Uncle Ted

[Buckeye Dan]

I have seen Ted Nugent using crossbows on television. I am pretty sure he was not in Michigan as that would be against the law. I think he has a ranch in Texas and maybe thats where he was. Crossbows are completely legal there.
Anyway we all know what a bow nut Ted is and even he uses a crossbow given the chance. So why do other Michigan archers not want the freedom to chose like Ted?

[swampbuck]

I have seen photos and videos also. He could have been using it at sunrize acres. it has a high fence.

[marty]

Greed. I want the woods to myself thing. maybe worried someone will shoot my deer. I don't know. be glad when crossbow are legal then we can shift our energy on something important:D

Yea I think Ted was in Texas. a lot of crossbow hunts on hunting channels now;)

[butter21]

I have seen Ted Nugent using crossbows on television. I am pretty sure he was not in Michigan as that would be against the law. I think he has a ranch in Texas and maybe thats where he was. Crossbows are completely legal there.
Anyway we all know what a bow nut Ted is and even he uses a crossbow given the chance. So why do other Michigan archers not want the freedom to chose like Ted?
Uncle Ted :rolleyes: anyway it was most likely high fence so the same rules dont apply, even if it wasnt it still could have been during gun season.

[Buckeye Dan]

I would think that MBH would welcome the freedom of choice. At least the novelty of being able to try something new to them. Very closed minded and stubborn some of your MI archers are. I guess greed is the only thing I can think of for that mind set as well.

[BigBirdVA]

On another MI forum they're calling for a vote or some show of unity. I call it the "who's really greedy please take one step backwards" dance.

How many members does MBH actually have? They were posting that several MBH members communicated they were for xbows ! Imagine that! LOL

Like most so called "voice of all" groups I bet MBH has less than 10% of the states total hunters as members. Many groups take votes or polls and claim all are for but never give the true numbers. Obviously even their own members are divided. :lol:

[TOW]

On another MI forum they're calling for a vote or some show of unity. I call it the "who's really greedy please take one step backwards" dance.

How many members does MBH actually have? They were posting that several MBH members communicated they were for xbows ! Imagine that! LOL

Like most so called "voice of all" groups I bet MBH has less than 10% of the states total hunters as members. Many groups take votes or polls and claim all are for but never give the true numbers. Obviously even their own members are divided. :lol:

It's more like 1% of the Michigan bowhunters...........

[BigBirdVA]

It's more like 1% of the Michigan bowhunters...........Figures. PBS is similar. They all are. More lies on lies and they think if you tell it enough times people will believe it. Worked for years. It's failing state by state. MI if it goes through will be # 3 I think since last seasons end.

[November Sunrise]

I can't picture Ted Nugent's stance on crossbows making any difference one way or the other.

[TOW]

I can't picture Ted Nugent's stance on crossbows making any difference one way or the other.

DITTO....

[marty]

It's more like 1% of the Michigan bowhunters...........

I just wonder when crossbow become legal will MBH change their ways then. All of those xbows hunters would need an org:lol: I can see them now having to hold a crossbow shoot. It would kill most of them:lol:

[butter21]

I would think that MBH would welcome the freedom of choice. At least the novelty of being able to try something new to them. Very closed minded and stubborn some of your MI archers are. I guess greed is the only thing I can think of for that mind set as well.

Your calling me greedy for not wanting crossbows in bow season right now? When i have been in support of a crossbow season? Sounds to me like you are the greedy ones that just want it to be during bow season right now when you could have your own season. :lol:

[U of M Fan]

I have seen Ted Nugent using crossbows on television. I am pretty sure he was not in Michigan as that would be against the law. I think he has a ranch in Texas and maybe thats where he was. Crossbows are completely legal there.
Anyway we all know what a bow nut Ted is and even he uses a crossbow given the chance. So why do other Michigan archers not want the freedom to chose like Ted?
Ted also hunts behind high fences and not everyone is down with that (including me). Its personal preference.

[autumnarcher]

whether you agree or disagree with Michigan Bow Hunters stand against crossbows, there is a couple of things worth reminding a lot of you pro-crossbow guys about.

If it were not for MBH- we would not even have a bow season. MBH lobbied for, and got it many years ago. MBh has been on the front lines fighting for all bowhunters for many years,

[TOW]

[WOW!!! That's a little strong, don't you think?

Just because a bowhunter doesn't join your club or has a desire to have another choice in archery hunting gear they are "apathetic self righteous slobs"?

No wonder people don't want to join your club with that kind of an attitude.

[Radar420]

If it were not for MBH- we would not even have a bow season. MBH lobbied for, and got it many years ago. MBh has been on the front lines fighting for all bowhunters for many years, yet way to many of you thankless bow hunters take that for granted. You can spend thousands of dollars on bows and hunting gear, yet not support your state bowhunting organization. you piss and moan about their stance on crossbows, but never once have you lifted a finger, or spent $20.00 a year to support the organization that fights for bowhunters. You apathetic self righteous slobs who never do anything but complain if you dont get YOUR way will destroy what we have. Greed and the desire to make bowhunting as easy as you can will ruin bowhunting.

Divided we fall- divided we fail.

First off, Michigan's first archery season was in 1937 and MBH wasn't formed until 1946. So while certain members of MBH may have lobbied for it, the organization had no part of it.

Secondly, why support an organization that purports to be "the voice of Michigan's archer" when in reality they are the voice of Michigan's vertical bow user?

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

whether you agree or disagree with Michigan Bow Hunters stand against crossbows, there is a couple of things worth reminding a lot of you pro-crossbow guys about.

If it were not for MBH- we would not even have a bow season. MBH lobbied for, and got it many years ago. MBh has been on the front lines fighting for all bowhunters for many years, yet way to many of you thankless bow hunters take that for granted. You can spend thousands of dollars on bows and hunting gear, yet not support your state bowhunting organization. you piss and moan about their stance on crossbows, but never once have you lifted a finger, or spent $20.00 a year to support the organization that fights for bowhunters. You apathetic self righteous slobs who never do anything but complain if you dont get YOUR way will destroy what we have. Greed and the desire to make bowhunting as easy as you can will ruin bowhunting.

Divided we fall- divided we fail.
when you enter into a debate you should at least have your
opening statement rightthe mbh DID NOT GET THE BOW SEASON PERIOD. it was Fred Bear and 2 other MAJOR ARCHERY MANUFACTURERS that got the archery season. so your argument is worthless and baseless to say the least. as far as all that other hoopla you spewed all over the internet it to is meaningless and worthless. considering the fact that thousands of disabled individuals are denied the right to hunt because they don't meet an insidious medical requirements set up by a committee that violates its very existence by defying scientific and medical data, i would say that henders on ........at this point everyone can fill in their own words. i think you all know what i want, but, will not say:lol:

[Whit1]

If it were not for MBH- we would not even have a bow season. MBH lobbied for, and got it many years ago.

A refresher course in history is in order.

From MBH's website:
"Back in 1946, a group of Michigan Pioneer archers decided that our state's then small band of bowhunters needed official recognition to promote their sport. Through the effort of these dedicated individuals, the Michigan Bow Hunters Association was formed."

Michigan's first only bowseason was held in 1938 and was lobbied for by Fred Bear among others.

[Munsterlndr]

whether you agree or disagree with Michigan Bow Hunters stand against crossbows, there is a couple of things worth reminding a lot of you pro-crossbow guys about.

If it were not for MBH- we would not even have a bow season. MBH lobbied for, and got it many years ago. MBh has been on the front lines fighting for all bowhunters for many years, yet way to many of you thankless bow hunters take that for granted. You can spend thousands of dollars on bows and hunting gear, yet not support your state bowhunting organization. you piss and moan about their stance on crossbows, but never once have you lifted a finger, or spent $20.00 a year to support the organization that fights for bowhunters. You apathetic self righteous slobs who never do anything but complain if you dont get YOUR way will destroy what we have. Greed and the desire to make bowhunting as easy as you can will ruin bowhunting.

Divided we fall- divided we fail.

I hesitate to even respond to this post having read many of your posts on Bowsite, I'm aware that you are so emotionally wrapped up in the mystical aura of "bow hunting" that you have left any rational perspective on this issue in the distant past.

As has been pointed out, MBH was not even in existence when archery season was started in Michigan, so you are mistaken in your claim that bow season was the result of MBH lobbying. They may have been on the front lines but it was not fighting for "all" bowhunters. It was fighting for those select few who happen to fit their definition. They have been fighting against the disabled being able to use crossbows for years. They made sure that the criteria was set so high that the vast majority of disabled hunters would not be able to qualify for a permit. This was an intentional move on the part of MBH/MTB to limit crossbow expansion. The only reason they grudgingly agreed to inclusion in firearms season is because the DNR told the original ad-hoc committee that crossbows were going somewhere and Steve Bishop and the rest of the MBH members on the committee figured that if they were stuck in firearms season no one would bother.

The level of hypocrisy evidenced by MBH and their desire to monopolize a public resource is staggering. It is just as legitimate for crossbow advocates to lobby for the inclusion of crossbows in a season outside of the firearms season as it was when Fred Bear lobbied for his concept of the "two-season" hunter back in 1936. To deny others the opportunities that were granted to you is the height of hypocrisy. It was Ok for Fred to lobby for an independent season but crossbows are somehow a threat to hunting as we know it? Get over yourselves! Nobody will stop you from using a long bow to hunt deer. Crossbows will have a minimal impact on "your" season, as has been evidenced in every other state that has adopted them. Believe it or not, Ohio still has trad bow jamboree's and Compton meets and all of the other social and competitive gatherings that you seem to feel are an integral part of your take on bow hunting. That is not going to change with the introductions of crossbows.

Instead of being so self centered as an organization that you put the personal interests of your members above the interests of the herd, why don't you guys focus on some of the management issues that need to be addressed. If you guys put as much effort into promoting EAB or OBR or the responsible harvest of does, as you put into demonizing crossbows, this state might actually improve the quality of it's resource.

Instead of crying and whining about how MBH is being dissed and how it's worthy of "respect" for all it's done, for once why don't you try and make a cogent, reasoned argument about how the inclusion of crossbows might have a negative impact on the resource. Give us some facts instead of all of the emotional BS that you MBH guys typically throw out there, about the denigration of your hallowed "tradition".

Tell us how you are going to reverse the trend of declining hunter numbers in this state.

Tell us how you are going to contribute to solving the chronic overpopulation problems that the SLP has been facing and how you are going to reduce the size of the herd.

Tell us how you are going to increase revenue streams for the DNR and how you are going to increase the amount of Pittman-robinson revenue that Michigan receives.

How exactly does limiting hunter opportunity and keeping disabled hunters from participating benefit anybody, except for helping declining numbers of vertical bow hunters who want to monopolize a public resource and are worried about someone else shooting "their" buck?

As far as pissing and moaning, I'd say the lions share of that has been occurring on bowsite and leatherwall and the trad bow forum this week. I must say, the gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair has been pretty entertaining to watch! :lol:

[autumnarcher]

I stand corrected on the dateline I posted, I was typing and working on some other stuff at the same time and screwed that one up. As for my strong words, I applogize for coming across the manner I did, that is not my usual nature. But I'll admit I feel strongly about this issue. I let my emotions override my better judgement in the words I used, which was wrong.

I still stand behind the fact the vast majority of bowhunters in this state spend thousands of dollars on their pasttime, but will not pony up $20.00 a yearw to support an organization that fights for hunters. That includes MBH, but is not limited to it. The truth is, most hunters do not stnd up and suport any organiztions that fight for thier rights.

As for crossbows, sure as an organization, MBH opposes them, as did Fred Bear. Yes, he was the one who fought for the two - season hunter, but he did not propose crossbows in archery season. The only reason a crossbow is called such is that its projectile is a shorter version of an arrow. that is where the similarities end.

MBH played a big role in getting the crossbow legalized for disabled hunters. But no matter what, you cant please everyone. I fully support MBH and thier stand on crossbows. I do not believe they belong inthe archery season.

As for hunter retention, just how is allowing them going to bring in more hunters? Are there potential hunters sitting out there waiting for crossbows in archery season to take up hunting for the first time? No. Are there a large amount of firearms hunters who will take up the crossbow, to hunt during bow season because they do not want to do the work it takes to learn to shoot a bow? I believe there are a lot of them.

I hunt with a bow, I hunt with a gun. I hunt with a muzzleloader. Each has its respective seasons, which I do not feel need to be changed.

I will always stand by my belief that the reason a cross bow is not a bow is the basic premise that it is not hand draw, hand held in the presence of game. It can be shot from a rest and bears a stock of a rifle. Thus, it is not a bow.

I understand there are plenty here who disagree, and I respect that , but I will continue to oppose the crossbow in archery season. It has a season in which it is legal, and if you are so in love with shooting a crossbow, then hunt with it in November.

Its interesting that I have read in various forums where in one breath folks argue that we are shooting too many deer, and screwing up the herd, then in the next breath argue to allow crossbows into archery season so we can continue to reduce the herd that is too large. Which is it???

The sad thing is, this is another issue that is dividing us, while antis look to use that division to thier ultimate advantage. At some point, we are going to have to seriously look at limiting the technology as it relates to hunting equipment. I think the non hunter has a hard time understanding it, and it will ultimately be our undoing at the ballot box. I don't mean that to be an attack on any group in particular. But if it happens, it will affect us all.

Personally, I think this issue is quite likely a done deal. I think the politicians have sold out, made their deals and promises and this will get through. I don't put much faith or trust in the legislative process anymore. I've seen this scenario happen before. Its what happens when politicians decide our issues.

[November Sunrise]

MBH played a big role in getting the crossbow legalized for disabled hunters. But no matter what, you cant please everyone. I fully support MBH and thier stand on crossbows. I do not believe they belong inthe archery season.

I call things as I see them. Specific to MBH, I applaud them for their recent efforts to help get the SLP firearm antlerless season in place in September rather than having it occur in October. In that case I think that MBH did an excellent job in representing the interests of the majority of bowhunters. I applaud Bruce Levey for suggesting at the May NRC meeting that the DNR adopt a ZZ antlerless tag structure for the SLP rather than issuing antlerless tags by DMU in the SLP.

On the other hand, the stance that MBH has taken in respect to crossbow use for disabled hunters is indefensible. Continuing to advocate discrimination against disabled hunters that have less than a 80% disability and advocating a removal of physicians from the process is shameful. Here's a link to their stance. http://www.michiganbowhunters.com/news.asp.

[Munsterlndr]

As for crossbows, sure as an organization, MBH opposes them, as did Fred Bear. Yes, he was the one who fought for the two - season hunter, but he did not propose crossbows in archery season. The only reason a crossbow is called such is that its projectile is a shorter version of an arrow. that is where the similarities end.

I am fully confident that Fred Bear would favor the inclusion of Crossbows in archery season. Fred Bear hated the elitist element in the bow hunting ranks and commented on it frequently. He personally did not like shooting compounds but he readily saw the value that they had in bringing greater numbers of archers into the fold. It is called a crossbow because it's a type of bow with the limbs mounted in a transverse fashion to the tiller, thus making the shape of a cross. The crossbow predates the firearm by 1,000+ years. The piece that you put to your shoulder is technically called a tiller, not a stock, as is the main beam of a longbow. They are derived from the same basic implement. The energy that propels an arrow is stored in limbs, just as in a long or compound bow and the force is transferred to the arrow by a string. Not all crossbows are shoulder mounted, still similar to a firearm? Many compound bow users use a trigger release similar to the trigger on a firearm, does that make the compound a firearm? Compound bow users often use scopes, as do firearms, does that make it them the same? Come on. If you take a detached, dispassionate view of the two weapons and put aside all of the hyperbole that has become second nature to spout, any reasonable person would admit that a crossbow is simply a type or variation of a bow and is nothing close to being a firearm. The only major difference is that a vertical bow is held at full draw while a crossbow is locked at full draw. With the advent of 99% let-off technology that exists, that difference is down to 1%. Unless you are going to lobby for the exclusion of high let-off compounds (good luck), the distinction between what is currently legal and what is proposed is minute.

MBH played a big role in getting the crossbow legalized for disabled hunters. But no matter what, you cant please everyone. I fully support MBH and thier stand on crossbows. I do not believe they belong inthe archery season.
MBH played a big role in placing extreme limitations on who is defined as disabled in terms of qualifying for a crossbow permit. How you could look in the eye of a returning veteran who has a 75% permanent disability and tell him, sorry, your not worthy to hunt during our season, despite the fact that the technology exists to allow you to continue to recreate. But because "we" want to keep the woods to ourselves, "we" have determined that you are not disabled enough.

As for hunter retention, just how is allowing them going to bring in more hunters? Are there potential hunters sitting out there waiting for crossbows in archery season to take up hunting for the first time? No. Are there a large amount of firearms hunters who will take up the crossbow, to hunt during bow season because they do not want to do the work it takes to learn to shoot a bow? I believe there are a lot of them.

I know that you find this hard to believe but a lot of the guys who would take up crossbows are currently vertical bow hunters. They are already in the woods hunting and harvesting deer, they simply want the option to use a different weapon. A lot of firearms hunters would also take up the crossbow. Just out of curiosity, where do you think Fred Bear and Roy Case recruited new archers from when they were successful in establishing an archery season? Fred had been a firearms hunter for 17 years before he hunted with a bow. I was a firearms hunter before I became a vertical bow hunter, as were most bow hunters. I fail to understand why it's ok for vertical bow hunters to be recruited from the ranks of firearms hunters but if a firearm hunter picks up a crossbow they become an "apathetic self righteous slob?". As far as hunter retention, why do you think that a number of states including Wisconsin and Illinois have allowed crossbows for seniors? Because they recognize that after age 45 the rate of hunters leaving the bow hunting ranks increases and by the time that they hit their 60's, fewer and fewer of them will keep bow hunting. Crossbows allow us to retain more of these older hunters. That is not a guess, it's been demonstrated in Wisconsin, Georgia , Maryland and other states. Why would you want to impose such a strict rule that says wen you are no longer comfortable using a vertical bow, you have to completely give up enjoying the season that you have enjoyed for the past twenty years? It makes no sense to shove these experienced hunters over the transom, under some misguided notion that "if they can't hunt with a vertical bow, we don't need them."

I hunt with a bow, I hunt with a gun. I hunt with a muzzleloader. Each has its respective seasons, which I do not feel need to be changed. Therein lies the problem, each of the weapons that you mention has it's own stand alone season. Crossbows do not. Every attempt to suggest a stand alone crossbow season was met with furious objection by MBH/MTB. You guys drew a line in the sand saying that you would agree to no compromise on lowering disability requirements, allowing crossbows for Seniors or youth, or fro a stand alone season. You wanted all or nothing. Given that stance, why are you surprised with the fact that the tide has changed and you are now faced with "nothing?" It's not like this writing has not been on the wall for years and that the same thing has not been happening in many other states. If you had showed a willingness to compromise, I can almost guarantee that you would not be faced with full inclusion today. You reap what you sow and the harvest is near.

I will always stand by my belief that the reason a cross bow is not a bow is the basic premise that it is not hand draw, hand held in the presence of game. It can be shot from a rest and bears a stock of a rifle. Thus, it is not a bow.

I understand there are plenty here who disagree, and I respect that , but I will continue to oppose the crossbow in archery season. It has a season in which it is legal, and if you are so in love with shooting a crossbow, then hunt with it in November.
Fred Bear could hunt with his bow during the firearms deer season in 1936, why was he compelled to become a two season hunter? Is it not reasonable that crossbow users also have the desire to become two-season hunters? I have yet to hear a reasonable response to that question from a trad guy.

Its interesting that I have read in various forums where in one breath folks argue that we are shooting too many deer, and screwing up the herd, then in the next breath argue to allow crossbows into archery season so we can continue to reduce the herd that is too large. Which is it???

Our herd is getting close to two million deer. In the vast majority of the state we re not shooting enough deer, especially enough does. We shoot too many yearling's and in a perfect world we would reduce the number of yearling bucks that were harvested but harvesting more deer overall is the more compelling of the two problems. You guys paint pictures of doom and gloom and speculate what would happen if hundreds of thousands more hunters took to the woods. No need to speculate, look at the statistics for 1998. There were 80,000 more bow hunters in the woods in 1998. I bow hunted that year, did you? Was it mass chaos with the season being destroyed by so many hunters being in the woods? Not that I recall. It was a record harvest, that still did nothing to dent the population in the long run. Deer are amazingly prolific and adaptable. Adding more hunters to the woods at any time of the year is going to have far more positive benefits than negative ones. It serves the greater good and that is what we should be focusing on as hunters, not the desires of a select few.

The sad thing is, this is another issue that is dividing us, while antis look to use that division to their ultimate advantage. At some point, we are going to have to seriously look at limiting the technology as it relates to hunting equipment. I think the non hunter has a hard time understanding it, and it will ultimately be our undoing at the ballot box. I don't mean that to be an attack on any group in particular. But if it happens, it will affect us all.

Personally, I think this issue is quite likely a done deal. I think the politicians have sold out, made their deals and promises and this will get through. I don't put much faith or trust in the legislative process anymore. I've seen this scenario happen before. Its what happens when politicians decide our issues.

It is a divisive issue and that is unfortunate. But the status quo of hunting will always be a changing field and that is generally a good thing. Hunter numbers are dropping and we continue to become marginalized politically. Instead of portraying it as a bleak outlook, take some satisfaction in the fact that the House voted 94-14 to expand hunter opportunities in Michigan and none of the legislators tried to squash this bill as part of an anti-hunting agenda. I'd say that is pretty damn impressive when you look at what a small percentage of the population hunters make up. If it adds 100,000 new hunters to the bow season ranks, those are 100,000 new advocates who will not be in favor of cutting the length of bow season. Make some lemonade out of your perceived lemons, you might actually find something to be happy about in all of this. ;)

[autumnarcher]

I am fully confident that Fred Bear would favor the inclusion of Crossbows in archery season. I have to disagree with you on this point. Find me a quote in any of Freds writing that shows his support for crossbows, as long as you can write it without taking it out of context. If one exists, I have never seen or heard it in all that I have read.

Many compound bow users use a trigger release similar to the trigger on a firearm, does that make the compound a firearm? Compound bow users often use scopes, as do firearms, does that make it them the same? Come on. If you take a detached, dispassionate view of the two weapons and put aside all of the hyperbole that has become second nature to spout, any reasonable person would admit that a crossbow is simply a type or variation of a bow and is nothing close to being a firearm. The only major difference is that a vertical bow is held at full draw while a crossbow is locked at full draw. With the advent of 99% let-off technology that exists, that difference is down to 1%.

First off, because I hunt and shoot a longbow, does not automatically make me anti compound. I hunted with one for years. As far as the trigger release,no, that does not make a compound a firearm for the very reasons I stated earlier. I cannot take a longbow, recurve or compound, load it, draw it with a pulley assist device, cock and lock it into place, and set in on a rest to shoot it from. Even compounds with 80% let-off result in arm fatigue if held for more than a minute or so. None have a rifle style stock. I never said a crossbow was a firearm, as by definition a firearm requires ignition(fire) of powder to propel a projectile. the comparison is with the rifle stock nomenclature of the crossbow. as for l;et-off technology, I do feel , as I stated previously, that at some point we as bowhunters need some self imposed restrictions on technology. the preception among the non hunting majority will soon enough turn against us, in which case we all lose. That is one reason I switched to traditional archery gear. I am not opposed to compounds. They require a good amount of skill to master, are hand draw and held, no stock etc. huge difference.

There are more points i would rehash if I werent tired and ready for bed. Frankly, I do not see anything i say changing your mind, nor anything you say changing mine. We will have to agree to disagree. This issue has been fought over for many years, and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Its ultimately fueled by a greedy crossbow industry who cares nothing about archery or bowhunting tradition, its money and profits that drive them.

Its those very things that will eventually destroy hunting in this country as we know it. It will be a sport of the rich and elite. Money will have driven the rest of us out of the woods.

[November Sunrise]

Its ultimately fueled by a greedy crossbow industry who cares nothing about archery or bowhunting tradition, its money and profits that drive them.

Its those very things that will eventually destroy hunting in this country as we know it. It will be a sport of the rich and elite. Money will have driven the rest of us out of the woods.

Do the manufacturers of compounds bows not have an interest in profits? Are they in it just for the tradition? Are the businesses that sell traditional equipment not interested in profits? Do you think it's possible that the individuals and companies who benefit the most from the current structure and who are crying wolf when it comes to crossbows might be doing so in order to protect their profits?

Have we reached the time where from this point forward nothing should ever change? Under the guise of tradition should our goal as hunters be to preserve the 1990's forever?

How many more years will MBH continue to advocate discrimination against disabled hunters who have less than a 80% disability?

[MERGANZER]

Condemn the MBH if you will, I am not a member and am not up to date with their stances on many things but please do not hole Ted Nugent on a pedestal as a representative of archers throughout the state. He has so many screws loose he does more damage than good when he opens his mouth to the NON-HUNTING AUDIENCE.

Ganzer

[Kurt4253]

Did you know that Fred Bear Archery in fact makes & sells crossbows. They also make & provide crossbow "limbs" for other crossbow manufactures. Hmmmmmm. - Some how I don't think the company would do such a thing, if their founder was so dead set against them.

Kurt

[MERGANZER]

Fred Bear archery does not operate on what Fred would do no more than Ford Motor Company thinks about Henry Ford with every decision. They are a company in it for money and there is a lot of money in crossbow sales nationwide.

Ganzer

[November Sunrise]

Condemn the MBH if you will, I am not a member and am not up to date with their stances on many things but please do not hole Ted Nugent on a pedestal as a representative of archers throughout the state. He has so many screws loose he does more damage than good when he opens his mouth to the NON-HUNTING AUDIENCE.

Ganzer

:lol: - you and I are on the same page there. Personally, I couldn't care less what Ted's stance is on anything.

[November Sunrise]

Fred Bear archery does not operate on what Fred would do no more than Ford Motor Company thinks about Henry Ford with every decision. They are a company in it for money and there is a lot of money in crossbow sales nationwide.

Ganzer

Where the silliness comes into play regarding Fred Bear is the oft repeated "Fred Bear must be rolling over in his grave..." theories that some like to espouse whenever something emerges that they personally disagree with. Oftentimes these speculations are "supported" by anecdotal stories of talking to Fred once back in '67, or the relationship that a 2nd cousins uncles mailman had with Fred, etc. Some people have created an image in their mind of who they think Fred Bear was, and instead that image is often more a matter of imagining Fred to be just like them and is frequently incongruent with what his actual words and actions consisted of.

[Swamp Ghost]

Where the silliness comes into play regarding Fred Bear is the oft repeated "Fred Bear must be rolling over in his grave..." theories that some like to espouse whenever something emerges that they personally disagree with. Oftentimes these speculations are "supported" by anecdotal stories of talking to Fred once back in '67, or the relationship that a 2nd cousins uncles mailman had with Fred, etc. Some people have created an image in their mind of who they think Fred Bear was, and instead that image is often more a matter of imagining Fred to be just like them and is frequently incongruent with what his actual words and actions consisted of.

Right on the money.

[Munsterlndr]

I have to disagree with you on this point. Find me a quote in any of Freds writing that shows his support for crossbows, as long as you can write it without taking it out of context. If one exists, I have never seen or heard it in all that I have read.
I have seen two quotes by Fred that would lead me to believe that he was pretty non-judgmental regarding crossbows or the other weapons that hunters chose to employ. The first was in the context of a conversation concerning the use of "pods" (tranquilizers), a concept that Fred toyed with as a means of decreasing the number of unrecovered wounded deer.

"The argument always is presented that the tranquilizer (I use this word
always meaning an overdose of the stuff, poison if you like.) will provide the
poacher with a better weapon. Our Michigan poachers are smarter than that.
They use .22 shorts. Don't have to get out of the car and can't be heard
over 500 yards. A much more successful weapon than the bow or crossbow
with tranquilizer. " Fred Bear

While crossbows are mentioned as an aside in this comment, it certainly appears that Fred did not see them as a poachers weapon (a charge that is often leveled against them by vertical bow hunters) and it appears that he viewed them as a legitimate hunting weapon since he grouped them in with bows.

The second quote does not mention crossbows but it certainly speaks to Fred's inclusiveness of hunters using other weapons and his disdain for the "elitist" arm of the bow hunting fraternity. Having read a lot of Fred Bears words, I find it very hard to believe that he would not be perfectly comfortable in substituting the word crossbow for gun.

"You asked how archers can improve the bowhunting picture. Archers can do that first by remembering that there are people who like to hunt with a gun, just as many of us like to hunt with the bow. Each should have the same respect providing he is as good a sportsman as anyone else. Many archers look down on the gun hunter. That is not the proper attitude. This fellow is enjoying the same sport, only he's doing it with a different weapon of his choice. (emphasis mine) Many people get the sportsmen's fraternity against them by scowling at the business of hunting with a gun, thinking that bowhunting is the only way to hunt. That is wrong. You have to be a good sport. You have to try to shoot accurately and to kill cleanly and you don't go around telling people that you hit an animal just simply because you couldn't find your arrow." Fred Bear

Ok, your turn. Provide us with a direct quote from Fred Bear that would indicate his position on crossbows.


Even compounds with 80% let-off result in arm fatigue if held for more than a minute or so. None have a rifle style stock. I never said a crossbow was a firearm, as by definition a firearm requires ignition(fire) of powder to propel a projectile. the comparison is with the rifle stock nomenclature of the crossbow. as for l;et-off technology, I do feel , as I stated previously, that at some point we as bowhunters need some self imposed restrictions on technology. the preception among the non hunting majority will soon enough turn against us, in which case we all lose.
I would simply ask why bow hunters should give in to Luddite tendencies and limit the amount of technology? The only legitimate reason that I can think of would be if technology had a role in a negative impact on the resource but there is not a shred of evidence that that is the case. Embracing technology is a choice. If you don't want to, great but I would suggest that in the absence of any evidence that increased technology has a detrimental impact on the resource, that it's really none of your business what technology another hunter chooses to employ. Regarding technology being viewed in a negative light by the non-hunting public, show us a drop of evidence of that occurring. If you are worried about the public perception of bow hunting, maybe you should suggest that bow fisherman not fill up dumpsters at public parks with hundreds of pounds of dead and dying carp that are not going to be utilized in any manner except being filler for the landfill. I'm not opposed to bow fishing but if I was a non-hunter and saw guys dumping several hundred pounds of bloody carp into a dumpster, it might make me step back and ask, "Hmmmm..... what is this "sport" all about?"

This issue has been fought over for many years, and it keeps rearing its ugly head. Its ultimately fueled by a greedy crossbow industry who cares nothing about archery or bowhunting tradition, its money and profits that drive them.

Its those very things that will eventually destroy hunting in this country as we know it. It will be a sport of the rich and elite. Money will have driven the rest of us out of the woods.

In the vertical bow woods money, commerce and the concept of profit has become something that is portrayed to be a negative. So socialism is the way to go? Fred Bear, Roy Case and many of the other pioneers of bow hunting manufactured archery tackle. They were in it to make a buck and to earn a living. Is Ron LaClair now giving away his bows for free? Does the fact that he profits from selling traditional archery equipment create an ulterior motive on his part? The bow hunting "tradition" has not been destroyed in Ohio or any other state that crossbows have been expanded. Show us an example of where that "tradition" has been destroyed.

[Swamp Ghost]

Do the manufacturers of compounds bows not have an interest in profits? Are they in it just for the tradition? Are the businesses that sell traditional equipment not interested in profits? Do you think it's possible that the individuals and companies who benefit the most from the current structure and who are crying wolf when it comes to crossbows might be doing so in order to protect their profits?

Have we reached the time where from this point forward nothing should ever change? Under the guise of tradition should our goal as hunters be to preserve the 1990's forever?

How many more years will MBH continue to advocate discrimination against disabled hunters who have less than a 80% disability?

According to the MBH hierarchy, the ability for the disabled to get a permit for crossbow use requiring only a personal physician letter stating the inablity to draw 35# has sat in Shelltrown's committee for the last year.

[Munsterlndr]

According to the MBH hierarchy, the ability for the disabled to get a permit for crossbow use requiring only a personal physician letter stating the inablity to draw 35# has sat in Shelltrown's committee for the last year.

In order to be assigned to a House committee it would have to have a bill number. Please provide the number of the bill in question so we can verify this.

[TOW]

November Sunrise and Munsterlndr....

You guys are GOOD!!

[editor]

they do want the choice but are afraid to go against the 'blue state' liberalism that controls so much of michigan gaming politics... :help:

I have seen Ted Nugent using crossbows on television. I am pretty sure he was not in Michigan as that would be against the law. I think he has a ranch in Texas and maybe thats where he was. Crossbows are completely legal there.
Anyway we all know what a bow nut Ted is and even he uses a crossbow given the chance. So why do other Michigan archers not want the freedom to chose like Ted?

that was texas, btw.

[Swamp Ghost]

In order to be assigned to a House committee it would have to have a bill number. Please provide the number of the bill in question so we can verify this.

It is SB572. It gives the NRC the authority to make rule changes on the modified bow permit. It has finally moved out of Sheltrown's committee (after his own crossbow bill of course) and was passed by the House.

[butter21]

This is pretty interesting.

[Munsterlndr]

It is SB572. It gives the NRC the authority to make rule changes on the modified bow permit. It has finally moved out of Sheltrown's committee (after his own crossbow bill of course) and was passed by the House.

Swamp -

You may want to check with your source in the MBH "hierarchy" but SB572 has nothing to do with crossbows. The weapons in question in that bill are modified vertical bows that are used with a device similar to drawloc. It creates essentially a vertical crossbow. When Rep. Walker questioned the MBH members testifying at the committee hearing about why MBH would support the use of a modified bow but not the use of a crossbow, the MBH guy hemmed and hawed and could not come up with any kind of a reasonable answer. Walker responded with "so you are unable to draw any distinction between the two?" (I'm paraphrasing, it was something to that effect.)

MBH is well aware that SB572 does not apply to crossbows, which is why they were supportive of it. For them to allege that Sheltrown has been sitting on a bill that would allow the disabled to be able to use a crossbow with just a physicians letter is both inaccurate and a pathetic attempt at spin. You should know by now to take anything that MBH says with a major grain of salt. ;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Swamp -

You may want to check with your source in the MBH "hierarchy" but SB572 has nothing to do with crossbows. The weapons in question in that bill are modified vertical bows that are used with a device similar to drawloc. It creates essentially a vertical crossbow. When Rep. Walker questioned the MBH members testifying at the committee hearing about why MBH would support the use of a modified bow but not the use of a crossbow, the MBH guy hemmed and hawed and could not come up with any kind of a reasonable answer. Walker responded with "so you are unable to draw any distinction between the two?" (I'm paraphrasing, it was something to that effect.)

MBH is well aware that SB572 does not apply to crossbows, which is why they were supportive of it. For them to allege that Sheltrown has been sitting on a bill that would allow the disabled to be able to use a crossbow with just a physicians letter is both inaccurate and a pathetic attempt at spin. You should know by now to take anything that MBH says with a major grain of salt. ;)

Doesn't this bill remove a statutory provision and give the Commission the authority to set rules, ie., physician letter, concerning disabled crossbow use as well?

[Munsterlndr]

Doesn't this bill remove a statutory provision and give the Commission the authority to set rules, ie., physician letter, concerning disabled crossbow use as well?

No it does not. It solely deals with the use of a modified bow (draw-loc).

Prior to this bill the NRC had the authority to issue a permit that would allow someone to use a modified bow, if the criteria for obtaining a permit were met.

Subsequent to this Bill the NRC has the authority to issue an order and can define the terms under which that order applies but only related to modified bows, not crossbows.

So under this bill the NRC could for instance issue an order that says anybody who's name was smith could use a modified bow. No permit required. If your name was smith and you wanted to use a crossbow, you would still have to obtain a permit and meet all of the criteria required under the current system.

This was a pretty blatant attempt by MBH to make it easier to be able to use a modified bow insted of a crossbow. The hope is that if faced with choosing between a crossbow or a modified bow, if your disabled, that if it's much, much easier to be able to use a modified bow, without having to bear the expense and humiliation of going to a doctor or a physical therapist, that most disabled hunters would choose a draw-loc instead of spending the time and effort involved in qualifying for a crossbow permit. MBH can't give an answer as to why it's more desirable for hunters to be forced to hunt with a vertical with a draw-loc instead of just being able to use a crossbow other than that crossbows are EVIL!


All I can say is that I hope that when somebody gets injured from using a vertical with a draw-loc, when a limb blows out because they are not designed to be under constant flex for hours on end, that they take a long hard look at the asinine stance that they have taken towards crossbows and maybe recognize that they are not inherently evil but just another tool for the job.

[November Sunrise]

Doesn't this bill remove a statutory provision and give the Commission the authority to set rules, ie., physician letter, concerning disabled crossbow use as well?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2007-SEBH-0572.pdf

No, the bill never had anything to do with physician letters or crossbow use for the disabled. If it did we could assume that MBH would have stood in opposition to it, because they clearly state on their website that they don't approve of lowering the existing disability limit for crossbow users to lower than 80% and they also advocate removing physicians from the process.

Most people familiar with this process believe that SB 572 was launched at the request of MBH last fall so that the resulting legislation could be used as a tool for them, as it would have permitted them to claim that crossbows aren't needed by disabled hunters because disabled hunters can use a modified bow instead. Since the time that the legislation was hatched the NRC work group has come into existence and then subsequently Sheltrown's proposed legislation as a well. As a result, the strategy that they were pursuing with this modified bow tactic has now been diffused.

Nonetheless, in their testimony before the house committee they clearly communicated their belief that a modified bow is a more legitimate apparatus than a crossbow. Their explanation of modified bows caused Rep Walker, who had been the lone dissenting vote on recommending 5741 (the crossbow bill) to the full house, to ask Jerry Keck why MBH supported the modified bow permit but didn't support crossbows. Rep Walked started his question with the words "how do you reconcile your inconsistency...?" Keck responded by attempting to portray MBH as champions of the disabled and as big advocates of both modified bows and crossbows for those with disabilities.

SB 572 was passed unanimously out of committee and I believe the vote in the full house was also unanimous.

[Swamp Ghost]

No it does not. It solely deals with the use of a modified bow (draw-loc).

Prior to this bill the NRC had the authority to issue a permit that would allow someone to use a modified bow, if the criteria for obtaining a permit were met.

Subsequent to this Bill the NRC has the authority to issue an order and can define the terms under which that order applies but only related to modified bows, not crossbows.

So under this bill the NRC could for instance issue an order that says anybody who's name was smith could use a modified bow. No permit required. If your name was smith and you wanted to use a crossbow, you would still have to obtain a permit and meet all of the criteria required under the current system.

This was a pretty blatant attempt by MBH to make it easier to be able to use a modified bow insted of a crossbow. The hope is that if faced with choosing between a crossbow or a modified bow, if your disabled, that if it's much, much easier to be able to use a modified bow, without having to bear the expense and humiliation of going to a doctor or a physical therapist, that most disabled hunters would choose a draw-loc instead of spending the time and effort involved in qualifying for a crossbow permit. MBH can't give an answer as to why it's more desirable for hunters to be forced to hunt with a vertical with a draw-loc instead of just being able to use a crossbow other than that crossbows are EVIL!


All I can say is that I hope that when somebody gets injured from using a vertical with a draw-loc, when a limb blows out because they are not designed to be under constant flex for hours on end, that they take a long hard look at the asinine stance that they have taken towards crossbows and maybe recognize that they are not inherently evil but just another tool for the job.

It would be nice if the MBH would jump in here and explain their interpretation of the bill. I wasn't there and I didn't have a hand in forming the legislation.

I guess I am a poor go-between. :lol:

[Munsterlndr]

It would be nice if the MBH would jump in here and explain their interpretation of the bill. I wasn't there and I didn't have a hand in forming the legislation.

I guess I am a poor go-between. :lol:

If what they alleged is true, then the NRC would have the authority to issue an order allowing the use of crossbows in any season without them being subject to the issuance of a permit. Believe me, if that was the case, Jerry Keck and Bruce Levey and Ron LaClair would not have been up in front of the committee urging support for SB572. ;)

This bill was a calculated attempt to promote the draw-loc over crossbows as a reasonable accommodation for the disabled.

[November Sunrise]

It would be nice if the MBH would jump in here and explain their interpretation of the bill. I wasn't there and I didn't have a hand in forming the legislation.

I guess I am a poor go-between. :lol:

Swamp Ghost,

Cross my heart, I'm giving you the straight scoop/interpretation on what the legislation says. Just because you and I are on different sides of the issue doesn't mean I'm going to try and portray something inaccurately. That's not how I work man:).

From a getting legislation passed standpoint it was a very effective initiative by MBH. It was apparently at their request that the legislation was introduced in the fall, and getting it passed through both the house and senate in a timeframe where it will become law in less than a year from the point where it was introduced is about as optimal a scenario as one could hope for. In terms of griping about the process, I'm sure that they would have like to have seen Sheltrown pick up on it in his committee previous to the point where he did. Reality is, controlling timing is one of the perks of being a committee chair, and anyone who doesn't accept that obvious fact is destined for perpetual frustration. Key point is that after looking through the original draft and then what the house and senate passed, the legislation passed in essentially the identical form as to how it was originally proposed in the senate. It doesn't ever get any better than that when it comes to legislation and working with politicians.

[Swamp Ghost]

Swamp Ghost,

That's not how I work man:).



I know ;)

[treestand6]

I know that my post will get edited as I am against x-bows in archery season. I see above where Autumn Archer had most of his post deleted and the regulars here did have a chance to rebut his deleted post. How many posts do you have to have before you are deleted? How many posts do you have to have before you can argue against posts that are deleted?


Why do the x-bow people want to place their wepon of choice in archery season? It is because of the quiet time in the woods-VERY FEW HUNTERS! That will be gone!


Fred Bear did not like compound bow as he could not shoot one well-there are only a few pics of Fred with a compound in his hands--About Fred and compounds-"Fred says he won't use a compound because it's an old mans bow" ( Bob Munger)


In 1947, x-bows were declared illegal for bow hunting by the legislature. Up until this time ,x-bows had been ruled illegal by the Attorney General!

About the subject of which came first MBH or Deer season- Michigan Archers Ass. started in 1927--they promoted the hunting with a bow in Mich. In 1937 came the Archery deer season. People did not want to join a target club so at a meeting of the Michigan Archers Association on Feb. 3 1946, it was decided to organize The Michigan Bow Hunters association. That is how and when they seperated ---So the MBH MAA did fight for the hunters rights since before there was an archery season. Same people, Same org., Dif name after 46.

I don't see much dif. in the Compound and the X-bow other than being pre-drawn and it is a big dif. if you are going to get cought while shooting at a deer it is during the draw.

I don't claim to be an expert on archery I only have shot bows for 54 yrs but I have learned alot. A gun hunter can hunt his whole life and not know as much as a first year bow hunter.

If Ted is for X-bows that is another reason I'm against them! LOL!!!



I could probably get a X-bow permit as of 2 years ago when I was determined as total disabled. I don't want an X-bow I'll carry my recurve, long bow,compound, self bow. I'm not selfish enough to want a season to change for my needs.. I just take my camera and if I can't draw I can take a pic. Maybe My cancer of the colon-liver-lungs-skin will take me before you take away the archery season I have known for 62 YRS.


One more thing, I don't think that it is right to slam Autumn Archer--He has done more for hunting than probably all the people on this thread!!

I hope when the time comes and you need one there will be a DREAM ARROW in you life! Only people who help hunters will know the meaning of a DREAM ARROW! Probably 2 people on this thread.