting to discuss the bill. In fact, they have been quite hostile to the fact that the issue of broader crossbow use was even being discussed at all. On the other hand, I have had a number of conversations including personal e-mail exchanges with hunters who do not support full inclusion regardless of whether they live in the district I represent or not. I feel I owe it to them to explain why I have changed my position on crossbow use after studying the data for the past several months and making an objective, not an emotional decision, on this issue.

In terms of an evaluation period, I had suggested a 5 year evaluation period to the DNR. I suggest that it could use its current staff which processes crossbow permits to perform the evaluation. The DNR came back to me and told me that it preferred that I not include such an evaluation period in the bill.

I understand the emotion that surrounds both sides of the crossbow issue. But Michigan should base on science, not emotion. The data we have received from other states very clearly shows that allowing crossbows during the archery season does not have a negative management or safety impact. There is no compelling reason for the state to restrict archery hunters from using crossbows if they chose to use a crossbow over a vertical bow to take deer. There is no need for a seperate season.

Now some hunters will say that Michigan is different than all these other states. But as Rep. Tom Casperson said in committee, why would we assume that a Michigan gun hunter is any more willing to purchase a crossbow to hunt a deer in the archery season than hunters in other states? In fact, given the longer length of Michigan's firearms season than states like Ohio, the opposite should be true.

Crossbows aren't being forced on anyone. Archery hunters will be no more forced to use a crossbow than a compound bow or any other bow.

Several decades ago, the exact same arguments were made about compounds bows detroying Michigan's bow hunting traditions and destroying the sport. That certainly didn't happen and many hunters continue to chose to use recurve bows and long bows for the additional challenge they provide over more modern bows. And with most states that have adopted full inclusion of crossbows, compound bows continue to be the form of archery equipment most popular among bow hunters.

I don't have the exclusive power to force the full inclusion of crossbows in Michigan. I am just one vote out of 148 legislators and this bill has to go through an involved legislative process requiring committee votes in both House and Senate and approval by the full House and Senate. Most bills never get farther than their introduction. The overwhelming support HB 5741 has seen in committee (8-1 vote) and on the House floor (94-14) is a very strong indication that the full inclusion of crossbows in the archery season is coming, either this year or in the near future.

This is also the national trend. South Carolina and Louisana just adopted full inclusion and Delaware is about to. Full inclusion has been legal in neighboring Ontario and Ohio for years. I'm not aware of any state that is placing tighter restrictions on crossbow use or shortening its seasons for which crossbows may be used.

Sincerely,

Joel Sheltrown
State Representative
103rd House District
..

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

just as i suspected. joel told him the flat out truth.

[butter21]

just as i suspected. joel told him the flat out truth
Hes not, just been busy lately.

[Whit1]

Let's do keep this thread on topic and right now it focuses on Rep. Sheltrown's email response to an MS member's inquiry which said member has every right to make.

[swampbuck]

I think that Rep. Sheltrown made a very clear and accurate responce. I dont see how anyone can critisize his position or reasoning on anything other than an emotional level. He is probably the only politician I have ever felt good about voting for. Before or after the election.:)

[Ranger Ray]

I think that Rep. Sheltrown made a very clear and accurate response. I don't see how anyone can criticize his position or reasoning on anything other than an emotional level. He is probably the only politician I have ever felt good about voting for. Before or after the election.:)
Even though he is not in my district he has responded back to me when questioned. I think he is one of the few politicians I can say I actually like. :lol: