Discussions about the use of Crossbows in Michigan. Debate here.

[Buckeye Dan]

Since the mods keep shutting down the threads because they are off topic I will use the title of the forum as this thread. Now anyone should be able to say what they want within the rules without being off topic. The debate for pros and cons should go here. I left off with Swamp Ghost in another thread with this post before it was closed.
Please Swamp Ghost don't think I am singling you out. I actually feel that you made more valid comments about QDM than others. While most were giving emotional opinions you managed to raise and put forth a few concerns. I liked some of your QDM comments and I feel like all I need to do is present some information for you and your like minded. So if any group opposed to the full inclusion of the crossbow has a spokes person that would like to debate the subject with ME personally in this forum then by all means bring them to this thread and lets get it on!
This is page 2 from the original thread please read all of it in it's entirety before posting in this one.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241110&page=2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp Ghost http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2180062#post2180062)
I've heard plenty of "Facts".

Please provide the "facts" that show how an increase in one segment of a state's hunters while that same state is still losing hunters overall is increasing it's license revenue.

Please provide the "facts" the show how recruiting anywhere from 1-200,000+ MI firearm hunters with a crossbow bribe, into "archery" season that have already bought combo tags for an entire season, is going to increase MICHIGAN'S license revenue.

Please provide the "facts" that crossbow's recruit "new" hunters.

I'll save you the trouble, there are none.

You want facts? Look at the current regulations for using a crossbow in your state. By the very definition of the law those people are unable to use tradtional archery equipment. If you outlawed the crossbow they would not be able to hunt in archery season at all. You would have them join the gun ranks instead? 10 years old and the weaker elderly cannot use traditional archery equipment. Your law is excluding them from using the crossbow as we speak. They want to hunt. There have been 100's of posts from people that want to use the crossbow. They want to hunt. More licenses means more revenue period. There I proved it to you with your own states laws and didn't quote a single figure.

[BigBirdVA]

At this point why keep it going any longer with the 2-3 that post against their use? It's Archie Bunker syndrome. They're the way they are and that's how it's going to be. The same points are gone over and over. No matter how many states you show had no negative issues or surveys that show a majority approve, they're still coming up with the survey is flawed or it won't work in MI as we're different than any other state in the union.

[Swamp Ghost]

Since the mods keep shutting down the threads because they are off topic I will use the title of the forum as this thread. Now anyone should be able to say what they want within the rules without being off topic. The debate for pros and cons should go here. I left off with Swamp Ghost in another thread with this post before it was closed.
Please Swamp Ghost don't think I am singling you out. I actually feel that you made more valid comments about QDM than others. While most were giving emotional opinions you managed to raise and put forth a few concerns. I liked some of your QDM comments and I feel like all I need to do is present some information for you and your like minded. So if any group opposed to the full inclusion of the crossbow has a spokes person that would like to debate the subject with ME personally in this forum then by all means bring them to this thread and lets get it on!
This is page 2 from the original thread please read all of it in it's entirety before posting in this one.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241110&page=2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp Ghost http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2180062#post2180062)
I've heard plenty of "Facts".

Please provide the "facts" that show how an increase in one segment of a state's hunters while that same state is still losing hunters overall is increasing it's license revenue.

Please provide the "facts" the show how recruiting anywhere from 1-200,000+ MI firearm hunters with a crossbow bribe, into "archery" season that have already bought combo tags for an entire season, is going to increase MICHIGAN'S license revenue.

Please provide the "facts" that crossbow's recruit "new" hunters.

I'll save you the trouble, there are none.

You want facts? Look at the current regulations for using a crossbow in your state. By the very definition of the law those people are unable to use tradtional archery equipment. If you outlawed the crossbow they would not be able to hunt in archery season at all. You would have them join the gun ranks instead? 10 years old and the weaker elderly cannot use traditional archery equipment. Your law is excluding them from using the crossbow as we speak. They want to hunt. There have been 100's of posts from people that want to use the crossbow. They want to hunt. More licenses means more revenue period. There I proved it to you with your own states laws and didn't quote a single figure.

Still no facts or figures.

The disabled can use a crossbow in "Archery" season. Discussing the criteria for a crossbow use permit is another topic.

Crossbow enthusiasts can use their weapon of choice to hunt deer in MI. I mean no one is forcing them to use a gun during firearm season, are they? What other hunters use can't effect the "tradition"/experience of crossbowhunting, can it?

MI has a combo tag valid for all deer seasons/all weapons, no increase in license revenue.

[November Sunrise]

MI has a combo tag valid for all deer seasons/all weapons, no increase in license revenue.

DNR revenue impact would be determined primarily by the number of individuals who presently only purchase a firearm tag (277,000 in '07) who would become combo tag buyers (394,000 combo tag buyers in '07) with crossbow legalization. Probably some influence on antlerless license sales as well. If 33,000 firearm only hunters also became archers it would increase DNR license revenue by $500,000/annually.

[Swamp Ghost]

Agreed. I shouldn't have inferred "no" license increase. It's impact on revenue has yet to be determined ;)

[Buckeye Dan]

I don't need numbers to make this point. It's pure common sense. If MI made crossbow use illegal tomorrow what would happen? You would lose every single disabled hunter in archery season.
As I understand it you must purchase an archery license to use archery equipment for harvesting deer in MI.

It is unlawful to purchase more than one archery deer hunting license. This license entitles residents and nonresidents 10 or older to take one antlered or antlerless deer during Oct. 1 - Nov. 14 or Dec. 1 - Jan. 1 open bow and arrow deer season. Individuals hunting in the UP that purchased an archery license after June 11, 2008 are limited to harvesting one antlered deer between a firearm and archery license

There is your revenue right there. Even though everyone can't use a crossbow it still generates revenue in spite of your stern restrictions. Does it have the potential to generate more revenue? Another common sense answer with no figures needed. Ask any hunter that has been denied a permit for the crossbow because they were not crippled enough to qualify but are still too crippled to use a compound bow regardless of what their doctors said.

[November Sunrise]

I don't need numbers to make this point. It's pure common sense. If MI made crossbow use illegal tomorrow what would happen? You would lose every single disabled hunter in archery season.
As I understand it you must purchase an archery license to use archery equipment for harvesting deer in MI.

It is unlawful to purchase more than one archery deer hunting license. This license entitles residents and nonresidents 10 or older to take one antlered or antlerless deer during Oct. 1 - Nov. 14 or Dec. 1 - Jan. 1 open bow and arrow deer season. Individuals hunting in the UP that purchased an archery license after June 11, 2008 are limited to harvesting one antlered deer between a firearm and archery license

There is your revenue right there. Even though everyone can't use a crossbow it still generates revenue in spite of your stern restrictions. Does it have the potential to generate more revenue? Another common sense answer with no figures needed. Ask any hunter that has been denied a permit for the crossbow because they were not crippled enough to qualify but are still too crippled to use a compound bow regardless of what their doctors said.

The majority of MI hunters purchase a combo tag which entitles the purchaser to two antlered bucks in any season combination - both in archery, one in archery one in firearm, both in firearm, etc. Crossbow legalization would not have any effect on DNR license revenue from this group, unless it was a matter of these individuals purchasing additional antlerless tags as a result of increased opportunities afield.

Where the DNR license revenue increase would come into play is when individuals who previously purchased only a firearm deer license (or only an archery license for that matter) became combo tag purchasers.

As an aside, the financial impact of crossbow legalization wouldn't at all be limited to just DNR license revenue.

[butter21]

I don't need numbers to make this point. It's pure common sense. If MI made crossbow use illegal tomorrow what would happen? You would lose every single disabled hunter in archery season.
As I understand it you must purchase an archery license to use archery equipment for harvesting deer in MI.

It is unlawful to purchase more than one archery deer hunting license. This license entitles residents and nonresidents 10 or older to take one antlered or antlerless deer during Oct. 1 - Nov. 14 or Dec. 1 - Jan. 1 open bow and arrow deer season. Individuals hunting in the UP that purchased an archery license after June 11, 2008 are limited to harvesting one antlered deer between a firearm and archery license

There is your revenue right there. Even though everyone can't use a crossbow it still generates revenue in spite of your stern restrictions. Does it have the potential to generate more revenue? Another common sense answer with no figures needed. Ask any hunter that has been denied a permit for the crossbow because they were not crippled enough to qualify but are still too crippled to use a compound bow regardless of what their doctors said.
Most people just get a combo.

[Riva]

I
There is your revenue right there. Even though everyone can't use a crossbow it still generates revenue in spite of your stern restrictions. Does it have the potential to generate more revenue? Another common sense answer with no figures needed. Ask any hunter that has been denied a permit for the crossbow because they were not crippled enough to qualify but are still too crippled to use a compound bow regardless of what their doctors said.

I'm not exactly sure how many permits have been issued to disabled persons since the program's inception in the early 90's. Some say it is close to 20,000. Of course, some of those people have died and some have the permit yet do not purchase an archery license. So lets do a swag at say, 15,000. That is a 100% incremental dollar because, indeed, without this provision, they would be home watching mass for shut- ins on TV.

I really dont like your word "crippled" but your point is well taken. There is also a 100% chance that there will be people who fail to meet the current, and even the proposed, criteria and still be unable to pull and/or hold a regular bow. There are two solutions to that dilemma,specifically: (1) eliminate all criteria except for one obtaining a letter from your doctor attesting that you simply can't pull a regular bow or (2) full inclusion. Both solutions mean 100% incremental revenue to the DNR.

[Buckeye Dan]

I'm not exactly sure how many permits have been issued to disabled persons since the program's inception in the early 90's. Some say it is close to 20,000. Of course, some of those people have died and some have the permit yet do not purchase an archery license. So lets do a swag at say, 15,000. That is a 100% incremental dollar because, indeed, without this provision, they would be home watching mass for shut- ins on TV.

I really dont like your word "crippled" but your point is well taken. There is also a 100% chance that there will be people who fail to meet the current, and even the proposed, criteria and still be unable to pull and/or hold a regular bow. There are two solutions to that dilemma,specifically: (1) eliminate all criteria except for one obtaining a letter from your doctor attesting that you simply can't pull a regular bow or (2) full inclusion. Both solutions mean 100% incremental revenue to the DNR.

Yea crippled was a bad choice of words. I should have chosen a better word. But you get it! Viva to Riva! Now why is it not that obvious to the opposition? There it is! The proof they require currently in practice with standing laws right now. I didn't quote another state. I didn't use statistics. All I did was point towards the obvious. The crossbow has already created revenue and it will create more. Even if the revenue is from ONLY the hunters that were denied a crossbow permit. Now what about the 10 year olds? How many could fathers and friends put into the woods if they cocked the crossbow for them and took them hunting? It doesn't stop with the denied permit crowd.

For the purposes of this discussion on the subject of revenue consider the subject closed in this thread. I am just going to keep pointing at the obvious right here. I can't help the mathematically challenged that ignore what the limited inclusion has already done for MI's revenue. A positive future revenue is speculation for both sides until it actually happens. We could all watch Louisiana and see what happens there for revenues. They are going into their first season of inclusion this year so the numbers are still virgin.

[Buckeye Dan]

At this point why keep it going any longer with the 2-3 that post against their use? It's Archie Bunker syndrome. They're the way they are and that's how it's going to be. The same points are gone over and over. No matter how many states you show had no negative issues or surveys that show a majority approve, they're still coming up with the survey is flawed or it won't work in MI as we're different than any other state in the union.

Our job isn't finished BBVA. If there are still 2 or 3 out there we need to arm ourselves with information and complete knowledge of the matter in order to educate them. It really is a learning experience for all of us. I don't live in MI or hunt animals in MI. You know what? I think I have learned more about the subject of MI laws and crossbow info than most of the anti's have.
These are all questions and responses that must have an indisputable positive answer for our cause or it all becomes null and void.
What the anti's didn't know up to this point is I have been recording every negative response to the full inclusion of the crossbow. I have been saving these responses and am logically and systematically compiling the most educated and factual responses I can to not only prove my point but to prove their information is completely false or biased. I can't sway the ones where emotion is involved but if this were a jury trial I think I would be ready for court right now. At least in an internet forum. I still have some more to learn and memorize before I am ready in public. After Michigan I have my sights set on West Virgina. That is if they want it however. At this point I have only dealt with their DNR and not the general public.

Also let me take this oppurtunity to reveal my agenda for the anti's. I will be hunting with my Horton crossbow for the first time this year. I have owned if for 19 years and never hunted with it before or any other crossbow. I have been a vertical bow hunter in the past but only have a long bow left from that time period. I have no financial interests in any crossbow company. I work in a hospital and not for any hunting or crossbow related company. To the best of my knowledge none of them are publically traded so I couldn't buy stock if I wanted to. My only agenda in this matter is I have a choice. MI should have this freedom too. Why can I take 1 step to the south into Ohio's border and use something that is deemed illegal if I take one step to the north? Thats what this country was founded on and it's why we enjoy the freedoms we have today. I see it and I get it and I won't be happy until they do too. I am not forcing vertical bow hunters to use a crossbow. I am lobbying for the government of MI to allow the hunter to choose another weapon if they so desire. My television has lots of channels. If I don't like whats on vertical bow tv then I can turn it to crossbow tv. In Michigan you only get to watch vertical bow tv unless you are crippled in some way. It actually has communistic overtones in my opinion. I am not asking for rocket launchers and grenades. All I want is equal rights for the crossbow. I don't think that's asking too much considering the similarities. 9 other states already understand this too.

I bet that information just blew your minds! It's just that simple. I am Joe Blow with a crossbow and you aint allowed to use one. I aim to fix that. I told Terry Williams after every state that wants to include crossbows have done so I may go to work on concealed carry permits for states that don't have them.
God bless America! I love this country!

[lang49]

You're logic seems flawed Riva...

So lets do a swag at say, 15,000. That is a 100% incremental dollar because, indeed, without this provision, they would be home watching mass for shut- ins on TV.


SO...of those 15,000 permits, 0% of them previously hunted during firearm season or otherwise bought a combo license?? Is that what you're trying to tell me?? :lol:

[Buckeye Dan]

You're logic seems flawed Riva...




SO...of those 15,000 permits, 0% of them previously hunted during firearm season or otherwise bought a combo license?? Is that what you're trying to tell me?? :lol:

I am certain that a large percent did previously hunt with other weapons. But if just 1 of those individuals did not then that is growth in revenue.

[Riva]

You're logic seems flawed Riva...




SO...of those 15,000 permits, 0% of them hunted during firearm season or otherwise bought a combo license?? Is that what you're trying to tell me?? :lol:

I have no idea how many of the hypothetical 15,000 universe purchase a firearm licence and/or combo license. Nor do you or, the DNR. That does not mitigate the fact that if they cannot meet the disability criteria yet are still unable to pull a regular bow, they are 100% excluded from participating in the the archery season.

Frankly, the issue of any incremental revenue from license sales is meaningless in the scheme of things when compared to the fact that people who want to participate as an equal but cannot because of another group's agenda to stunt opportunity because of their deep distain for the weapon that the disabled person must use in order to participate. That, in the vernacular, is called expendable pawns. That is also called "dispicable".

But you are right, they could have purchased a licence and hunted with a gun. Good catch, ol' boy!:D

[Danatodd99]

I don't own a crossBOW and currently have a reason to.
I may in the near future and would relish the thought that my Archery seasons could continue to be enjoyed if using a "Verticle bow" was not an option.
I was recently in a motorcycle accident and will be undergoing surgery on my only good shoulder.
I wrecked my left shoulder some time ago and have been continuing to hunt with a regular old verticle bow. The pain I feel when drawing this back (even at a lower poundage) is great enough to make practicing either limited or very painful. ( Which I still did regularly)
That was with one good shoulder, now I have 2 bad ones, because even after the surgery on the left one to "repair the damage", it still hurts very bad when I draw. I never researched using a crossbow because even with the need, there is no way I would ever be considered to be 80% disabled. I continued to practice up until I had my accident and to even lift my other arm hurts too much. I will not be deer hunting this archery season, therefore they will be losing the revenue for that license that I will not be buying.

As for making them fully legal for regular archery season, I am originally from Massachusetts. I lived there for many years and remember the ranks dividing when the compound bows were introduced. The "traditional/Recurve" guys were using exactly the same arguments that many or the "Verticle Archers" are using now.
Using a compound is too easy it allows someone to hold a string back too long
Using a compound is not what archery is all about, it's getting too technically advanced.
Then came the argument for the use of mechanical releases, that was a huge issue..... Incidentally "Crossbows" are illegal in Massachusetts... period.
Eventually the releases were allowed as well as the compound bows.
It's just a matter of time until compounds are legal during regular archery season, yes it will increase the license revenues as well as allow people that can't archery hunt to once again do so.
I'm for it, it will bring more people into "hunting" in general.

On a side note: I have been through 30+ physical therapy sessions to try and strengthen my left shoulder, I am no better off than I was before.

"Resistance is futile" :D

[Riva]

Danatodd99

I am extremely sad to read about your misfortune. Keep in mind that there are two possible solutions currently in the works. The first is that the Natural Resources Commission has created some new criteria that establishes what degree of severity your disability must be in order to participate as an equal during the archery season. I have reviewed it and it is light years ahead of the crap currently on the books here in Michigan.

That said, the best criteria is NO criteria other than you getting a letter from your own personal physician attesting that, in his/her professional opinion, you have a permanent or temporary disability, to a degree of severity that render you unable to pull or hold a regular bow. That said, the newly proposed criteria is expected to be in place for this coming season.

Of course, the second criteria is HB5741 H2, a bill that will call for full inclusion of the crossbow during any season where archery equipment is currently permitted. This bill past the full Michigan House of Representatives by a whopping 94-14 vote and, is now in the Michigan Senate. Naturally, if passed, HB5741 H2 will trump any provisions for persons with disabilities , etc, as all you will need is a valid hunting license.

Either way, I think that you're going to be in the woods this autumn with your new crossbow along with me a few other folks.:)

Good luck to ya!

[sputty]

Is it my fault that I can become just as accurate with a crossbow than a compound user, in a shorter period of time? Now if i'm efficient and ready hunt with my crossbow here comes the second part.
I have to use my woodsmanship to get within range of a deer with my crossbow (which is the same range a compound user has to attain). My stands are already set for the up-coming year, do to crop rotation. I have done my homework and I feel I will be successful, not because of the archery equipment I choose to use, but because of the the time in scouting and knowing how the deer use this property. Being from Ohio, I hunt with the land owner and his son(both use crossbows) and I consistantly harvest more bucks and does than the owner of this property.
My point is that one can be the greatest shot in the world, but if he/she does not know how to hunt they will not be successful no-matter what archery device they choose.
I also limit my shots to 30 yards, because I am not comfortable with the hold-over I have to use.

[ridgewalker]

I am one of those that can no longer archery hunt because I cannot pull any form of vertical bow. The present reqs do not cover my form of disability even though I cannot use my left side believe it or not. I now only purchase a gun license but I would ecstatic to buy an archery license again, to legally be in the woods again with a bow (that would have to still be armed for me, meaning one shot) would still be heaven. If there is a reason that I should not have that chance, I would listen to it. But then please answer this question: would you like to be in my circumstances at this time. I know I would rather be in yours if you are able-bodied. Thank you for taking the time to read this far.

[Terry Williams]

I am one of those that can no longer archery hunt because I cannot pull any form of vertical bow. The present reqs do not cover my form of disability even though I cannot use my left side believe it or not. I now only purchase a gun license but I would ecstatic to buy an archery license again, to legally be in the woods again with a bow (that would have to still be armed for me, meaning one shot) would still be heaven. If there is a reason that I should not have that chance, I would listen to it. But then please answer this question: would you like to be in my circumstances at this time. I know I would rather be in yours if you are able-bodied. Thank you for taking the time to read this far.

Regardless of the outcome of the crossbow bill expect to see a change in the law very soon that will make it much easier to obtain a permit, and I feel this has been long overdue

[sputty]

From what I have been reading, is there some proposed criteria that says if you can pull a 35lb bow back, you will not be eligible for a crossbow permit? I have to question this, because one would have to pull 35lbs back hundreds of times to practice and become efficient. A disabled individual may be able to pull this weight back a few times but will they become efficient with just a few shots? Ohio has a minimal draw weight of 40lbs. I would have to think 35lbs. is marginal at best.

[Riva]

Regardless of the outcome of the crossbow bill expect to see a change in the law very soon that will make it much easier to obtain a permit, and I feel this has been long overdue

Terry,

Considering your statement, the fact that you are a "card carrying" member (governor?) of the Michigan Bowhunter's Association, how then do you reconcile the dichotomy between your above statement and, the "official" public position statement put forth by your organization surrounding these matters, specifically:

The Michigan Bow Hunters Association Position Statement regarding proposed crossbow regulation changes and laser sight usage
The Michigan Bow Hunters Association does not support using age as a condition for determining crossbow eligibility. Eligibility should be determined by need on a case by case basis.
MBH supports the current standard for determining crossbow permit eligibility for physically challenged hunters. However we are opposed to lowering the level of permanent disability from 80% to 60%. Our Association acknowledges that the current evaluation process for crossbow permit applicants is expensive and frequently abused.
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.

Sorry, to any thinking person, there is a giant disconnect here.

:rolleyes:

[Terry Williams]

As you know this is being worked on by the NRC crossbow committee.

[Riva]

As you know this is being worked on by the NRC crossbow committee.

Terry, I'm sorry, however; you just can't simply sweep this contentious question under the proverbial carpet by saying, "its been referred to a committee" and think that will placate us. We're all smarter than that!:rolleyes:

From the very beginning, MBH has been stalwart in their opposition towards any loosening of the criteria that will allow a person with a disability the opportunity to hunt with a crossbow (I don't need to repeat it again). I mean, it is what it is, right?

The truth be told, those people from the MBH that sat on the NRC subcommittee who, collectively were charged to consider possible changes to the disability criteria, fought "tooth and nail", throughout the entire process to categorically stunt any/all definition of the criteria that varies from the current regulations. We don't need to get into the minutia of all this, other than the fact that it indeed happened, correct? That's why we have minutes, correct?;)

What sayeth ye?

[Steve]

Buckeye, I am growing tired of you. You tried to push a crossbow forum on the Indiana site that wasn't wanted. You didn't get your way so now you want to rehash things here. My patience is running thin and banning may result when it runs out completely.

[Terry Williams]

Is it news to you or anybody else that MBH has fought the introduction of the crossbow?
Are you on the NRC committee? I'm not so I rely on our legislative committee to keep the board up to speed. The votes are public record and readily available.

I'm certain that no matter how it turns out you won't be satisfied, short of full inclusion

[Riva]

Is it news to you or anybody else that MBH has fought the introduction of the crossbow?
Are you on the NRC committee? I'm not so I rely on our legislative committee to keep the board up to speed. The votes are public record and readily available.

I'm certain that no matter how it turns out you won't be satisfied, short of full inclusion

MBH has not fought the "introduction" of the crossbow, Rather, they have fought the "expansion " of the crossbow at every intersection and, at every venue.

I have watched and, to the degree that I am able, to participate in every part of the NRC subcommittee process. I will be happy to document my participation for anybody that requests.

To your latter point, we are finally in violent agreement. My original intention/mission was contained solely and exclusively within the agenda to expand the rights of disabled persons to afford them the right to participate as equals during our archery season.

You see, Terry, I already hunt with a crossbow by virtue of a physical disability and also, I don't happen to work for one of the crossbow manufacturers:rolleyes:. Terry, to be perfectly honest; my decision, my resolve and now agenda to advocate for the full inclusion of crossbows became manifest by this singular, nefarious and, IMO, amoral public position statement:

The Michigan Bow Hunters Association Position Statement regarding proposed crossbow regulation changes and laser sight usage
The Michigan Bow Hunters Association does not support using age as a condition for determining crossbow eligibility. Eligibility should be determined by need on a case by case basis.
MBH supports the current standard for determining crossbow permit eligibility for physically challenged hunters. However we are opposed to lowering the level of permanent disability from 80% to 60%. Our Association acknowledges that the current evaluation process for crossbow permit applicants is expensive and frequently abused.
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.

[Terry Williams]

Riva best of luck in your quest,:) I meant what I said about it being long overdue. :D But I am against full inclusion. Can you and I agree to bury this issue for now, as the NRC committtee will soon make a decision?

I am tired of going over it.

[Ferg]

Since the mods keep shutting down the threads because they are off topic I will use the title of the forum as this thread. Now anyone should be able to say what they want within the rules without being off topic.

Off topic is NOT the only reason these threads are getting shut down - members WILL be civil with each other and not call names or get personal, either directly at another member or a group of people just because the happen to have a different opinion.

It's simple - if people posted as if they were sitting across the table from each other - 99% of the garbage that is being said would be re-worded into a more civil presentation.

Thanks

ferg....

[Liv4Huntin']

From what I have been reading, is there some proposed criteria that says if you can pull a 35lb bow back, you will not be eligible for a crossbow permit? I have to question this, because one would have to pull 35lbs back hundreds of times to practice and become efficient. A disabled individual may be able to pull this weight back a few times but will they become efficient with just a few shots? Ohio has a minimal draw weight of 40lbs. I would have to think 35lbs. is marginal at best.

This deserves to be questioned. It does not take practice into consideration. Nor does it take 'good days/bad days' with regards to the physical condition.... nor whether 'pain meds' are being used at that particular time. Some will say 35# is perfectly capable of taking deer .... I question how ethical it is pertaining to penetration.

Not the solution.
~m~

[swoosh]

Buckeye, I am growing tired of you. You tried to push a crossbow forum on the Indiana site that wasn't wanted. You didn't get your way so now you want to rehash things here. My patience is running thin and banning may result when it runs out completely.


Being he's a buckeye I say let him have it:lol:

[DRHUNTER]

I have been trying to stay out of this but it's just not my nature. I am personally against full inclusion. Relax the disability requirements so people with health concerns can participate during archery season with a cross bow. Regarding the individuals that use hunter recruitement and increased revenue as their argument for full inclusion. If you guys are really concerned about more people taking up hunting and generating more money for the state then lets establish a plan that includes a $50.00 crossbow permit! That will cover the revenue idea. Then since I suspect that most of you that are pushing for hunter recruitement do not hunt public land but only yours or some relatives private property that no one else is allowed on. Lets pass a law that if you are using a crossbow on this private land that you must allow total strangers too hunt that land. That should satisfy your argument for the desired increase in Michigan hunters. Try public land hunting sometime and then tell me we need more hunters in this state... Obviously everyone can find ammunition for their own agenda. But the real truth is that able bodied proponents of full inclusion simply want it easier to take a deer during the bow season. To me there is simply no other reason for it. Lets face it crossbows can currently be used during gun season. If you truely enjoy hunting with a crossbow then use it then. You have to love this debate... now we have some guy from out of state talking about preventing Communisim by allowing full inclusion....:rolleyes:

[Michihunter]

I have been trying to stay out of this but it's just not my nature. I am personally against full inclusion. Relax the disability requirements so people with health concerns can participate during archery season with a cross bow. Regarding the individuals that use hunter recruitement and increased revenue as their argument for full inclusion. Let uis know when you find someone using that as their argument for full inclusion.If you guys are really concerned about more people taking up hunting and generating more money for the state then lets establish a plan that includes a $50.00 crossbow permit! Heck why not? As long as there's a $50 permit for compound users too. Wonder how that would fly with the anti's? That will cover the revenue idea.Then since I suspect that most of you that are pushing for hunter recruitement do not hunt public land but only yours or some relatives private property that no one else is allowed on.Actually the majority of hunters do not hunt public land so I believe in a Democracy, majority rules. Are you against Democracy? Lets pass a law that if you are using a crossbow on this private land that you must allow total strangers too hunt that land. As long as those same strangers are gonna put up the same amount of money the owner did for HIS private land then sure why not? That should satisfy your argument for the desired increase in Michigan hunters. Try public land hunting sometime and then tell me we need more hunters in this state. Been there and can tell you from experience that there is PLENTY of room for the few hunters that make up the archery season. Afterall, there's a larger concentration of more hunters on the same land with longer ranger weapons during firearms season.Obviously everyone can find ammunition for their own agenda. But the real truth is that able bodied proponents of full inclusion simply want it easier to take a deer during the bow season. Another one that presumes to know EVERYONE that will hunt with an xbow. Where do you guys come from?To me there is simply no other reason for it. Lets face it crossbows can currently be used during gun season. If you truely enjoy hunting with a crossbow then use it then. You have to love this debate... now we have some guy from out of state talking about stopping Communisim by allowing full inclusion....:rolleyes:

[RobFromFlint]

Or we could let anyone hunting with a selfbow, wooden arrows with self knapped heads and buckskin clothing to hunt for free, and add $ depending on how much more technologically advanced the equipment you choose to use is from that. Wait, crossbows are older than compounds, and fiberglass, and aluminum, and recurved bow designs, and cars.......

[DRHUNTER]

Michihunter relax....Your response is exactly as I expected. You failed too read what I was really saying. By the way I have read several of your proponents letters using revenue as argument for their agenda as well as hunter recruitement. Maybe you should review some of their letters. Regardless whenever I witness someone getting upset as quick as you do I suspect that I hit a nerve. Maybe my message hit home. Especially the part about crossbow hunters wanting it easier to harvest a deer ( trophy buck maybe) ;) during the bow season. I can't possibly know everyones intention for using a crossbow and really don't care. but if you are ABLE BODIED I suspect you are looking for a easier means of taking a deer during the regular bow season. If not then use the crossbow during the gun season. What is so hard about this? Bottom line is I fully expect that this bill for full inclusion will pass by next year. After all this is Michigan. We want more and bigger bucks but then we make it easier for Joe Blow to buy a crossbow and wack the first spike, 4 point, etc. that walks by so they can get home and watch the Lions lose their butts. Take care.

[Liv4Huntin']

If you would take off the blinders, and use something other than tunnelvision, those opposed to crossbow inclusion MIGHT see that the pro crossbow crowd is asking for E Q U A L I T Y of O P P O R T U N I T Y in Michigan's archery seasons. For the life of me, I can NOT understand why this is SO threatening !! This is after all AMERICA. And the baseless accusations only point out your misunderstanding of the real issues at hand. How sad.

~ m ~

[wildcoy73]

what makes me gett upset on this issue of crossbow, is the amount of support it would get if it had an antler restriction of some kind. To myself that is a seprate issue, and needs to be fought as a seprate issue. I will not help fight that issue for I believe it is in the hunter to decide on what they harvest. But when we have more hunters in the woods it will be a good thing for all other debates. It will give us a louder voice and we can make changes, It is the hunter that has made michigan a small buck state not the nrc. We decided to take every small buck we see. The only way to stop this is to teach others of what can be if we allow them to go.
We do have meat hunter on this site and I am with them. If I do not have a deer in the freezer by october 1st, than the first deer I see that is not a fawn will have a thunderhead in the boiler room. I am not picky doe or spike or a world record. I do hunt for the meat and my famaliy can go threw a few deer a year, and prefer it over beef.

[DRHUNTER]

Funny but from my perspective those of you for full inclusion have the blinders on. All I want is to see bow hunting remain as the challenging sport it currently is. The pattern I see is making everything easier to obtain with no regard to the "sport". I suspect that this issue will come and go with no real implications just as allowing treestands during gun season did. However for the sake of debate this is a pretty good one. :)

[Liv4Huntin']

drhunter: NO ONE is telling you that you HAVE to use a crossbow. You can continue to hunt with whatever you are currently hunting with and have your hunt as "challenging" as you choose. I do not understand why you feel the need to push your set of hunting criteria onto others. Choose your own, and allow others to choose theirs. Very simple solution.
~m~

[skipper34]

:yeahthat:drhunter: NO ONE is telling you that you HAVE to use a crossbow. You can continue to hunt with whatever you are currently hunting with and have your hunt as "challenging" as you choose. I do not understand why you feel the need to push your set of hunting criteria onto others. Choose your own, and allow others to choose theirs. Very simple solution.
~m~

[TOW]

It is just another choice - accept it or reject it for your own personal use.

However there seems to be some that are so intimidated by that e-v-v-v-v-v-i-i-il-l-l-l crossbow that they want to tell others how they should hunt. Some of these people hunt with the latest and greatest high tech compound bow with every doo-dad imaginable on it, but they somehow think that a crossbower has an advantage on them in killing a deer.

Since an overwhelming majority of deer hunters in any state hunt private property no one will be affected by a crossbower in the woods with them unless they want them there.

Even if this bill passes no private landowner or hunting lease will be REQUIRED to allow crossbow hunter on their property. The laws stipulate the allowance of crossbows. It is not a requirement.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING....

[Michihunter]

Michihunter relax....Your response is exactly as I expected. You failed too read what I was really saying. By the way I have read several of your proponents letters using revenue as argument for their agenda as well as hunter recruitement. Maybe you should review some of their letters. Regardless whenever I witness someone getting upset as quick as you do I suspect that I hit a nerve. Maybe my message hit home. Especially the part about crossbow hunters wanting it easier to harvest a deer ( trophy buck maybe) ;) during the bow season. I can't possibly know everyones intention for using a crossbow and really don't care. but if you are ABLE BODIED I suspect you are looking for a easier means of taking a deer during the regular bow season. If not then use the crossbow during the gun season. What is so hard about this? Bottom line is I fully expect that this bill for full inclusion will pass by next year. After all this is Michigan. We want more and bigger bucks but then we make it easier for Joe Blow to buy a crossbow and wack the first spike, 4 point, etc. that walks by so they can get home and watch the Lions lose their butts. Take care.

Hardly upset DrHunter. The fact that I will continue to hunt with a compound should lay that accusation to rest rather quickly. It is not I whom I fight for but others that I know will benefit from the use of a crossbow with NO adverse effect to you or the herd as we know it.;)

[benster]

With all the stupid threads I see come bow season about wounded deer maybe we should make bow season a "crossbow season" only. Get rid of all other archery equiptment and use only crossbows? Since they are so much easier to use maybe there will be less wounded deer? It's funny I don't think I have seen any mention of the animals we hunt, with the equiptment we choose to use, and the humane thing? It all seems to be selfish, my season, my deer? I would love to know, and I'm sure no one here has ever, how many bow hunters have ever taken or made a bad shot and not recovered an animal? Maybe we should make it law that if you have ever wounded an animal with a regular bow you have to use a crossbow? Remember, if you take a bowhunter fishing he will have less time to complain about crossbows:lol:

[DRHUNTER]

Listen guys I am in no way saying that I would support a law/bill whatever that would provide for a $50.00 crossbow fee or force people too permit strangers on their land. You are missing my point and maybe I have not explained it well enough. Simply put that some supporters of this all inclusive bill have used revenue and increased hunter recrutment as a argument for their crossbow agenda. So if that is your true feelings as a reason to pass the bill then frankly put your money where your mouth is. I am trying to make a point that those are really pretty lame reasons. I am in no way trying too force my hunting values, ideas whatever on anyone. I am simply disagreeing with you guys as to what I think are your true reasons for wanting the bill. I agree that my thoughts on your ideas are all assuming and may be completely wrong. I am all about America, Democracy, Apple pie and all that. But I think that this bill has the potential to drasticly change the bowhunting challenges that most of us look forward too. As far as wounding goes. I'll make another assumption. I think there is a greater potential for crossbows wounding because guys will be taking 50-60 yd and greater shots at animals instead of keeping their shots in bow hunting distance. I have no problem with elderly people or people with disabilities getting x bow permit. After over three decades of weight lifting I have no doubt that I will someday be trying to secure one of those permits myself. My shoulder clicks so bad now that that may be the reason I have trouble getting the draw on a deer. They hear the noise.:lol: As they say change is a good thing just be carefull what you wish for. Take care.

[Michihunter]

drhunter- There's an entire thread dedicated to Motives and Position regarding the inclusion of the xbow. Take a look at it and you might see that the reasons behind most of us for inclusion has little to do with what you allege.;)

[DRHUNTER]

Michihunter I already explored that thread and I think there are enough people expressing exactly what I am referring too. Besides you started this thread as well. I believe your title states " Crossbows in Michigan. Debate here. Well...you got what you asked for. You and the others may not agree with me but that is what debates are made of. Look I would venture to say that the vast majority of people on this site are first class outdoors people and have every good intention of this issue in mind, from both sides. I just hope that we all take a reality check on our true reasons for this bills passage because once it is signed it will be with us forever. No hard feelings Michihunter you and the others make very good points I just happen to disagree with most of them.;) Thanks

[Michihunter]

Debate is healthy and allows for everyone to express and defend their feelings. I agree 100% and no hard feelings taken.:)

BTW- I actually wasn't the one that started this thread.;)

[DRHUNTER]

My mistake. Take care.

[skipper34]

Listen guys I am in no way saying that I would support a law/bill whatever that would provide for a $50.00 crossbow fee or force people too permit strangers on their land. You are missing my point and maybe I have not explained it well enough. Simply put that some supporters of this all inclusive bill have used revenue and increased hunter recrutment as a argument for their crossbow agenda. So if that is your true feelings as a reason to pass the bill then frankly put your money where your mouth is. I am trying to make a point that those are really pretty lame reasons. I am in no way trying too force my hunting values, ideas whatever on anyone. I am simply disagreeing with you guys as to what I think are your true reasons for wanting the bill. I agree that my thoughts on your ideas are all assuming and may be completely wrong. I am all about America, Democracy, Apple pie and all that. But I think that this bill has the potential to drasticly change the bowhunting challenges that most of us look forward too. As far as wounding goes. I'll make another assumption. I think there is a greater potential for crossbows wounding because guys will be taking 50-60 yd and greater shots at animals instead of keeping their shots in bow hunting distance. I have no problem with elderly people or people with disabilities getting x bow permit. After over three decades of weight lifting I have no doubt that I will someday be trying to secure one of those permits myself. My shoulder clicks so bad now that that may be the reason I have trouble getting the draw on a deer. They hear the noise.:lol: As they say change is a good thing just be carefull what you wish for. Take care.

There are already bowhunters using compound bows taking shots at the ranges you mention. As for how many of these shots are good clean killing shots is hard to tell. My guess would be a low percentage. So your argument does not wash. The passing of this bill does not force anyone to use a crossbow who now uses a vertical bow. As has been mentioned in this debate countless times, those states which allow crossbows in archery season have shown no ill effects as far as "bowhunting challenges". Hunting is an individual endeavor, meaning that one can strive to achieve as much "challenge" as he or she desires. The choice of weapon has very little bearing on such a choice. I have never nor will I ever care to use a crossbow during any hunting season. But after reading these debates for a month, I am convinced that the biggest fear that the anti's have is that the crossbow will enable Joe Blow to possibly harvest a larger deer than them. It is the only logical reason I can think of for being against its inclusion. Sometimes, sadly, "bragging rights" supercedes everything else in life.

[Buckeye Dan]

Buckeye, I am growing tired of you. You tried to push a crossbow forum on the Indiana site that wasn't wanted. You didn't get your way so now you want to rehash things here. My patience is running thin and banning may result when it runs out completely.

Steve I am sorry you feel that way. I have been out of the loop for a week or so working on crossbow projects.
In Indiana I asked for a crossbow forum because the members of the site are hostile towards full inclusion. It is not safe to openly debate the subject without the protection of the title of the specific forum and it's rules.
On this site the members are also hostile towards full inclusion but I have a forum for crossbows where debate is welcome and I am protected. That is all I was asking for in Indiana.
Why was it created here and not there?
You'll have to forgive me for not having prior knowledge of the boards you are an administrator for. If you would care to list them I promise never to grace them until there is a proper crossbow forum for me to do so.
I am pro crossbow. It is my goal to educate, debate and provide links to data that anyone can go and read without taking my word for it. I didn't hide my agenda when I joined IN forums and I didn't hide it here. I left the IN forums peacefully when I sampled the mood. I intend to leave this forum when folks decide they don't want anything to do with the crossbow too and there is no forum to speak freely in. However that is not the case here. The majority rules in favor of the crossbow. I intend to stick it out and follow the rules to the letter until you delete me or MI uses the crossbow in the season it is intended for. The archery season.
The only rule that I am aware of that I broke here was I posted a site where I could be found. I have seen the error of my ways and that will not happen again. In the IN forum I didn't break a rule. I pretty much just left because it was in the best interest for all parties involved. Once I was educated on your freedom of speech policy you never saw the C word posted again. How can I accommodate you here and still remain a voice towards full inclusion of the crossbow without breaking rules? I don't want to be a burden and I certainly don't want to make the mods and admins angry. Throw me a bone here and tell me what I did wrong on this site that is dominated by full inclusion advocates.
One other tiny detail...Check the dates on those postings and requests in Indiana. My entry into the IN forums POST dates all of my entries here until a week or so ago? I didn't go there until I had been here for a couple of months. Just wanted to give you the heads up so it doesn't look personal on either party involved.

[Whit1]

Now that that has been settled let's get back to the topic of discussion.

[BowFlyGSP]

My $.02:

For the record, I am against the form of the bill that passed the House. However, I don't see the crossbow as an "evil weapon". I've never shot one but, honestly, I'm sure it would be fun to try. I've read through most of the recent "discussions" on this topic and understand some of the points on both sides. Some of my concerns:

I don't want to exclude anyone from hunting in general. However, rules (as flawed as they may be) are in place for a reason. For those who keep referring to total inclusion as the only answer to make sure no one "slips through the cracks", why don't we all have handicapped parking permits? What about laser sights? Shouldn't we all be included in that too even though we might not be legally blind?

I've read comments suggesting that it would not affect the deer herd. I find this really hard to believe. I'm not saying I think that after a year of crossbow hunting, there's going to be nothing button spikes and yearling does running around, but it has to have an effect. How could it not? There will be more hunting hours spent afield by Michigan hunters. Look at the deer harvest numbers for past gun seasons. The higher harvests usually coincide with the years where there are three weekends during the 16 day season and or better weather. Both of which lead to more time in the field by hunters. Another thing to consider is that there will be more hunters in the woods during the first half of November. You don't have to be an expert to know this is easily the best time to to kill a buck. I'm not trying to keep the woods to myself, I just saying I have a hard time believing that more hunters in the woods for a longer time is not going to equal more deer killed.

These two are pretty minor compared to my next (and last) concern. I think this is a concern I would have no matter where I stood on the issue. If the crossbow can divide hunters the way it has and just the idea of it obviously infuriates some hunters, what would the non-hunting public think of it? I'm not talking about anti-hunting activists; it's obvious what they think. I'm concerned with the voting public that does not hunt, but votes on issues (like the dove bill) on a case by case basis. If the inclusion of crossbows during archery season could sway just a small percentage of the non-hunting voters the wrong way, then we all stand to lose.

[Michihunter]

My $.02:

For the record, I am against the form of the bill that passed the House. However, I don't see the crossbow as an "evil weapon". I've never shot one but, honestly, I'm sure it would be fun to try. I've read through most of the recent "discussions" on this topic and understand some of the points on both sides. Some of my concerns:

I don't want to exclude anyone from hunting in general. However, rules (as flawed as they may be) are in place for a reason. For those who keep referring to total inclusion as the only answer to make sure no one "slips through the cracks", why don't we all have handicapped parking permits? What about laser sights? Shouldn't we all be included in that too even though we might not be legally blind?

I've read comments suggesting that it would not affect the deer herd. I find this really hard to believe. I'm not saying I think that after a year of crossbow hunting, there's going to be nothing button spikes and yearling does running around, but it has to have an effect. How could it not? There will be more hunting hours spent afield by Michigan hunters. Look at the deer harvest numbers for past gun seasons. The higher harvests usually coincide with the years where there are three weekends during the 16 day season and or better weather. Both of which lead to more time in the field by hunters. Another thing to consider is that there will be more hunters in the woods during the first half of November. You don't have to be an expert to know this is easily the best time to to kill a buck. I'm not trying to keep the woods to myself, I just saying I have a hard time believing that more hunters in the woods for a longer time is not going to equal more deer killed.

These two are pretty minor compared to my next (and last) concern. I think this is a concern I would have no matter where I stood on the issue. If the crossbow can divide hunters the way it has and just the idea of it obviously infuriates some hunters, what would the non-hunting public think of it? I'm not talking about anti-hunting activists; it's obvious what they think. I'm concerned with the voting public that does not hunt, but votes on issues (like the dove bill) on a case by case basis. If the inclusion of crossbows during archery season could sway just a small percentage of the non-hunting voters the wrong way, then we all stand to lose.

Your argument of more kills would be one of the main selling points to Congress on why a xbow should be included. Deer numbers are up and people are moving to reduce it drastically.

As for your last point, the general public couldn't tell you the difference between an xbow and a compound. And I'd venture to bet that most think the xbow is already included in the archery season. I doubt that puiblic opinion would change regardless of its inclusion. And lets not forget your first point where the general public is calling for a reduced deer herd.;)

[BowFlyGSP]

Your argument of more kills would be one of the main selling points to Congress on why a xbow should be included. Deer numbers are up and people are moving to reduce it drastically.

As for your last point, the general public couldn't tell you the difference between an xbow and a compound. And I'd venture to bet that most think the xbow is already included in the archery season. I doubt that puiblic opinion would change regardless of its inclusion. And lets not forget your first point where the general public is calling for a reduced deer herd.;)

I'm not doubting that more kills would be a selling point for a general public that is calling for a reduced herd. I'm just questioning the accuracy of statements that claim x-bow inclusion would not affect the deer herd. Based on your response, it sounds like you might agree with me on this point.

As for the public opinion, you may be right as of right now. However, I would be concerned it would give the antis just another chance to skew the truth and change that public opinion. Just like they did with the dove bill and almost did with proposals D & G in the past. Again, I don't see the crossbow as an "evil weapon", but I'm sure the antis would do everything they could to paint that picture for the general public if they get the chance.

[Michihunter]

I'm not doubting that more kills would be a selling point for a general public that is calling for a reduced herd. I'm just questioning the accuracy of statements that claim x-bow inclusion would not affect the deer herd. Based on your response, it sounds like you might agree with me on this point.

As for the public opinion, you may be right as of right now. However, I would be concerned it would give the antis just another chance to skew the truth and change that public opinion. Just like they did with the dove bill and almost did with proposals D & G in the past. Again, I don't see the crossbow as an "evil weapon", but I'm sure the antis would do everything they could to paint that picture for the general public if they get the chance.I personally see an increase in an overalll kill numbers after the inclusion of the crossbow. The effect will depend on where these kills are made. And that is controlled by regulating the amount of kills possible in a given area and has little to do with what weapon that does the killing.

You make a good point regarding the anti's. As long as we have a few zealots screaming that the xbow is an "evil weapon" in our own ranks, it's one that could come to fruition sooner than we think.

[Munsterlndr]

I'm not doubting that more kills would be a selling point for a general public that is calling for a reduced herd. I'm just questioning the accuracy of statements that claim x-bow inclusion would not affect the deer herd. Based on your response, it sounds like you might agree with me on this point.

As for the public opinion, you may be right as of right now. However, I would be concerned it would give the antis just another chance to skew the truth and change that public opinion. Just like they did with the dove bill and almost did with proposals D & G in the past. Again, I don't see the crossbow as an "evil weapon", but I'm sure the antis would do everything they could to paint that picture for the general public if they get the chance.

To your second point, crossbows have been part of archery season in Ohio for 30 years, have you heard of a large outcry from the non-hunting public in Ohio over the use of crossbows? No. Nor in any of the other states that allow full inclusion. If anything, non-hunters believe the anti-crossbow claims about the magical "deadly accuracy" crossbows and would equate this to fewer wounded deer, which is the issue that is most likely to get non-hunters incensed about bow hunting. If crossbow broadens the number of woman included in archery season then that also will put a positive face on bow hunting to the non-hunting public.

Regarding your first point, I think that most pro-crossbow advocates have said that crossbow inclusion would not negatively impact the herd and I believe that to be the truth. Any way you slice it, we have way too many deer in Michigan and the number is growing every year. The harvest is declining every year due to fewer hunters being in the woods. 80,000 bow hunters and 200,000 firearms hunters have left the woods in the last ten years in Michigan. We desperately need to reduce the number of deer in the SLP before it gets taken out of our hands and non-hunting alternatives are used to eradicate deer, who are by and large viewed as a pest by the non-hunting public. Anything that increases hunter opportunity and increases the number of deer harvested is going to be viewed by the DNR and by the legislature as a good thing and they are correct in this view. It would be in the resources best interest to reduce the size of the herd. The alternative is that hunter numbers will continue to fall precipitously, deer numbers will continue to increase and we will get to the point where hunting is no longer going to be considered to be an adequate method of controlling a population that is out of control.

Crossbow inclusion gives the DNR another tool to use in the ongoing battle to keep deer numbers under control, a battle that they are currently losing miserably. I'd be happy to provide you with a quote from the head of the Big Game department for the Ohio DNR who feels that crossbow inclusion makes a positive contribution to helping them keep the herd under control in Ohio, which also has an increasing herd. He has said it an especially helpful too in Urban and suburban settings where the deer problem is the worst.

[BowFlyGSP]

Regarding your first point, I think that most pro-crossbow advocates have said that crossbow inclusion would not negatively impact the herd and I believe that to be the truth. Any way you slice it, we have way too many deer in Michigan and the number is growing every year.

This may be true. I can't see the future and I really doubt anyone else here can (the flux capacitor has yet to be perfected). My concern is the buck harvest. Yes, we have too many deer in many parts of the state. That's pretty hard to deny. However, if there are thousands more hunters in the woods when bucks are running around doe-crazy (first two weeks of November), I don't see how that won't lead to a higher number of bucks taken. The sex ratio is already pretty screwed up in many areas of the state and I would be concerned that this would have the potential to hurt it even worse.

[Munsterlndr]

This may be true. I can't see the future and I really doubt anyone else here can (the flux capacitor has yet to be perfected). My concern is the buck harvest. Yes, we have too many deer in many parts of the state. That's pretty hard to deny. However, if there are thousands more hunters in the woods when bucks are running around doe-crazy (first two weeks of November), I don't see how that won't lead to a higher number of bucks taken. The sex ratio is already pretty screwed up in many areas of the state and I would be concerned that this would have the potential to hurt it even worse.

Yes more bucks will be taken, that is simply a fact of hunting in Michigan as long as we have the combo license that allows two bucks to be harvested. Ten years ago we had 80,000 more bow hunters participating and a higher buck harvest yet somehow the resource survived. The sex ratio is not as bad in most parts of the State as is commonly perceived by the visual observations of hunters. Could it be better? Yes, it could. But if you are looking at the two problems, over-population vs. sex ratios, over-population has a much more negative impact on the resource than unbalanced sex ratio's do. While not to ideal levels, sex ratios are somewhat naturally correcting on an annual basis simply due to the 50/50 split of newborn fawns.

But if you look at the most likely hypothetical numbers, in all likelihood fewer additional bucks will be harvested than are harvested with the second buck tag every year, a number that has been deemed biologically insignificant by our DNR.

I would also suggest that the fact that crossbow hunters who may have been firearms hunters will now have the option of using one or both of their combo tags on does, an option that they previously did not have. This should result in more does being harvested and if they use part of the combo on a doe during archery season then they can't use both halves of the combo on two bucks later in the year. Previously many would have shot the first yearling buck that walked by for meat and then waited for the big one to use the second half of the combo on. Now they can harvest a doe for meat and still use the second half of the combo on a mature buck.

Get the herd under control first and then impose buck limits or antler restrictions if you want to improve age structure and sex ratios, that is what makes the most sense from a management standpoint. It's too bad that MBH so vocally opposed the OBR initiative last year or we may have been closer to balancing sex ratios and getting the herd size under control than we are now.

[Swamp Ghost]

The ODNR needs the crossbow because of it's OBR. Why would OH hunters decry the crossbow? They only have a 7 day, shotgun only firearm season. This is the very reason the crossbow is as popular as it is in OH.
MI has far more firearm deer hunting recreational opportunities than OH.

If MI had an OBR I could see why the crossbow could be needed to keep hunters in the woods, the fact is we don't and aren't.

MI kills enough deer every year, we fail to kill the right ones.

It's too bad that crossbow advocates placed 'choice' and 'opportunity' above deer herd management just like the MBH.

We keep getting farther and farther away from the solution to MI deer herd issues......

[Michihunter]

The ODNR needs the crossbow because of it's OBR. Why would OH hunters decry the crossbow? They only have a 7 day, shotgun only firearm season. This is the very reason the crossbow is as popular as it is in OH.
MI has far more firearm deer hunting recreational opportunities than OH.

If MI had an OBR I could see why the crossbow could be needed to keep hunters in the woods, the fact is we don't and aren't.

MI kills enough deer every year, we fail to kill the right ones.

It's too bad that crossbow advocates placed 'choice' and 'opportunity' above deer herd management just like the MBH.

We keep getting farther and farther away from the solution to MI deer herd issues......

You keep equating deer management with a choice of weapon during archery season. Be honest and tell us if you would actually change your position regarding inclusion IF the firearm season length were changed or if an OBR was instituted. And if not why?

[Swamp Ghost]

You keep equating deer management with a choice of weapon during archery season. Be honest and tell us if you would actually change your position regarding inclusion IF the firearm season length were changed or if an OBR was instituted. And if not why?


Like I have said countless times, if deer management issues had been addressed before or as part of an inclusion package I would have an entirely different view of 'full inclusion'.

The ODNR activily promotes and advocates crossbow use because they need to get as many people in the woods as possible due to the reduction of recreational opportunity associated with it's OBR.

MI does not have this problem....

[Michihunter]

So would you support full inclusion if it was accompanied by an OBR? You have a habit of never diirectly answering a question so can we limit this to a yes or a no? If it is no could you explain why?

[Swamp Ghost]

Like I have said countless times, if deer management issues had been addressed before or as part of an inclusion package I would have an entirely different view of 'full inclusion'.


Seems pretty direct.

[Liv4Huntin']

Separate issues, swamp. BUT: that being said, we can take that as, IF OBR were included then swamp would be totally FOR inclusion? RIGHT??? WHAT is your 'entirely different view'.... if this is not the case? (And you didn't answer directly at all.... just another 'dodge'.) Nice try, tho.
~m~

[Michihunter]

Seems pretty direct.
Actually it isn't(different doesn't necessarily mean opposite;)) but I'll take that as a yes.:lol::lol:

[Whit1]

Actually, I did see that. I agree the numbers aren't 100%, but you sure get a more accurate idea of the herd harvest/health/Age. Ma. used students that are studying wildlife biology to man the "Major" check stations to get the most accurate data possible and at a hard to beat price.... Free


Just a suggestion...... Obviously not everybody will agree with that either.


Dr. Mike Tonkovich of Ohio's DNR would disagree with you as he did with me when I emailed him. I once believed as you do now, that mandatory deer check-in is a superior way to total up the deer kill and far better than MI's. I was wrong as Mike pointed out to me.

[Ferg]

But the discussions about manditory check-ins belong someplace else :)

back to the topic at hand -

Thanks

ferg....

[Swamp Ghost]

Actually it isn't(different doesn't necessarily mean opposite;)) but I'll take that as a yes.:lol::lol:

After some thought I don't think I would every 'totally' support full inclusion. I would totally support a separate crossbow season.

If full inclusion was accompanied with an OBR, I would be neutral on the full inclusion issue.

[Michihunter]

After some thought I don't think I would every 'totally' support full inclusion. I would totally support a separate crossbow season.

If full inclusion was accompanied with an OBR, I would be neutral on the full inclusion issue.Now THAT is a direct answer.;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Now THAT is a direct answer.;)

I figured you would like that one a little better:)

[Buckeye Dan]

So is it too late to attach the one buck rule to the crossbow bill? I mean since it has already been through the house would it have to start over from scratch if it were amended? Could the bill be delayed then amended before the senate votes on it. Maybe an emergency vote from the house to add the OBR then alter the document prior to the senate vote? Not sure how this would work. Maybe the house can recall the bill from a legal standpoint since it was amended after the fact. A quick vote from them and back on the senate table?

[Whit1]

So is it too late to attach the one buck rule to the crossbow bill? I mean since it has already been through the house would it have to start over from scratch if it were amended? Could the bill be delayed then amended before the senate votes on it. Maybe an emergency vote from the house to add the OBR then alter the document prior to the senate vote? Not sure how this would work. Maybe the house can recall the bill from a legal standpoint since it was amended after the fact. A quick vote from them and back on the senate table?

The best way to get OBR enacted would be for the NRC (Nature Resource Commission....they over see the DNR and add an unnecessary..IMO.. layer to regulation changes being political appointees by the govenor) to do so rather than add anything to a current piece of legislation.

The Michigan Bowhunters Association, among other groups perhaps, as well as individual hunters, opposes any such measure.

[Munsterlndr]

So is it too late to attach the one buck rule to the crossbow bill? I mean since it has already been through the house would it have to start over from scratch if it were amended? Could the bill be delayed then amended before the senate votes on it. Maybe an emergency vote from the house to add the OBR then alter the document prior to the senate vote? Not sure how this would work. Maybe the house can recall the bill from a legal standpoint since it was amended after the fact. A quick vote from them and back on the senate table?

This will never happen. Two different topics that should not be part of the same piece of legislation. As much as I would like to see OBR enacted, it should not be passed by the legislature but by the NRC as part of a modification of the combo license. The NRC has the regulatory authority to enact an OBR without legislative approval, as long as some form of a combo license remains in place. The NRC did not have the regulatory authority to allow full inclusion of crossbows, they only had the authority to regulate crossbow permits for the disabled, hence the necessity of going to the legislature to get a bill passed that would allow full inclusion. Contrary to what some have said, the NRC was not bypassed, they never had the authority to act on this issue in the first place, so the legislature was the appropriate vehicle for enacting full inclusion. That is not the case with OBR.

On a more practical basis, attaching OBR to any crossbow inclusion legislation would effectively kill any chances of it passing in either house.