OK anti-crossbow enthusiasts......

[Liv4Huntin']

Just a question here..... could all your puff and arguments against crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) share in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????
~m~

[Swamp Ghost]

Unpressured in MI? :lol::lol::lol:

[2PawsRiver]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Liv4Huntin']

Can you HONESTLY tell me the deer act the same later on as they do the first of October? (Using swamps 'question form' here.....)

I used to be able to be out there in the 'early' season... when I could use my compound. I observed first-hand the changes.

Did I hit on it? Is that your reasoning?

YES.. unpressured.... as in the bucks I watched Friday come into the open field at 4:30 in the afternoon and stand in the sun eating. Unpressured: as in the does lying in the open field watching us work the other end of that same field. You won't see either of those after the 20th of November.
~m~

[Michihunter]

Did I hit on it? Is that your reasoning?
That implies some sense of 'reason'.:lol::lol:

[Great White Hunter]

I don't think they are unpressured being the fact that after the youth hunt goes out and blast around for a few days I'm pretty sure it changes their behavior. I know it does where I hunt.
You are right when you said that unpressured bucks come out and eat in the feild at 4:30. We see them every year. We name the bucks and time them. I could tell you the minute that a specific buck will walk out into the feild. And then the youth hunt happens. On the property we hunt, every year the local kids come out and walk all over the property kicking deer up and shooting them or at them. Then after the youth hunt...No more bucks in the feild at 4:30. And after the first three days of a bunch of hunters heading to the woods not even does come to the feild. It has gotten so bad that during the summer when you see a deer 400+ yards out in the feild and you even slow down the deer runs like a bat out of hell.
Once pressured always pressured.

Also the fact that there are already to many hunter out in the woods, now with an early doe in Sept we don't have to worry about the vert bow hunters getting first crack at "unpressured deer".

It's not that we want the prime season. To be honest, I just don't like crossbows. I'm sure that this is the main reason for most people that disaprove of crossbows in archery season. Now does that mean you should not have a season, I don't think that. I just don't like that you are included in archery season. Take a week or two and call crossbow season.

I am I right? I don't think its about right or wrong. I just don't like it. I have a right to not like crossbows and not to like you in my season. You have the right to want to be in my season. It's that simple.

[Steve]

Don't forget about the early doe gun season. (Editors note: just because I posted on this thread does not mean I'm anti-crossbow).

[Liv4Huntin']

I can't see two days of the youth hunt disturbing the deer any more than small game season does. This year's Sept. antlerless season may very well make a difference ... time will tell. I know I certainly didn't want it to take place at that time.
~m~

[olliek]

[QUOTE}
I am I right? I don't think its about right or wrong. I just don't like it. I have a right to not like crossbows and not to like you in my season. You have the right to want to be in my season. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

GWH has it right. Many bow hunters think it`s thier season. Period.

The State sets seasons, rules and regulations and decides which weapon shall be used during these time periods.

Currently, the State Senate will be considering the inclusion of crossbows for all during the bow season. The House has already passed this legislation overwhelmingly. With the response from those who welcome this change, and relating this to thier State Senator, I believe that the bill will pass and become law in 2009 despite the selfish attitude of a small minority.-----Dave.

[2PawsRiver]

Those that support the Crossbow season keep trying to come up with reasons why people don't support it. Greedy, want to keep your own season, don't want the additional hunters, not team players, etc.

Those that don't support it have repeatidly stated why and it has nothing to do with the deer and everything to do with the hunter. To keep trying to defer the reasoning to the Deer makes me truly believe even those that support the inclusion of the crossbow, recognize the type of hunter it represents.

[Munsterlndr]

It's not that we want the prime season. To be honest, I just don't like crossbows.

I am I right? I don't think its about right or wrong. I just don't like it. I have a right to not like crossbows and not to like you in my season. You have the right to want to be in my season. It's that simple.

I'm guessing that it's not crossbows themselves that you don't like, as hating an inanimate object does not make a whole lot of sense. ( Boy, those cheese graters really tick me off!)

What is apparent is that you don't want other hunters invading what you feel is "your" season. Unfortunately for you, deer are a public resource. If you don't want to share the woods with other hunters, buy some land and keep other hunters off of it. If it's any consolation, you are sharing the woods with 80,000 fewer bow hunters than you were just ten years ago. I guess some individuals are excited about that fact, since it means "more" for them and not having to share. Others, like myself, see the loss of hunters in the woods as a negative trend, with some serious long term implications. Boosting hunter participation and increasing hunter opportunity is always a good thing for our sport. Your worried about adding tens of thousands of hunters to the bow hunting ranks because they might shoot "your" deer? Wow. Reality check. Being able to reverse the trend of falling bow hunter numbers and increase the strength of the hunting fraternity would be a huge benefit to this state. We need to think past the immediate gratification of "Me/Mine" and look towards making changes that will benefit the sport as a whole.

[Munsterlndr]

Those that don't support it have repeatidly stated why and it has nothing to do with the deer and everything to do with the hunter.

Those that don't want to share "their" season have made it abundantly clear that it's the reason that they oppose crossbows.

You and others are acting under the false assumption that future crossbow hunters are not already bow hunters. If it has everything to do with the hunter, which seems to be your means of implying that anybody who picks up a crossbow must have some character flaw or lacks ethics, then you must have a pretty low opinion of a good chunk of the bow hunting population because they include many of the hunters who will eventually pick up a crossbow.

[MERGANZER]

This argument of bowhunters not wanting to share the woods is really getting tired. I have not seen anyone who is opposed to the crossbows say that. I am a bowhunter and I just do not want the season watered down so the lazy couch potatos get up and in the woods. If they want to bowhunt then get a bow and learn to be efficient with it and enjoy the woods all you want. Its hunting, its not supposed to be easy. If you want easy then tear into another bag of chips and wait till November 15th.

Ganzer

[2PawsRiver]

Those that don't want to share "their" season have made it abundantly clear that it's the reason that they oppose crossbows.


I will look on my own, but I don't recall anybody posting that they don't support crossbows for this reason.

I have already said that outside of a physical limitation I consider the use of a crossbow during bow season to be a sign of a lazy bowhunter. But for the record I don't have a low opinoin of Lazy people unless they posses a Bridge Card.:)

[Riva]

This argument of bowhunters not wanting to share the woods is really getting tired. I have not seen anyone who is opposed to the crossbows say that. I am a bowhunter and I just do not want the season watered down so the lazy couch potatos get up and in the woods. If they want to bowhunt then get a bow and learn to be efficient with it and enjoy the woods all you want. Its hunting, its not supposed to be easy. If you want easy then tear into another bag of chips and wait till November 15th. Ganzer

If you don't believe that some people not wanting to share the woods, then I suggest you read the recent post by Great White Hunter. It sort of refutes that statement--big time. :dizzy:

You guys had better decide pretty soon whether it tastes great or is less filling.

[2PawsRiver]

Checked, didn't see it, which one, and maybe you should leave tastes great and less filling alone this early in the morning;)

[Riva]

Checked, didn't see it, which one, and maybe you should leave tastes great and less filling alone this early in the morning;)

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241679

[Swamp Ghost]

If you don't believe that some people not wanting to share the woods, then I suggest you read the recent post by Great White Hunter. It sort of refutes that statement--big time. :dizzy:

You guys had better decide pretty soon whether it tastes great or is less filling.

Or you could dream up one more thing that the crossbow is going to do for MI.

Or you could find another politician that thinks the DNR doesn't deserve anymore revenue unless they increase the size of MI's deer herd and then have that same politician lobby for crossbow inclusion based on increased revenue and helping the DNR manage the herd.:lol::dizzy::lol:.

MI has more people bowhunting the SLP than any of the full inclusion states have bowhunters.

I don't start bowhunting until the 20th of Oct. My neighbors do a great job of pressuring those "unpressured" Oct. 1st deer.

[MERGANZER]

If you don't believe that some people not wanting to share the woods, then I suggest you read the recent post by Great White Hunter. It sort of refutes that statement--big time. :dizzy:

You guys had better decide pretty soon whether it tastes great or is less filling.


Riva, I do not have tim eto read every post in every crossbow thread. I can however inform anyone reading mine that my reasoning is not about sharing the woods. I mainly hunt private property anyhow so it really doesn't effect me either way. I am all for gun only hunters taking up archery and being in the woods. The deer belong to Michigan not me or you or the next guy so you can eliminate me as one of the hunters that is worried about "my" deer etc. I am simply in favor of leaving archery season as it is, for a bow and not a crossbow.

Ganzer

[hoyt001]

crossbows are the devil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:evilsmile

[Riva]

I don't start bowhunting until the 20th of Oct. My neighbors do a great job of pressuring those "unpressured" Oct. 1st deer.

Perhaps it's time that you hunt over at my place. Most, if not all, of my neighbors employ some level of QDM, including my camp. "Pressure" as you call it, really never begins until 7:10 AM on November 15th every year. That stated, I do happen to think that OBR is a good thing, crossbows nothwithstanding. Irrespective of weapon, gun, bow, muzzle; we've fallen into a bad habit of taking the "mulligan buck" whereas, I think that we'd be better served overall by limiting it to one male deer per-year, per hunter. See Swampy, we can agree on some things!:D

[Munsterlndr]

I will look on my own, but I don't recall anybody posting that they don't support crossbows for this reason.

I have already said that outside of a physical limitation I consider the use of a crossbow during bow season to be a sign of a lazy bowhunter. But for the record I don't have a low opinoin of Lazy people unless they posses a Bridge Card.:)

It's amazing how comfortable some are making gross generalizations about tens of thousands of hunters that they have never even met. Stereotyping is a hallmark of the mentally lazy. ;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Just a question here..... could all your puff and arguments against crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) share in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????
~m~

How about this question.......could all your puff and arguments for crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) use a bow in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????

[Swamp Ghost]

Perhaps it's time that you hunt over at my place. Most, if not all, of my neighbors employ some level of QDM, including my camp. "Pressure" as you call it, really never begins until 7:10 AM on November 15th every year. That stated, I do happen to think that OBR is a good thing, crossbows nothwithstanding. Irrespective of weapon, gun, bow, muzzle; we've fallen into a bad habit of taking the "mulligan buck" whereas, I think that we'd be better served overall by limiting it to one male deer per-year, per hunter. See Swampy, we can agree on some things!:D

Pressured deer love my place

20 days of no human interference on "the deer farm" makes for some really good pre-rut hunts.

[Munsterlndr]

How about this question.......could all your puff and arguments for crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) use a bow in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????

Um...No, because a lot of us are already using a bow to hunt unpressured deer. Nice fallacy, though. :lol:

[Swamp Ghost]

I have already said that outside of a physical limitation I consider the use of a crossbow during bow season to be a sign of a lazy bowhunter.

Come on they aren't lazy, they just don't have time to practice and want to lower "wounding" rates......;)

[sputty]

Come on they aren't lazy, they just don't have time to practice and want to lower "wounding" rates......;)
So would you say that a compound user is lazier than a recurve user?:sad:

[Munsterlndr]

Come on they aren't lazy, they just don't have time to practice and want to lower "wounding" rates......;)

Yeah, lowering wounding rates would certainly be a bad thing. :rolleyes:

[Swamp Ghost]

Yeah, lowering wounding rates would certainly be a bad thing. :rolleyes:

You guys need to lighten up.....

[Joe Archer]

If you don't want to share the woods with other hunters, buy some land and keep other hunters off of it. If it's any consolation, you are sharing the woods with 80,000 fewer bow hunters than you were just ten years ago.

Spoken like a true owner of a large tract of land. We all know that private land owners are much more the problem with the deer herd than they are close to any solution. Even though there are 80,000 fewer bow hunters than 10 years ago, they are only a subset of the often evaded issue of 200,000 less firearms hunters over the same time period. Using the type of backward logic often presented in these forums one could argue that early success with the cross bow could further deteriorate firearms hunting numbers.

Reality check. Being able to reverse the trend of falling bow hunter numbers and increase the strength of the hunting fraternity would be a huge benefit to this state. We need to think past the immediate gratification of "Me/Mine" and look towards making changes that will benefit the sport as a whole.
Some of us just believe that compound hunting is NOT bow hunting and will never allow the upper eschelon of the hunting experience. We enjoy a long season to hunt moderate to low pressure animals. If the length of season or the pressure factor are in jeopardy by allowing crossbows, it is not at all selfish to question their introduction. Some contend that these issues need to be understood and taken into consideration before adopting the crossbow legislature.
<----<<<

[2PawsRiver]

It's amazing how comfortable some are making gross generalizations about tens of thousands of hunters that they have never even met.

When you're right it's not a generalization.;):D

[Munsterlndr]

Spoken like a true owner of a large tract of land. We all know that private land owners are much more the problem with the deer herd than they are close to any solution.

Since 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land I think you would have a very hard time making the case that private land owners are much of a problem. What is a more of a problem is individuals like yourself who harvest yearling bucks instead of harvesting greater numbers of does, regardless of whether it's on private or public land. If you want to shoot yearling bucks have at it, I'm not being critical but it's somewhat hypocritical to do so and then try and blame private land owners as being a "problem".

Some of us just believe that compound hunting is NOT bow hunting and will never allow the upper eschelon of the hunting experience. We enjoy a long season to hunt moderate to low pressure animals. If the length of season or the pressure factor are in jeopardy by allowing crossbows, it is not at all selfish to question their introduction. Some contend that these issues need to be understood and taken into consideration before adopting the crossbow legislature.
<----<<<

I think you made a little Freudian slip there, Joe. Again, a guy that shoots yearling bucks and doe fawns being so concerned about others experiencing the "upper echelon" of the hunting experience seems just a little bit much to swallow. Maybe you should stop trying to impose your definition of the hunting experience on others. ;)

[D-BEAVER]

While I do not consider myself anti crossbow, I am a little nervous about the immediate impact full inclusion will have.A large number of hunters are uneducated when it comes to x-bows, bow hunters and firearm hunters, as well. It seems to me that a lot of bowhunters who oppose full inclusion feel that the crossbow offers a signficant advantage over the handheld vertical bow. In their minds, they'll be at disadvantage... allowing crossbow hunters to share "their" season would be like allowing able bodied men to compete in the special olympics.Many non-bowhunters would like to see this law passed for the same reason many bowhunters are opposing it... It will offer a significant advatage over vertical bows, which they were previously uninterested in... now they'll be able to extend their seasons.I personally feel that the disadvantages in shooting a x-bow outweigh the advantages and firmly believe that many who make the switch or pick up a x-bow to begin bowhunting for the first time will realize this at some point, as well.But I fear the immediate impact is going to be an "invasion" of x-bow hunters heading to the woods, which were already crowded to begin with. While this will calm after the intitial surge, when people truly realize the crossbows limitations, I'm not sure I will hunt much in Michigan at all until things settle down.While I feel I'm right about the crossbows disadvantages, I hope I'm wrong about the immediate impact... Only time will tell, as I'm pretty sure this is a done deal...

[shell waster]

The only thing that will probably change is the length of the season. Correct me if i am wrong but hasn't Ohio's and Minn. bow season shortened after a few years of crossbows. Come on out and have some fun with a crossbow. The more morons in the woods the better, I find hunting near somebody who might be lazy an assett. My wife will be getting a crossbow cause there is no way she could kill a deer with a bow, now she's gonig to get all the shooter bucks in 5 mile square area, oh she's a dead eye.

[BigBirdVA]

While I do not consider myself anti crossbow, I am a little nervous about the immediate impact full inclusion will have.A large number of hunters are uneducated when it comes to x-bows, bow hunters and firearm hunters, as well. It seems to me that a lot of bowhunters who oppose full inclusion feel that the crossbow offers a signficant advantage over the handheld vertical bow. In their minds, they'll be at disadvantage... allowing crossbow hunters to share "their" season would be like allowing able bodied men to compete in the special olympics.Many non-bowhunters would like to see this law passed for the same reason many bowhunters are opposing it... It will offer a significant advatage over vertical bows, which they were previously uninterested in... now they'll be able to extend their seasons.I personally feel that the disadvantages in shooting a x-bow outweigh the advantages and firmly believe that many who make the switch or pick up a x-bow to begin bowhunting for the first time will realize this at some point, as well.But I fear the immediate impact is going to be an "invasion" of x-bow hunters heading to the woods, which were already crowded to begin with. While this will calm after the intitial surge, when people truly realize the crossbows limitations, I'm not sure I will hunt much in Michigan at all until things settle down.While I feel I'm right about the crossbows disadvantages, I hope I'm wrong about the immediate impact... Only time will tell, as I'm pretty sure this is a done deal...Cost of a decent hunting setup thins out quite a few. Those using junk xbows will give up long before season opens. How many today have an extra $600 or more to drop on a xbow and accessories? First year here they were legal I went on a public hunt. They allow 75 people per 2 day hunt - all have to be present day 1 to hunt the other days. Saw 2 other xbows. Second year I think I saw 5-6 out of both hunts which was 150 hunters. There won't be one behind every tree as some fear.

[TOW]

The only thing that will probably change is the length of the season. Correct me if i am wrong but hasn't Ohio's and Minn. bow season shortened after a few years of crossbows. ...........snip of the rest

You're wrong..

[Munsterlndr]

The only thing that will probably change is the length of the season. Correct me if i am wrong but hasn't Ohio's and Minn. bow season shortened after a few years of crossbows. Come on out and have some fun with a crossbow. The more morons in the woods the better, I find hunting near somebody who might be lazy an assett. My wife will be getting a crossbow cause there is no way she could kill a deer with a bow, now she's gonig to get all the shooter bucks in 5 mile square area, oh she's a dead eye.

Um..... Minnesota does not allow crossbows and Ohio has had them for thirty years without shortening the archery season.

It seems your understanding of the issue is as wrong as your generalization that crossbow hunters are automatically morons and lazy.

So who's the moron? :rolleyes:

[Liv4Huntin']

How about this question.......could all your puff and arguments for crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) use a bow in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????


There ya go again, swamp, trying to answer a question with another question. Slippery, aren't ya. And you see, we ARE willing and fighting for use of a BOW in hunting unpressured deer.... a crossbow in October. And how DARE you tell me with my disability that I am unwilling to use a (I assume you mean compound bow!) in the hunting of deer!! Now, go to your corner....;)
~m~

[Liv4Huntin']

Some of us just believe that compound hunting is NOT bow hunting and will never allow the upper eschelon of the hunting experience.
<----<<<

Freudian slip here??????? Or are you one of the 'trad bow' guys?????
~m~

[Liv4Huntin']

We enjoy a long season to hunt moderate to low pressure animals. If the length of season or the pressure factor are in jeopardy by allowing crossbows, it is not at all selfish to question their introduction. <----<<<

And with that, Joe has just answered my original question with the affirmative, being as how I will take 'low' akin to 'un'. I thank you for your honesty.
~m~

[Liv4Huntin']

While I do not consider myself anti crossbow, I am a little nervous about the immediate impact full inclusion will have.A large number of hunters are uneducated when it comes to x-bows, bow hunters and firearm hunters, as well. It seems to me that a lot of bowhunters who oppose full inclusion feel that the crossbow offers a signficant advantage over the handheld vertical bow. In their minds, they'll be at disadvantage... allowing crossbow hunters to share "their" season would be like allowing able bodied men to compete in the special olympics.Many non-bowhunters would like to see this law passed for the same reason many bowhunters are opposing it... It will offer a significant advatage over vertical bows, which they were previously uninterested in... now they'll be able to extend their seasons.I personally feel that the disadvantages in shooting a x-bow outweigh the advantages and firmly believe that many who make the switch or pick up a x-bow to begin bowhunting for the first time will realize this at some point, as well.But I fear the immediate impact is going to be an "invasion" of x-bow hunters heading to the woods, which were already crowded to begin with. While this will calm after the intitial surge, when people truly realize the crossbows limitations, I'm not sure I will hunt much in Michigan at all until things settle down.While I feel I'm right about the crossbows disadvantages, I hope I'm wrong about the immediate impact... Only time will tell, as I'm pretty sure this is a done deal...

Please...... do yourself a service and investigate the 'advantages' and 'disadvantages' AND the results in other states that have gone to full inclusion of the crossbow. Your fears are unfounded.
~m~

[shell waster]

Um..... Minnesota does not allow crossbows and Ohio has had them for thirty years without shortening the archery season.

It seems your understanding of the issue is as wrong as your generalization that crossbow hunters are automatically morons and lazy.

So who's the moron? :rolleyes:

Uh... me. You never guess who told me this, a traditional bow hunter. As far as lazy/morons, me again, but what I was really trying to was be sarcastic,ie, insult the guys that dont' have a high opinion of crossbows. let me try again. "Hi I am shell waster, I am a bowhunter I don't want crossbow hunters cause you can shoot 150 yards, never practice, use nite scopes with those crossguns, crossguns are for wimps that can't be a man and use a real bow. I can see it now there will 1 million guys crawling the woods shooting all my deer"- All jokes aside I bet there are guys that actually think this.

[Munsterlndr]

Uh... me. You never guess who told me this, a traditional bow hunter. As far as lazy/morons, me again, but what I was really trying to was be sarcastic,ie, insult the guys that dont' have a high opinion of crossbows. let me try again. "Hi I am shell waster, I am a bowhunter I don't want crossbow hunters cause you can shoot 150 yards, never practice, use nite scopes with those crossguns, crossguns are for wimps that can't be a man and use a real bow. I can see it now there will 1 million guys crawling the woods shooting all my deer"- All jokes aside I bet there are guys that actually think this.

Sorry, missed the sarcasm. It sounded waaay too much like what some of the anti's actually believe. ;)

[Joe Archer]

Since 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land I think you would have a very hard time making the case that private land owners are much of a problem.

That is almost laughable. On public land all you have to do to basically obliterate the deer herd is give out enough doe permits. Anyone who hunts public land in the NLP will attest to this. Yet, I will agree that large tracts of private land in the NLP remain over populated. The bottom line is that private land owners like to go out and see those 30 - 40 deer in their fields and refuse to thin the herd. Proof is all over the management section in these forums. Wasn't it you that was claiming awhile back that you watched around 40 deer in your field one afternoon? Maybe I am mistaken. :dizzy:

What is a more of a problem is individuals like yourself who harvest yearling bucks instead of harvesting greater numbers of does, regardless of whether it's on private or public land. If you want to shoot yearling bucks have at it, I'm not being critical but it's somewhat hypocritical to do so and then try and blame private land owners as being a "problem".
Well, this isn't the management section but I have expressed my basic philosophy on management over there in the past. I believe the number one priority in sound management starts with getting a population in line with the habitat. I place much less importance on trophy deer or buck age structure. If deer numbers are high enough, I will take doe. When deer numbers are low, I will take a young buck over a doe. The fact is I hunt primarily PUBLIC land with herd numbers in line with the habitat AND a herd that has adequate buck-age structure as well. By all the complaining around here, I would conclude that you all should be so lucky.

I think you made a little Freudian slip there, Joe.
OOPS! I stand corrected. Indeed, some of us just believe that crossbow hunting is NOT bow hunting and will never allow the upper echelon of the hunting experience.

Again, a guy that shoots yearling bucks and doe fawns being so concerned about others experiencing the "upper echelon" of the hunting experience seems just a little bit much to swallow. Maybe you should stop trying to impose your definition of the hunting experience on others. ;)
For the record I have never taken a doe fawn, or a button buck in my life. I have taken approximately equal numbers of doe, yearling bucks, and mature bucks. If it ever gets to the point where doe greatly outnumber bucks in my area, I will take proportionately more doe. If everyone did this, we would have sound management of our herd regardless of the number of bucks that were harvested.
There is no doubt in my mind that the degree of hunting difficulty would rank as follows; Firearms -> crossbow -> compound -> traditional archery. I am not trying to impose my definition on anyone, just offering my opinion. However, I am one of the few here that seem greatly satisfied with my hunting experience.
In fact, I am having grilled venison tonight for dinner.
<----<<<

[Munsterlndr]

For the record I have never taken a doe fawn, or a button buck in my life. I have taken approximately equal numbers of doe, yearling bucks, and mature bucks.
<----<<<

Hmmmm.....Maybe you can then explain this picture that you posted in another thread. That sure looks like either a doe fawn or a button buck, you can still see the spots.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Munsterlndr/JoeA1.jpg

[Joe Archer]

Hmmmm.....Maybe you can then explain this picture that you posted in another thread. That sure looks like either a doe fawn or a button buck, you can still see the spots....

Here is another picture of the same doe. I took her on private property this past October. The DNR aged her at 2.5 years of age. Hardly a fawn or button buck.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/photopost/data/500/10-5-2007-07b.jpg
<----<<<

[2PawsRiver]

As she lays on the tailgate all you have to do is look at the length from tail to shoulders to see she is an adult Doe. The marking on the back are intersting, am assuming it is from where she was laying.

[lang49]

Since 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land

The one thing I want to know...if 85% of the deer truly are harvested on private land (and I do believe this number to be pretty accurate), how is legalizing crossbows going to have any substantial impact on the number of bowhunters on private land (especially in the SLP where most of the land is private), or on the private land antlerless harvest (in any zone)?

Obviously there will be some disabled hunters who take advantage of the season (and rightfully so). But, the pro crossbow advocates make it sound as if all the private land owners are suddenly going to invite two of their best non-bowhunting friends over to hunt with them. Of course not...

Increase revenue for the DNR, increased antlerless deer harvest...there's no reason to believe that any of this is going to happen.

I fear most for the public land deer herd. When we see this 85:15 private to public ratio swing to 80:20 or 75:25, we're going to be in trouble.

[Munsterlndr]

The one thing I want to know...if 85% of the deer truly are harvested on private land (and I do believe this number to be pretty accurate), how is legalizing crossbows going to have any substantial impact on the number of bowhunters on private land (especially in the SLP where most of the land is private), or on the private land antlerless harvest (in any zone)?

Obviously there will be some disabled hunters who take advantage of the season (and rightfully so). But, the pro crossbow advocates make it sound as if all the private land owners are suddenly going to invite two of their best non-bowhunting friends over to hunt with them. Of course not...

Increase revenue for the DNR, increased antlerless deer harvest...there's no reason to believe that any of this is going to happen.


Lang-
300,000+ bowhunters currently hunt in Michigan and 85% of them manage to get access to private land to do so. If another 40,000 - 50,000 crossbow hunters take to the field during archery season I'm pretty confident that they will also be able to find private land to hunt on. Many already have private land access that they are using during firearms and muzzleloading season. Where there is a will there is a way. More hunters in the field will increase the harvest and some of those are going to be antlerless deer. Increased hunter opportunity is going to result in more antlerless licenses and combo licenses sold, which in turn will increase DNR revenue. In addition 50,000 new crossbow hunters would generate between $3-5,000,000 in additional DNR funds from Pittman-Robinson taxes.

Look, you guys can't have it both ways. Either nobody is going to take advantage of a new season which will then result in zero impact to the established bow season or else a lot of hunters will take advantage of it which will result in significant revenue for the DNR and an increased harvest which will help decrease the grossly overpopulated deer herd that we are faced with.

I feel that given the small percentage of hunters that exclusively hunt public land the whole crowding out public land bow hunters argument is vastly overblown in importance. But if it would make anybody feel better, I've proposed in the past that crossbows be limited to private land only. I'd still be comfortable with that concession.

[boehr]

Let us try to stay on topic and keep the insults out of this.

[lang49]

Look, you guys can't have it both ways.

That's just my point. You're trying to argue that the number of additional hunters gained by crossbows is relatively small, but will have large positive economic and biological impact on the resource. Your theory doesn't seem realistic at all.


In addition 50,000 new crossbow hunters would generate between $3-5,000,000 in additional DNR funds from Pittman-Robinson taxes.


Right, but what percentage of these "new" crossbow hunters have hunted in the past and regularly buy combo tags? 50%, 60%??


I've proposed in the past that crossbows be limited to private land only. I'd still be comfortable with that concession.

I would actually go for this. I figure the average guy has got his two tags and he's going to attempt to fill them any way he can (within the legal means). But, Looking at Wexford and Manistee counties (mostly public land, no doe permits issued for several years now), I don't see how public land crossbows are going to have any positive impact on the herd.

[swoosh]

We enjoy a long season to hunt moderate to low pressure animals. If the length of season or the pressure factor are in jeopardy by allowing crossbows, it is not at all selfish to question their introduction. <----<<<


First honest answer I have read

[2PawsRiver]

After giving it some thought I will leaving the Bow vs Crossbow debates. The whole thing is distasteful and I find myself a bit irritated and probobly without just cause insulting people....................so you guys enjoy, but as for me I am un-subscribing..............at least I think I know how to do that:)

[swampbuck]

I hunt stateland and dont see any overcrowding in archery season. In fact the woods is nearly empty.

[Munsterlndr]

That's just my point. You're trying to argue that the number of additional hunters gained by crossbows is relatively small, but will have large positive economic and biological impact on the resource. Your theory doesn't seem realistic at all.

Right, but what percentage of these "new" crossbow hunters have hunted in the past and regularly buy combo tags? 50%, 60%??

I would actually go for this. I figure the average guy has got his two tags and he's going to attempt to fill them any way he can (within the legal means). But, Looking at Wexford and Manistee counties (mostly public land, no doe permits issued for several years now), I don't see how public land crossbows are going to have any positive impact on the herd.

I don't think in terms of large or small, more in terms of significant or insignificant.

I estimate that between 35-50,000 hunters would take advantage of crossbow inclusion. A lot of them would already be firearms hunters, maybe half of whom previously purchased combo tags. Is the sale of an additional 20,000 combo tags and maybe 5,000 more antlerless licenses a large number? Not compared to the total number of licenses sold but it's still an increase in revenue for the DNR, especially when combined with the excise tax on crossbows & equipment.

50,000 more bow hunters would increase the harvest by around 17,000 deer. Again, a relatively small number when compared to the total harvest but in the SLP every additional deer that is harvested is a plus and in the NLP an extra 4,000 additional deer being harvested is not going to cause an significant stress to the herd, especially with 85% of them being
harvested from private land.

Given the positive economic impact and the mildly positive impact on the herd, coupled with the potential for increased recreational opportunity for 50,000 or so Michigan hunters, I think this can only be a positive move for Michigan. The concerns of those opposed about crowding on public land during bow season or that harvests would increase so substantially that season or limits would have to be adjusted just seem totally unrealistic to me.

[sputty]

Can a disabled non-resident qualify for a crossbow permit under current law?

[Michihunter]

Can a disabled non-resident qualify for a crossbow permit under current law?
YES. Same criteria as the resident permit.;)

[TOW]

YES. Same criteria as the resident permit.;)


The application form at…

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

…has a place that calls for a

Michigan Driver License No (If none, Michigan ID Card No.)

Hmmm..

[Michihunter]

Now that I think about it, the friend of mine from OH who had the permit to use may have gotten his prior to moving to OH. And I can't honestly say with 100% certainty that he does indeed have one as a non resident. Maybe Boehr can chime in.

[Riva]

Can a disabled non-resident qualify for a crossbow permit under current law?

However, even though you are a non-resident, you will still be required to meet Michigan's current criteria that applies to our residents reagrding obtaining a permit to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season.

So, all things considered, unless you have a 80% permanent disability of the shoulder, elbow or hand, you should probably seek out to some other State to hunt deer in. Sorry. It's just the way we do things up here.:dizzy:

[TOW]

The Non- resident thing needs to be look at too,.

If a non-resident vertical bowhunter wants to come to Michigan to deer huht all he /she has to do is buy the tag.

If a non-resident physically challenged crossbower wants to come to Michigan to hunt deer he has to jump through all the Michigan hoops EVEN THOUGH HE HAS A PERMIT FROM HIS STATE.

There is no reciprocal handicapped permit recognition.

Can any of the anti-crossbowers say that is fair?

[BigBirdVA]

The Non- resident thing needs to be look at too,.

If a non-resident vertical bowhunter wants to come to Michigan to deer huht all he /she has to do is buy the tag.

If a non-resident physically challenged crossbower wants to come to Michigan to hunt deer he has to jump through all the Michigan hoops EVEN THOUGH HE HAS A PERMIT FROM HIS STATE.

There is no reciprocal handicapped permit recognition.

Can any of the anti-crossbowers say that is fair?Anti's and the word fair don't go together.

[sputty]

After reviewing the application and the process one must follow to obtain a crossbow permit, I can understand why many probably just say screw it, its not worth it.

[Riva]

The Non- resident thing needs to be look at too,.

If a non-resident vertical bowhunter wants to come to Michigan to deer huht all he /she has to do is buy the tag.

If a non-resident physically challenged crossbower wants to come to Michigan to hunt deer he has to jump through all the Michigan hoops EVEN THOUGH HE HAS A PERMIT FROM HIS STATE.

There is no reciprocal handicapped permit recognition.

Can any of the anti-crossbowers say that is fair?

Tow,

I agree it is not fair but it plays into the bigger picture. For example, the state of Maryland merely requires a person to obtain a letter from one's personal physician stating that in his/her personal opinion, you have a disability, either permanent of temporary, that is to the degree of severity that render you unable to pull or hold a bow. It could be just about any medical condition under the sun.

Conversely, here in Michigan, we have extremely narrowly-defined conditions that will allow you to obtain your permit plus, you must meet or exceed the level or severity under the specific disability.

The dichotomy is that you could probably obtain a permit to hunt in Maryland (after going through the the respect application processed) but, you probably would not be able to hunt here in Michigan. It's gigantically stupid from many perspectives:

1. Michigan's criteria is WAY overly restrictive compared to other states

2. We quantify disabilities between States

3. There is no reciprocal agreement between Michigan and other states

4. We're pizzing away giant money that people want to spend here.

Since it highly unlikely that there will be uniform criteria between states and/ or there will not be any type of reciprocal agreement surrounding same, it simply screams to do away with the disability issue altogether and embrace full inclusion.

I, for one, happen to think it is a good thing to bring more people from outside Michigan to spend twice as much for a hunting license and likewise spend tons of money here while visiting. Full inclusion will do that. Some people hate money. I'm not one of them. (MBH members, insert your comments about Riva and others being an employee of the crossbow industry here):D

[TOW]

Riva,

No doubt that you are correct but let's look at handicapped plates on vehicles. I know for a fact that the handicapped criteria varies all over the map from state to state. But that handcapped plate will allow a person to park in handicapped parking spots all over the country.

So what is the difference?

IMO - It is set up to appease the bowhunter oragnized groups in each state.

The DNRs are going to have to call a spade a spade and take what these groups want with a huge grain of salt. The DNRs have to ask what the hidden agendas are behind these groups. Is it for commn good or to protect their little playpens.

[Riva]

Riva,

No doubt that you are correct but let's look at handicapped plates on vehicles. I know for a fact that the handicapped criteria varies all over the map from state to state. But that handcapped plate will allow a person to park in handicapped parking spots all over the country.

So what is the difference?

IMO - It is set up to appease the bowhunter oragnized groups in each state.

The DNRs are going to have to call a spade a spade and take what these groups want with a huge grain of salt. The DNRs have to ask what the hidden agendas are behind these groups. Is it for common good or to protect their little playpens.

I know that we're both on the same side of the pro-crossbow issue but I'm going to slap your hands ever so slightly. Please do not use the words "handicapped" and "disabled" interchangeably. "People" have disabilities. A handicap is a barrier that prevents people from accessing going from point a to point b. Nuff said.;)

The statement you make about handicapped criteria varies all over the place from state to state is not accurate. The great majority of these rules fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is a federal law.
All states must comply with them exactly as they are defined or suffer HUGE consequences.

Conversely, a state is an entity unto itself capable of making laws for its own citizens. And, as much as I dislike the current criteria that enables a person with a disability to hunt with a crossbow, I cannot refute the right of the state to create such a law.

Your notion that one has a disability permit in Michigan so it should be honored in Michigan is not the same as a handicapped license plate valid in all 50 states. One is a state law that MI is entitled to make. The other is a federal law that all states must comply with. Big difference. It's like saying that Indiana only charges 40 cents a gallon on gasoline in Indiana and, since I'm an Indiana resident, I should not have to pay the 60 cents a gallon tax that Michigan charges per gallon. A state can do anything it wants in that regard

There is a way however to chase the rabbit that I think you're chasing, specifically, a uniform state-by-state disability criteria. It is more difficult but it is doable. I you feel that you are being discriminated against by the state as a result of your disability, you can seek remedy via the Americans with Disability Act. The processes are clearly defined for you on how to to this. Just go to their website. In fact, most of those states that have changed to full inclusion in recent years, have been prompted, in part, by their recognition that they were indeed in violation of the ADA and, did not want to suffer the consequences which included:

Everybody must now hunt with a crossbow (no longbows or compounds)

or,

No hunting season whatsoever

or,

Pay fines

or,

Ignore the ADA but lose all federal wildlife assistance funding

or, all of the above

In light of those options full inclusion happened pretty quickly thereafter.

I happed to think that the legislative process is superior such as HB5741 H2 that will call for full inclusion of the crossbow during any season where archery equipment is currently permitted is far superior alternative to pursuing these matters through the ADA venue. That said, the ADA still remains an option.

Riva:)

[boehr]

I will chime in on the thought of fairness.

My opinion is yes it is fair. Comparing driving vehicle to hunting is apples and oranges.

A non-resident still has to by a non-resident license, they just can't use their hunting license from their own state even though a non-resident license costs more. What would not be fair is to allow a non-resident to do something in Michigan that a Michigan resident could not do, that would not be fair. Once crossbows are made a legal hunting device for bow hunting for anyone that chooses to use one then it will be fair for the Michigan resident or non-resident.

Of course I disagree with those that believe that the ADA laws help the crossbow issue because my opinion is there is compliance already and there has never been any court case in the regard discussed that was won because of ADA and crossbows. One can say the law was changed because of that but there is not fact that the law was changed just solely because of ADA. ADA at best got a mention but was not a major factor in any law change in any other state.

[J Eberhart]

Pressure!! You have got to be kidding. You obviously hunt on private ground if you think there is no bowhunting pressure. Go on any state land and show me a nice buck coming out into a field on the 2nd afternoon of bow season. Pre season scouting pressure on state land affects deer movements more than most bowhunting pressure does on private land until the opener of gun season and that pressure and alteration of movenment is before the season even opens.

In my 45 years as an avid Michigan deer hunter I have never seen a bill pushed through the house as fast as this one. I think it was a very planned effort by the crossbow manufacturers to amend (change) bill HB5741 into its current form of allowing capable, perfectly healthy hunters to use crossbows during a season originally fought for by Fred Bear and set-up for bowhunters. The next step was to go to the house meetings prior to the vote and falsely tell the house representatives how comparable crossbows are to conventional bows. Before anybody else knew it, bill HB5741 passed through the house. The opponents to the amended bill did not have the opportunity to mobilize, and the outdoor media was not allowed the time to get the revisions to press for opposition support.

To start, the original bill HB5741 would have allowed hunters 69 and over to buy a crossbow license across the counter. Many elderly hunters do not feel comfortable hunting with a conventional bow poundage that they feel is inadequate for killing whitetails, and have quit hunting because they simply can’t draw enough weight. A 45-pound draw weight bow is about the bottom of the effective draw weight spectrum for adequate penetration on whitetails and a 70-pound draw weight is considered at the high end of draw weight for a vertical bow. Elderly hunters have every right to enjoy our great outdoors and the hunting lifestyle they previously had, so that adjustment was also very fair. In fact most hunters I have talked to had no issues with the age limit being lowered to 65.

The original bill HB5741 (prior to the crossbow manufacturers getting involved) was also going to reduce the disability requirement from 80% (current law) to 60%, which was also a fair adjustment to the current law.

But no, those two adjustments weren’t good enough for the crossbow manufacturers, they wanted it all, after all Michigan has the largest bowhunting population in the country and that equates to a lot of dollars in revenue. So the crossbow manufacturers added an amendment to bill HB5741 to allow unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season.

Hunters capable of drawing a bow that do not bowhunt, have chose not to do so because shooting a conventional bow requires a lot of dedication, practice, and proper form to become proficient. For some odd reason that is what bowhunting is all about and why the season was instituted in the first place. It is a very novel concept, something that you actually have to work at in order to have success, go figure.

In the 1970s I used to manage an archery department and we sold a few crossbows every year. While they were a far cry in technology from what is available in today’s market, once sighted in, they were like shooting a short-range (up to 40 yards) rifle. I do not know what if any crossbows were brought into the house meetings prior to their vote on June 27th, but you can rest assured that if the manufacturers brought any in, they were not tricked out as most of them are when sold today.

The typical modern crossbow set-up is sold with; a draw weight of 150 to 175 pounds (more than twice the average draw weight of a heavy poundage conventional bow), a magnified scope with crosshairs just as most upper end rifles have, and an adjustable trigger just as most upper end rifles have. Crossbows are shouldered and shot in exactly the same manner as a rifle, they are cocked into the shooting position while hunting with the safety on just as a rifle is (yet there is a Michigan state law against using a device that holds a conventional bow in the drawn position), many of them come with cocking devices (Bowtech’s is chain driven) because they have so much power they are difficult to draw and cock. Cocking devices were originally designed for the handicapped and elderly hunters (the only hunters that should be using them) but now crossbows have so much power that even capable hunters use them. These are all huge advantages that dramatically separate crossbows from conventional bows, they are not even close to each other in accuracy and ease of use.

Once sighted in, a crossbow requires absolutely no practice whatsoever. You can put it in the corner as you would a rifle when season is over, pick it up next season and shoot a bolt (a crossbow term for arrow) or two through it prior to season just as you would a gun to insure the sights have not been moved, and go hunting, no additional practice throughout the entire season is required, there is no arguing the issue, that is an absolute fact.

Last season I watched a 75 year-old gentleman shoot a 3 shot group at 40 yards with his scoped crossbow and you could have covered the holes from all 3 bolts with a silver dollar, and he hadn’t shot the bow in two weeks. There is no way that can be done with a conventional bow without daily practice, and many hunters including myself are not capable of it no matter how much we practice. I hope you do not think, well that is a good thing because it is more accurate and has more ethical kills. If that is the way you think, we may as well just have a 3-month gun season, after all they can shoot a small group at several hundred yards.

Passion


I am sure that crossbow manufacturers at the house meeting also mentioned that there are many hunters that are passionate about hunting with their crossbows. Unless the passionate hunters they were referring to were handicapped or elderly, the passionate hunter statement would be totally false. Crossbows have been legal for everyone during Michigan’s gun season for many years, yet I have never seen or heard of anybody using a crossbow during the gun season. The reason is very plain and simple, a gun is more effective at longer ranges than a crossbow so they use a gun to give them the optimum advantage, or in other words, make their true passion of just killing a deer as easy as possible. No matter what the crossbow manufacturers say, it is definitely not about passion, it is about easy, more range, and not having to practice. During gun season the, I can't live without my crossbow passion statement immediately falls to the wayside and is replaced by the next legal step up in range and technology which is a gun.

Consider this, there are hundreds of organized archery clubs in Michigan that have ranges and competitions throughout the year. Many of the archers participating in these shoots do not even hunt deer, they shoot bows because it is a challenge that requires practice and discipline and they want to challenge themselves. I have talked to over ten of Michigan’s top archery shops over the last week and not one of them could tell me of one single crossbow club. Why? Because shooting a crossbow well enough for deer hunting does not require proper form, practice, or discipline, you simply aim and shoot.

Money and Greed $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Unfortunately, money is the root of all evil and that is what the amended bill HB5741 is all about, nothing more, nothing less. If the crossbow manufacturers were not going to make huge profits by Michigan passing this amended bill into law, the amendment would never have been added, nor would the crossbow people been at the meetings.

Had crossbows been named cross bolt-guns, which in reality is what they are, we would not be having this discussion because the word gun would be in the name. But since the word bow is in it, to non-users and non-hunters, which I assume the vast majority of representatives were, they did not know about the vast differences in technology. Just like guns, crossbows are not unethical, they are just way to advanced to be allowed for everyone without exception during bow season.

In my opinion the crossbow manufacturers are playing our state government like a fiddle. I guarantee that if this bill in its current form were presented to the hunting public for a vote, it would not even come close to passing. It may pass this forum, but this forum is definitely not a true cross section of bowhunters.

My reasoning

My reason for not wanting this bill passed is one of ethics for what is considered bowhunting, and unlike crossbow manufacturers my reason is not driven by greed or money of any sort. In fact, I am currently the Michigan sales representative for several manufacturers in the hunting industry and without question, I would financially benefit from the passing of bill HB5741. However, my ethics for what was originally fought for by Fred Bear and instituted as a bowhunting season overrides my greed for money. At some point in time you have to draw a line in the sand as to what is and is not ethical during a season that was opened for specific weapon. To me money should never be a driving force over what is right.

I recently spoke with the owners of many high profile archery shops and for what it’s worth they were all against this bill in its current form. They were all in favor of making crossbows legal for anyone over a specific age (around 60 to 65) and making it easier for a handicapped person to acquire a permit, in other words, in the bills original form.

While I will never call the killing of any animal a sport, but rather an activity for food, I am going to use sports as an example to make a point because more than likely everyone on the board watches or has participated in sports at some point in time. Every sport has its parameters or limitations of what you can and can’t use concerning equipment. In golf there are size and construction limitations on golf balls and limitations on the makeup of clubs. In Tennis there are size restrictions on the perimeter size of the racket. In baseball there are restrictions on how the balls are made and professionals can’t use aluminum bats or pine tar on their wooden bats. In hockey there are stick restrictions. Every sport has restrictions so that the playing field for all involved remains somewhat level.

Legalizing crossbows would tilt the playing field dramatically against the very weapon the season was set up for, conventional bows.

While I am quite sure that the majority of house representatives that passed this bill do not bowhunt, I am also quite sure they were not aware of the vast differences between Michigan bowhunter numbers and how they differ from other states bowhunter numbers. While the crossbow manufacturers are quick to relay what other states (Ohio is the only high profile whitetail state I can think of that allows crossbows to anybody) may be doing concerning crossbow seasons (to forward their agenda), they likely did not mention the vast differences in hunter numbers.

Lets discuss pressure for those of you who do not have a clue where Miuchigan stands against other states.

Statistics of bowhunting across the nation.

For my writings I acquired the absolute land-mass in square miles (from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census) for all the whitetail hunting states. When a states bowhunter license sales (printed annually in Archery Business magazine) are divided into its exact land-mass, you get an exact average of bowhunter’s per absolute square mile. Michigan's leads them all with an average bowhunter density of 7.83 (Michigan’s land-mass also includes the UP which has lots of land and very few hunters which skus the hunter densities in the southern peninsula way below what they actually are), Ohio, including their crossbow hunters has only 3.90 bowhunter’s per square mile, Iowa has .71, Kansas has .24, Illinois has 1.97, New York has 3.76, Minnesota has .90, Nebraska has .19. Michigan (including the UP) without crossbows already has twice the average bowhunter density as Ohio, nearly four times that of Illinois and 41 times the average bowhunter density of Nebraska.

Michigan’s DNR estimates the number of bowhunters at about 310,000 to 320,000, that places us as the undisputed #1 state in license sales, #1 state in average bowhunter density per square mile, and almost dead last in book buck entries per licensed bowhunter. In other words Michigan is at the bottom (worst) in every category from the bowhunters perspective.

Another interesting statistic is that Michigan has one of the worst ratios as far as trophy buck entries (Pope & Young) into the recordbook, with a staggering 1 out of every 8,516 licensed bowhunter’s in 2001 entering a book buck. Iowa and Kansas had entry ratios of 1 out of every 150 bowhunters entering a book buck, that means it is 56 times easier to take a book buck in those two states. Where am I going with this you might ask? Michigan’s high hunter densities, poor mature buck to doe ratios, and difficulty in finding a place to hunt are the main reasons our bowhunter numbers have been declining while other big buck states license sales have had double digit increases over the past 10 years, I have the statistics to prove that. Also Michigan’s open to hunting public land receives so much hunting pressure that many hunters have just given up. There are a lot of Michigan bowhunter’s not hunting in Michigan because they opt to save their money and take trips to hunt in other states even though many of those states non-resident licenses cost over $400.00.

When Ohio started allowing crossbows during the regular bow season their bowhunter license sales numbers nearly doubled the first year, yet they are still less than ours without allowing crossbows. If crossbows are allowed without restrictions, yes there will definitely be a spike in license sales, but that will be short term. Michigan will likely add 150,000 to 200,000 additional hunters in the field with crossbows during the regular bow season, but will eventually lose conventional bow bowhunters (which the season was originally opened for) due to overcrowding on public land, and ethics. The additional license sales will be gun hunters that will be able to use a short-range gun (crossbow). There will be more bucks taken during bow season due to the simplicity and ease of crossbow use, making gun season less attractive to many gun hunters. Many prior gun-only hunters that take up crossbow hunting will fill their tags in bow season and will not need to hunt during gun season, after all they will get 3 months to basically, short range gun hunt with their crossbow. There will definitely be a decline in license sales during gun season.

Listed below are some solid license sales statistics that enforce the fact that license sales are growing in many states. These are being presented because at the house meetings the crossbow manufacturers said that nationally, bow hunting license sales were declining. These are some pretty nice bumps in participation for a 6-year time frame.

1998 license sales 2004 license sales
Iowa 36,800 47,100
Kansas 17,800 21,080
Illinois 86,700 120,000
Wisconsin 246,000 249,644
Minnesota 66,000 70,000
Virginia 58,500 61,400
New York 170,000 215,337

A couple reasons other states numbers are growing that Michigan should take a hard look at

Keep in mind that Ohio along with Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Missouri, and many other states only allow one buck per season no matter what the weapon. These are all known big buck states that do not have any type of antler restrictions, yet the one-buck rule allows a lot of bucks to grow to maturity. The one-buck tag also gets many hunters out of the woods early in the season (when they fill their tag) which lightens up the numbers of hunters on public land.

All of these states also have mandatory 24-hour call-in (automated service, no man hours) or check in rules. The call-in and check in rules keep many hunters from cheating and gives the states very defined kill data without having to guess as our DNR does in Michigan. These two simple rules make a huge difference in the balance (buck to doe ratios) of their deer herds and allow many bucks to grow to maturity, which in turn makes hunting more appealing to non-residents and residents. Please keep in mind, for what it’s worth, that I am not a QDM advocate.

Rest assured, passing this law in its current state will bring some immediate revenue into the DNR, but the long term ramifications will be not be good, and once passed it is very difficult to reverse. Passing this law is simply giving into greedy manufacturers, throwing ethics aside, and paying no attention to solid statistics that obviously separate Michigan from any other state, including Ohio.

I also spoke with two distributors that sell archery goods and within a couple years after Ohio passed their crossbow law their business with archery dealers went down the you know what. Lets see, a crossbow does not have to be fit to the individual as a bow does, so their is no customer service required, negating the need for pro shops. Crossbows are like short range guns that do not require practice so once set up their owners rarely have to replace cables and strings. There are less lost arrows and wore out equipment that has to be replaced or upgraded. No leagues due to not having to practice. Anyway, a percentage of archery businesses will go under within a few years, they are barely hanging in there now.

[Terry Williams]

Please don't post anymore facts, as the proponents are guilt riddled already.

[ridgewalker]

Mr. Eberhart you are very eloquent. However I will assume my right to be on the other side of the page. Crossbows do have to fit a person just like a shotgun stock has to fit the shooter. I am disabled and have tried for 4 years to get a permit and cannot. My left side is not functional and I have Parkinsons yet the drs do not wish to deal with the app on a % basis. At present there is no allowance for diseases like MS, MD, PD, or any of the spinal afflictions. Have you ever tried to steady a bow even a crossbow when your body has tremors or can not move? Shot can onlybe taken at lesss than 20 yds because that is all that is possible for many of the disabled and weakened senior. The rules need CHANGING period and our leaders can not seem to agree except to drop all the requirements. Right or not that would mean I could hunt again even though from the ground and my cbow woulld have to locked back by one of my campmates which would give me only one shot. One shot is better than none. I have hunted before my injury and disease with a longbow, recurve, and compound and I have not considered myself lazy or stupidl. Compounds are not a traditional weapon by any sstrecch of the imagination. I do not know of anyone that would give theirs back. People like myself and I will not impact your hunt because we cannot move far on our own. Please give this some thought.:sick:

[J Eberhart]

ridge

The bill that was amended to its current status was to change the disability from 80 to 60 percent. I am in rehab right now as well and my doc said that he has had people like yourself that were not 80% handicapped and he couldn't give them the paperwork to get a permit. That is why they wanted to change it to 60% but of corse the crossbow manufacturers wanted more.

concerning the other remarks. My ethics are just fine.

[Munsterlndr]

Despite your voluminous hyperbole, you fail to provide any evidence that would show how crossbows would have a greater impact within archery season than vertical bows do. For all of your rhetoric comparing crossbows to firearms, the fact remains that in terms of providing a substantive benefit that increases the likelihood of harvesting a deer there is no difference between vertical bows and crossbows. The data from almost a dozen other states supports that fact. All of the "crossbolt gun" rhetoric is simply moot.

The idea that 200,000 hunters in Michigan are going to pick up a crossbow and flood the woods is simply ludicrous. Again,no other state that has allowed full inclusion has come even close to that high a percentage of increase. It's a typical "sky is falling" technique that is employed by MBH and by others, in the absence of any proof.

Your remarks about passion are totally irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about the establishment of archery clubs, we are talking about hunting. As you note, there are a lot of archers who solely compete in archery competition and could care less about hunting, just as there are a lot of competitive rifle & pistol shooters who could care less about hunting. The presence of organized shooting clubs speaks only to the popularity of target shooting as a sport and is not relevant to the discussion about including crossbows as a hunting weapon,in the least. The fact that few use crossbows during firearms season is also a moot point. When Fred Bear et. al. lobbied for the introduction of a stand alone archery season in 1936 there were approx. 140,000 firearms deer hunters in Michigan. Fred and his merry band of arrow flinger's had the right to hunt with their weapon of choice during the firearms season but very, very few did. Does that mean that there was no passion for the longbow? During the 1937 season, only about 200 archers took part. Today we have around 630,000 firearms hunters in Michigan. In order to equal the "passion" exhibited for long bows, that means that approx. 800 Michigan firearms hunters would have to want to make use of a crossbow in a stand alone season. At a sporting goods show in Michigan this spring over 3,000 hunters signed a petition supporting crossbow inclusion. I'd say that there is plenty of passion for crossbows in Michigan. :)

Are you seriously suggesting that Michigan hunters should be denied increased opportunity, simply to prevent traditional archery vendors from going out of business? I've seen some silly reasons for denying crossbows but that one takes the cake. You condemn crossbow manufacturers for wanting to make a buck but then you want to use hunting regulations as a means of supporting archery shops? Protectionist economics at it's best. Next thing you know, you will want to pass a law prohibiting Remington from selling ammo in Michigan so that Winchester can benefit. How about we let the consumer and the free market decide where they spend their money and on what type of equipment instead of using hunting regulations to promote protectionist policies.

As a trophy hunter and an individual who makes his living off of shooting big bucks, I can understand why you might be concerned about allowing more "Joe lunch bucket" hunters in to the woods, who might accidentally shoot "your" deer. Heaven forbid that some 16 year old kid happens to shoot that bruiser that you spent all summer scouting and identifying. Fortunately the Michigan House of Representatives recognized that crossbow inclusion will be good for the majority of Michigan's hunters, good for the economy and good for our DNR's efforts to effectively manage one of our most important natural resources. Those benefits trump the demands of a small elitist bunch of bow hunters who feel that they "own" archery season and who view any potential for having to share a public resource as a threat to their monopoly.

[Riva]

Eberhart,

Just so you know, there are some amongst you who do not feel the same way regarding the age 69 issue.

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.


This is the same organization that advocates the exclusion of all but the most severely disabled persons to use a crossbow



This is the same organization that advocates its members be sworn in as Conservation Officers to enforce the crossbow problem



This is the same organization that advocates the exclusion of young people who's physical development is insufficient to pull a bow (like the elderly)



This is the same organization that advocates not retaining archery hunters in the sport at the precise intersection all statistics show they exit and never return (age 40-45)




This is the same organization that sends Michigan residents (and their checkbooks) to other states to hunt because the simply desire to hunt with their weapon of choice.



While you condemn crossbows with absolutely no scientific support other than hearsay and innuendo, I just thought that you should know who your team's quarterback is. :dizzy:



And finally, there is going to come a time when this rhetoric about everybody on the pro-crossbow side of the ledger being a representative of the crossbow industry to come to an end. Its time for it to an end or the accuser have some accountability to back up their statement. In other words..prove it or zip it!



BTW nice letter:)

[November Sunrise]

ridge

The bill that was amended to its current status was to change the disability from 80 to 60 percent. I am in rehab right now as well and my doc said that he has had people like yourself that were not 80% handicapped and he couldn't give them the paperwork to get a permit. That is why they wanted to change it to 60% but of corse the crossbow manufacturers wanted more.

concerning the other remarks. My ethics are just fine.

As a manufacturers rep, do you currently profit from the sale of compound or recurve bows?

In your books and magazines you frequently promote Scentlok, Rivers West, and Ambush Tree Saddles. Are you a rep for any of these products?

Do you sell any products to the archery shops that you're expressing concern about?

[TOW]

I know that we're both on the same side of the pro-crossbow issue but I'm going to slap your hands ever so slightly. Please do not use the words "handicapped" and "disabled" interchangeably. "People" have disabilities. A handicap is a barrier that prevents people from accessing going from point a to point b. Nuff said.;)

:)

Symantics, and I don't think that you will find where I used the word "disabled".

I usually refer to people as "physically challenged."

I used the word "handicapped" because that is what the permit calls it and what the license plates are designated as.

[TOW]

I will chime in on the thought of fairness.

My opinion is yes it is fair. Comparing driving vehicle to hunting is apples and oranges.

A non-resident still has to by a non-resident license, they just can't use their hunting license from their own state even though a non-resident license costs more. What would not be fair is to allow a non-resident to do something in Michigan that a Michigan resident could not do, that would not be fair. Once crossbows are made a legal hunting device for bow hunting for anyone that chooses to use one then it will be fair for the Michigan resident or non-resident.

Of course I disagree with those that believe that the ADA laws help the crossbow issue because my opinion is there is compliance already and there has never been any court case in the regard discussed that was won because of ADA and crossbows. One can say the law was changed because of that but there is not fact that the law was changed just solely because of ADA. ADA at best got a mention but was not a major factor in any law change in any other state.

Not a problem paying out of state hunting license fees. That should apply to everyone, physically challenged and non-physically challenged. Being physically challenged should not get anything free for that person. BUT, it should not cost them more either.

Not asking for an excuse of something for a NR that a Michigan resident has to do. A resident, say of Indiana, has to jump through his/her own hoops and then do the same thing in Michigan and over an over again to hunt in other states that they might want to hunt in.
There should be some reciprocity somewhere. Of course I believe in reciprocity in hunting licenses costs and the right to carry.

[Whit1]

Although it is using parts of John's post my comments are directed at the casual reader out there.



I think it was a very planned effort by the crossbow manufacturers to amend (change) bill HB5741 into its current form

The original bill HB5741 (prior to the crossbow manufacturers getting involved)

But no, those two adjustments weren’t good enough for the crossbow manufacturers,

So the crossbow manufacturers added an amendment to bill HB5741 to allow unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season.

I do not know what if any crossbows were brought into the house meetings prior to their vote on June 27th, but you can rest assured that if the manufacturers brought any in, they were not tricked out as most of them are when sold today.

I am sure that crossbow manufacturers at the house meeting also mentioned that there are many hunters that are passionate about hunting with their crossbows.

No matter what the crossbow manufacturers say,
Money and Greed $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


If the crossbow manufacturers were not going to make huge profits by Michigan passing this amended bill into law, the amendment would never have been added, nor would the crossbow people been at the meetings.

In my opinion the crossbow manufacturers are playing our state government like a fiddle. I guarantee that if this bill in its current form were presented to the hunting public for a vote, it would not even come close to passing. It may pass this forum, but this forum is definitely not a true cross section of bowhunters.

My reason for not wanting this bill passed is one of ethics for what is considered bowhunting, and unlike crossbow manufacturers


While the crossbow manufacturers are quick to relay what other states



We've seen this "crossbow manufacturers" gambit.......and that is what it is........used over and over by the opponents of crossbow inclusion. According to Bill Perry's article where he said that Jerry Keck, who was at the committee hearing (and he was), said that "five out of the eight people who spoke in favor of crossbow inclusion were from the crossbow industry." (I am paraphrasing here, but that is the gist of what Mr. Keck said or as it was related in the article).

John's repeated reference to "crossbow manufacturers" is a smokescreen whether he realizes it or not.

Let me give you some verifiable details about those who spoke before the House Committee.

There were seven not eight sportsmen and sportswoman testified before the House committee. This is verified by the minutes of the meeting which are in the public domain.

One of them does indeed have a direct connection to the crossbow industry. He was not a part of the major portion of the presentation, tu spoke briefly. This is countered, if it needs to be, by the fact that a representative, I believe an owner, of a vertical bow archery concern testified against crossbow inclusion.

One out of the seven represented the American Crossbow Federation and the AFC is a for profit entity, but has no direct ties to the crossbow industry, but rather indirect in the form of advertising. The leadership and members of the Michigan Bowhunters Association, a nonprofit group, spoke out against crossbow inclusion.

The AFC would be akin to the NRA.

The other five members, including the two who did the entire PowerPoint program, have no ties whatsoever to the crossbow industry. John, if you can disprove this I, for one, would be very interested to hear how you do that.

Okay John, I want to see your proof.....not the word of an MBH member, not even the MBH members who were at the House committee meeting, but rather proof crossbow manufacturers, as a whole, rather than sportsmen and women were the main instruments who spoke to the House committee and what proof.

It sounds like some of this is being made up as it comes along.

[TOW]

Lot of hyberbole that I am not about to read all of.

A couple things tha did stand out that need correcting

Illinois is a two buck state, not an OBR state.

A resident deer hunter can kill two bucks.

Both with a bow if he has a mind to.

OR

He can kill one with a bow and one with a slug gun

OR

He can kill one with a bow and one with a muzzleloader

OR

He can kill one with a slug gun and one with a muzzleloader.

LOTS of ways to kill TWO bucks.


Non-residents?

Can kill one with a bow and one with a slug gun

OR

One with a bow and one with a muzzleloader

OR

One with a slug gun and one with a muzzleloader

Still two bucks any which way youi cut it.


Illinois produces some fine bucks, but it is NOT a one buck limit state.


All of these states also have mandatory 24-hour call-in (automated service, no man hours) or check in rules.

Not sure about the others but I know that Indiana does not have a "call in" check in and allows a physical check in as much as 48 hours later. The deer can be checked in by anybody and not even the hunter that supposedly killed the deer. Hows that for keeping people honest?

If you think that a call in (telecheck) keeps deer hunters honest you need to talk to some Kentucky deer hunters who will tell you quite the opposite.

[dsconnell]

And after this I will not read another word of this post because it digusts me...

Is all this BULLSHIT worth it.. And yes the mods can fix the words cause I am going to write it like it is!!

Bottom line is we are all a part of this forum because we are ALL "HUNTERS"...

Although I don't know alot of you personally I have come to enjoy your posts throughout this past year that I have been a member and a thread like this could certainly be ground for some to stereo type another and lose respect for that person and and all over a crossbow bill that has yet to be passed?

Is it worth it!

I am bowing out of this one as of now and believe this should be shut down and if you are going to quote me or or respond to me here I would save your time or PM me cause I wont get it here...

[Terry Williams]

They forgot to accuse John of being an MBH member, or maybe he's just on our payroll.

[Riva]

Although it is using parts of John's post my comments are directed at the casual reader out there.

We've seen this "crossbow manufacturers" gambit.......and that is what it is........used over and over by the opponents of crossbow inclusion. According to Bill Perry's article where he said that Jerry Keck, who was at the committee hearing (and he was), said that "five out of the eight people who spoke in favor of crossbow inclusion were from the crossbow industry." (I am paraphrasing here, but that is the gist of what Mr. Keck said or as it was related in the article).

John's repeated reference to "crossbow manufacturers" is a smokescreen whether he realizes it or not.

Let me give you some verifiable details about those who spoke before the House Committee.

There were seven not eight sportsmen and sportswoman testified before the House committee. This is verified by the minutes of the meeting which are in the public domain.

One of them does indeed have a direct connection to the crossbow industry. He was not a part of the major portion of the presentation, tu spoke briefly. This is countered, if it needs to be, by the fact that a representative, I believe an owner, of a vertical bow archery concern testified against crossbow inclusion.

One out of the seven represented the American Crossbow Federation and the AFC is a for profit entity, but has no direct ties to the crossbow industry, but rather indirect in the form of advertising. The leadership and members of the Michigan Bowhunters Association, a nonprofit group, spoke out against crossbow inclusion.

The AFC would be akin to the NRA.

The other five members, including the two who did the entire PowerPoint program, have no ties whatsoever to the crossbow industry. John, if you can disprove this I, for one, would be very interested to hear how you do that.

Okay John, I want to see your proof.....not the word of an MBH member, not even the MBH members who were at the House committee meeting, but rather proof crossbow manufacturers, as a whole, rather than sportsmen and women were the main instruments who spoke to the House committee and what proof.

It sounds like some of this is being made up as it comes along.

Whit1, don't waste you breath because nothing is going to come from them.
The reason? Its because they can't prove it. It's fear mongering at its shallowest.

If I'm wrong, then I'll put this challenge to Mr. Keck: Put your money where your mouth is! Mr. Keck: I was in that room that day as much as you were in that room. You say five of the people speaking were from the crossbow industry. Well, we know for fact that one guy was. Another guy was from an organization that promotes crossbow inclusion and sells magazines and memberships. I'll give you a "half a person" on that guy. That leaves three people, Mr. Keck. C'mon now, you went on record by saying that five of the nine (actually seven) were from "the industry". It's time for you to back up your statement with some hard green.

Here's my wager. Mr. Keck... How about the name, the brand and the assets of the the Michigan BowHunter's Association? You know, the same kind of stuff Fred Trost shelled out when he made silly, unsubstantiated statements. That's got to be worth say, a few hundred grand, easy. I'll match it, Mr. Keck; $250,000 if you can prove that a total of five people testifying that day have a direct business affiliation with the crossbow industry as you assert. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Mr Keck. I win, I own the club, You win, I write the check.

You've already got a one-and-half-person mulligan. What sayeth ye?

[Michihunter]

They forgot to accuse John of being an MBH member, or maybe he's just on our payroll.Or maybe its irrelevant to the things John posted. Mainly the innuendos and accusations that the xbow mfg's were solely responsible for the change in the original proposition. Rep Sheltron's aid has already came on and clarified the reasons for the change. I would assume that the 'horses mouth' has a bit more credibility than someone speaking these accusations without proper proof.

[Terry Williams]

I didn't know Keck was posting on this site.

[Riva]

I didn't know Keck was posting on this site.


Why don't you be a nice fellow and tell him for me:)

[Terry Williams]

You could send your wager to the president of MBH.

[Terry Williams]

Also maybe Keck should get a pass because he's up in his seventies you know....:rolleyes:

[TOW]

Also maybe Keck should get a pass because he's up in his seventies you know....:rolleyes:

He can still count can't he?

Before you jump on me - I'm pushing 70 myself. :p

[Terry Williams]

Not as well as he used too, so he should be able to get a permit to misscount.

[Riva]

Also maybe Keck should get a pass because he's up in his seventies you know....:rolleyes:

Then maybe you should keep him under leash. He made some pretty slanderous statements in that article. Some people don't take too kindly to that. I happen to one of those kind of people--know what I mean, jellybean??;)

[J Eberhart]

I do not agree with the 69 age either and think it should be somewhere around 60 years old and 60% handicap. Hey that's just me.

[marty]

. It may pass this forum, but this forum is definitely not a true cross section of bowhunters.
[

:bash::bash::bash: wow a expert bashing

please tell us more o mighty one:lol:

[Terry Williams]

What wlll you guys do if full inclusion ever happens, I have a thought for your next campaign, Doves with xbows.

[TOW]

Not as well as he used too, so he should be able to get a permit to misscount.

So did you pull him over to the side and tell him he should issue a correction or just let him say such embarassing things?

Man, If I made such a boo boo I would sure appreciate it if one of my friends helped me correct that error - unless that friend said, "Hey, its OK. It fits our needs".

As you see, some are running wth that erroneous information....

[Terry Williams]

No of course not, we've gotten by for over 60 years on lies, and deceit why would we change now?:D

[Michihunter]

What wlll you guys do if full inclusion ever happens, I have a thought for your next campaign, Doves with xbows.After full inclusion is approved, I will continue to hunt the same way I have for the last 30 years except I MAY include a xbow during one of my hunts. That's the funny thing about all this, it's an "addition" that seems to be getting a lot of people up in arms instead of the "subtractions" that we could be facing unless we band together on these issues.

[Terry Williams]

After full inclusion is approved, I will continue to hunt the same way I have for the last 30 years except I MAY include a xbow during one of my hunts. That's the funny thing about all this, it's an "addition" that seems to be getting a lot of people up in arms instead of the "subtractions" that we could be facing unless we band together on these issues.


You may. I still don't understand a bow hunter that wants to include the xbow into the archery season in Michigan.

[Michihunter]

You may. I still don't understand a bow hunter that wants to include the xbow into the archery season in Michigan.And I can't understand a bowhunter that doesn't want to include another bow.;)

[Terry Williams]

Bring in all the bow hunters you would like.

[Michihunter]

Bring in all the bow hunters you would like.
Sorry, but I got clipped after bring my two into the world.:D:D

[November Sunrise]

As a manufacturers rep, do you currently profit from the sale of compound or recurve bows?

In your books and magazines you frequently promote Scentlok, Rivers West, and Ambush Tree Saddles. Are you a rep for any of these products?

Do you sell any products to the archery shops that you're expressing concern about?

Looks like Eberhart didn't see the questions above, so I'll repost them so that he can respond.

John, since you express such disdain for the crossbow manufacturers who are all "greedy", I think we deserve to know how profit incentives tie in to the positions that you take and the products that you promote.

As a manufacturers rep, do you currently profit from the sale of compound or recurve bows?

In your books and magazines you frequently promote Scentlok, Rivers West, and Ambush Tree Saddles. Are you a rep for any of these products?

Do you sell any products to the archery shops that you're expressing concern about?

[Riva]

Eberhart quote:

The bill that was amended to its current status was to change the disability from 80 to 60 percent. I am in rehab right now as well and my doc said that he has had people like yourself that were not 80% handicapped and he couldn't give them the paperwork to get a permit. That is why they wanted to change it to 60% but of corse the crossbow manufacturers wanted more. [/quote]

The dialogue surrounding expanding the disability criteria is the crux of the issue. Hey…Wake up and smell the coffee, OK?

Unless you were on the planet Neptune for the last 18 months and were not aware, there have been several parallel discussions to review the criteria that would allow a person with a medical disability the opportunity to participate as an equal in that activity. In other words, use a crossbow.

The original, and current, criteria states that you must have a 80% permanent disability of the shoulder , hand or elbow in order to obtain a permit to hunt with a crossbow. Some people have challenged this criterion as being too narrowly defined (the definition of which specific disability types) and too restrictive (the level of severity of the defined disability).

The Michigan Bow hunters Association (MBH) published a public position statement while all this was going on, stating that they opposed any loosening of the current criteria from the current 80% level. They also stated that they wanted to inject a higher level of scrutiny towards the entire crossbow application process.

Now, you come along and say, "Well, I think it should now be 60%" as if you were passing out a biscuit to a dog.

Well, John, all you books, all your endorsement, all your trophies aside, thank you very much but keep your stupid biscuit, OK?

What you, and just about everybody else fails to understand is, that no matter what level (percentage) of the type and/or degree of severity of a disability, there is a 100% chance that some person is going to fall through the cracks. By "falling through the cracks”, I mean that the person fails to meet whatever the current disability threshold is (80%, 60%, 40%, 20% 10%, 1%) yet, he or she is still unable to pull or hold a regular bow. “That” is what I mean by falling through the cracks!

Thus, when you have the preeminent archery organization in the State of Michigan making a public position statement advocating that (1) they want to retain the status quo (80%) and (2) inject a higher level of scrutiny to keep even more people "out", some took refuge in the opposite end of the ship, specifically: full inclusion!

So now, when you come out with a statement that say, "let's give them people 60%", my hackles get raised. That's because (1) it's not yours to dispense (the dog biscuit) and (2) no matter what percentage and/or threshold, there will still be a 100% chance that people will fall through the cracks. Starting to “get it”?

The ONLY solution with regards to the disability issue is for an individual to obtain and produce a letter from your own personal physician that states that, in his/her professional opinion, that you (the applicant) have either a permanent or temporary disability, to a degree of severity, that render you unable to pull or hold a regular bow. THAT is the ONLY solution.

Now, when you compound that solution with the persons of age issue, the hunter retention issue, the youth recruitment issue, the loss of revenue issue, any thinking person must come to the obvious conclusion that full inclusion is not only the “correct” solution, but the most “fair” solution.

[BigBirdVA]

Pressure!! You have got to be kidding. You obviously hunt on private ground if you think there is no bowhunting pressure. Go on any state land and show me a nice buck coming out into a field on the 2nd afternoon of bow season. Pre season scouting pressure on state land affects deer movements more than most bowhunting pressure does on private land until the opener of gun season and that pressure and alteration of movenment is before the season even opens.
Go to any public land in any state and the chances are you'll see nothing but small bucks. You have to be kidding to think any populated state is going to have big bucks on public land.

In my 45 years as an avid Michigan deer hunter I have never seen a bill pushed through the house as fast as this one. I think it was a very planned effort by the crossbow manufacturers to amend (change) bill HB5741 into its current form of allowing capable, perfectly healthy hunters to use crossbows during a season originally fought for by Fred Bear and set-up for bowhunters. The next step was to go to the house meetings prior to the vote and falsely tell the house representatives how comparable crossbows are to conventional bows. Before anybody else knew it, bill HB5741 passed through the house. The opponents to the amended bill did not have the opportunity to mobilize, and the outdoor media was not allowed the time to get the revisions to press for opposition support. Uh........ didn't Fred Bear make bows? Then make compounds? Always a great but empty point that someone is going to make $$$ off of xbow inclusion. Aren't people supposed to make $$$? Taxes from sporting goods sales go back into lands etc. I know lets just let hunting participants fade away and then the taxes / funds go with it too.

To start, the original bill HB5741 would have allowed hunters 69 and over to buy a crossbow license across the counter. Many elderly hunters do not feel comfortable hunting with a conventional bow poundage that they feel is inadequate for killing whitetails, and have quit hunting because they simply can’t draw enough weight. A 45-pound draw weight bow is about the bottom of the effective draw weight spectrum for adequate penetration on whitetails and a 70-pound draw weight is considered at the high end of draw weight for a vertical bow. Elderly hunters have every right to enjoy our great outdoors and the hunting lifestyle they previously had, so that adjustment was also very fair. In fact most hunters I have talked to had no issues with the age limit being lowered to 65. So everyone ages the same? Another load of crap just to exclude hunters. I know lots of people that at younger than 60 have trouble. Just more red tape and hoops to jump through to exclude people.
Hunters capable of drawing a bow that do not bowhunt, have chose not to do so because shooting a conventional bow requires a lot of dedication, practice, and proper form to become proficient. For some odd reason that is what bowhunting is all about and why the season was instituted in the first place. It is a very novel concept, something that you actually have to work at in order to have success, go figure. How about hunters capable of drawing a traditional bow? Make that a requirement first. This attached pic says it all. That's a bow staying at full draw with just it's own weight. Drawing is a joke with today's gear.

http://members.cox.net/4seasons/munstersconcept.jpg
In the 1970s I used to manage an archery department and we sold a few crossbows every year. While they were a far cry in technology from what is available in today’s market, once sighted in, they were like shooting a short-range (up to 40 yards) rifle. I do not know what if any crossbows were brought into the house meetings prior to their vote on June 27th, but you can rest assured that if the manufacturers brought any in, they were not tricked out as most of them are when sold today. Tricked out? You have to be kidding me right? You haven't seen all the crap on a compound today? Not even going to bother going deeper into that comment.
The typical modern crossbow set-up is sold with; a draw weight of 150 to 175 pounds (more than twice the average draw weight of a heavy poundage conventional bow), a magnified scope with crosshairs just as most upper end rifles have, and an adjustable trigger just as most upper end rifles have. Crossbows are shouldered and shot in exactly the same manner as a rifle, they are cocked into the shooting position while hunting with the safety on just as a rifle is (yet there is a Michigan state law against using a device that holds a conventional bow in the drawn position), many of them come with cocking devices (Bowtech’s is chain driven) because they have so much power they are difficult to draw and cock. Cocking devices were originally designed for the handicapped and elderly hunters (the only hunters that should be using them) but now crossbows have so much power that even capable hunters use them. These are all huge advantages that dramatically separate crossbows from conventional bows, they are not even close to each other in accuracy and ease of use. The difference between a traditional bow and a compound is far greater than a compound and a xbow.
Once sighted in, a crossbow requires absolutely no practice whatsoever. You can put it in the corner as you would a rifle when season is over, pick it up next season and shoot a bolt (a crossbow term for arrow) or two through it prior to season just as you would a gun to insure the sights have not been moved, and go hunting, no additional practice throughout the entire season is required, there is no arguing the issue, that is an absolute fact. The last season I used a compound I picked it out of the case and shot 3 arrows. 1 @ 20, then 30 then 40. All were within a 6 inch circle and it had been months since I had shot it. With things like the Anchor Sight you draw exactly the same each time no matter. Level of required practice is different for people. There is no competency tests so that's a moot point how much one practices and can hit what.
Last season I watched a 75 year-old gentleman shoot a 3 shot group at 40 yards with his scoped crossbow and you could have covered the holes from all 3 bolts with a silver dollar, and he hadn’t shot the bow in two weeks. There is no way that can be done with a conventional bow without daily practice, and many hunters including myself are not capable of it no matter how much we practice. I hope you do not think, well that is a good thing because it is more accurate and has more ethical kills. If that is the way you think, we may as well just have a 3-month gun season, after all they can shoot a small group at several hundred yards. I see your point I would have rather heard about his wounded deer and fruitless blood trail. Anti-hunter's love those wound tales.

Passion
I am sure that crossbow manufacturers at the house meeting also mentioned that there are many hunters that are passionate about hunting with their crossbows. Unless the passionate hunters they were referring to were handicapped or elderly, the passionate hunter statement would be totally false. Crossbows have been legal for everyone during Michigan’s gun season for many years, yet I have never seen or heard of anybody using a crossbow during the gun season. The reason is very plain and simple, a gun is more effective at longer ranges than a crossbow so they use a gun to give them the optimum advantage, or in other words, make their true passion of just killing a deer as easy as possible. No matter what the crossbow manufacturers say, it is definitely not about passion, it is about easy, more range, and not having to practice. During gun season the, I can't live without my crossbow passion statement immediately falls to the wayside and is replaced by the next legal step up in range and technology which is a gun. You're kidding me right?
Money and Greed $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Unfortunately, money is the root of all evil and that is what the amended bill HB5741 is all about, nothing more, nothing less. If the crossbow manufacturers were not going to make huge profits by Michigan passing this amended bill into law, the amendment would never have been added, nor would the crossbow people been at the meetings.

Mathews is in just for the fun of it huh? It's all about money. Just not money spent on what you think it should be spent on.

My reasoning
My reason for not wanting this bill passed is one of ethics for what is considered bowhunting, and unlike crossbow manufacturers my reason is not driven by greed or money of any sort. In fact, I am currently the Michigan sales representative for several manufacturers in the hunting industry and without question, I would financially benefit from the passing of bill HB5741. However, my ethics for what was originally fought for by Fred Bear and instituted as a bowhunting season overrides my greed for money. At some point in time you have to draw a line in the sand as to what is and is not ethical during a season that was opened for specific weapon. To me money should never be a driving force over what is right. You mean my opinion. Reasoning implies logic and thought not emotionally based statements without any basis or proof.

I recently spoke with the owners of many high profile archery shops and for what it’s worth they were all against this bill in its current form. They were all in favor of making crossbows legal for anyone over a specific age (around 60 to 65) and making it easier for a handicapped person to acquire a permit, in other words, in the bills original form. That's good you found a few others that claim to feel like you do. Well that's what they say. Wonder how they would vote when they're not pressured? Ask the UBNJ how their members votes turned out.

While I will never call the killing of any animal a sport, but rather an activity for food, I am going to use sports as an example to make a point because more than likely everyone on the board watches or has participated in sports at some point in time. Every sport has its parameters or limitations of what you can and can’t use concerning equipment. In golf there are size and construction limitations on golf balls and limitations on the makeup of clubs. In Tennis there are size restrictions on the perimeter size of the racket. In baseball there are restrictions on how the balls are made and professionals can’t use aluminum bats or pine tar on their wooden bats. In hockey there are stick restrictions. Every sport has restrictions so that the playing field for all involved remains somewhat level. All archery is considered recreation. Ask any game biologist, except in Ohio, (:lol:) and see what they tell you.

Legalizing crossbows would tilt the playing field dramatically against the very weapon the season was set up for, conventional bows. More filler without proof.
Statistics of bowhunting across the nation.

For my writings I acquired the absolute land-mass in square miles (from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census) for all the whitetail hunting states. When a states bowhunter license sales (printed annually in Archery Business magazine) are divided into its exact land-mass, you get an exact average of bowhunter’s per absolute square mile. Michigan's leads them all with an average bowhunter density of 7.83 (Michigan’s land-mass also includes the UP which has lots of land and very few hunters which skus the hunter densities in the southern peninsula way below what they actually are), Ohio, including their crossbow hunters has only 3.90 bowhunter’s per square mile, Iowa has .71, Kansas has .24, Illinois has 1.97, New York has 3.76, Minnesota has .90, Nebraska has .19. Michigan (including the UP) without crossbows already has twice the average bowhunter density as Ohio, nearly four times that of Illinois and 41 times the average bowhunter density of Nebraska.

Michigan’s DNR estimates the number of bowhunters at about 310,000 to 320,000, that places us as the undisputed #1 state in license sales, #1 state in average bowhunter density per square mile, and almost dead last in book buck entries per licensed bowhunter. In other words Michigan is at the bottom (worst) in every category from the bowhunters perspective.

Another interesting statistic is that Michigan has one of the worst ratios as far as trophy buck entries (Pope & Young) into the recordbook, with a staggering 1 out of every 8,516 licensed bowhunter’s in 2001 entering a book buck. Iowa and Kansas had entry ratios of 1 out of every 150 bowhunters entering a book buck, that means it is 56 times easier to take a book buck in those two states. Where am I going with this you might ask? Michigan’s high hunter densities, poor mature buck to doe ratios, and difficulty in finding a place to hunt are the main reasons our bowhunter numbers have been declining while other big buck states license sales have had double digit increases over the past 10 years, I have the statistics to prove that. Also Michigan’s open to hunting public land receives so much hunting pressure that many hunters have just given up. There are a lot of Michigan bowhunter’s not hunting in Michigan because they opt to save their money and take trips to hunt in other states even though many of those states non-resident licenses cost over $400.00.

When Ohio started allowing crossbows during the regular bow season their bowhunter license sales numbers nearly doubled the first year, yet they are still less than ours without allowing crossbows. If crossbows are allowed without restrictions, yes there will definitely be a spike in license sales, but that will be short term. Michigan will likely add 150,000 to 200,000 additional hunters in the field with crossbows during the regular bow season, but will eventually lose conventional bow bowhunters (which the season was originally opened for) due to overcrowding on public land, and ethics. The additional license sales will be gun hunters that will be able to use a short-range gun (crossbow). There will be more bucks taken during bow season due to the simplicity and ease of crossbow use, making gun season less attractive to many gun hunters. Many prior gun-only hunters that take up crossbow hunting will fill their tags in bow season and will not need to hunt during gun season, after all they will get 3 months to basically, short range gun hunt with their crossbow. There will definitely be a decline in license sales during gun season.

Listed below are some solid license sales statistics that enforce the fact that license sales are growing in many states. These are being presented because at the house meetings the crossbow manufacturers said that nationally, bow hunting license sales were declining. These are some pretty nice bumps in participation for a 6-year time frame.

1998 license sales 2004 license sales
Iowa 36,800 47,100
Kansas 17,800 21,080
Illinois 86,700 120,000
Wisconsin 246,000 249,644
Minnesota 66,000 70,000
Virginia 58,500 61,400
New York 170,000 215,337From the QDM report just out.

Michigan is second with nearly 220,000 bucks but unfortunately 63% of them are yearlings.

You need to pass on the little bucks and let them grow. Nuff said.

A couple reasons other states numbers are growing that Michigan should take a hard look at

Keep in mind that Ohio along with Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Missouri, and many other states only allow one buck per season no matter what the weapon. These are all known big buck states that do not have any type of antler restrictions, yet the one-buck rule allows a lot of bucks to grow to maturity. The one-buck tag also gets many hunters out of the woods early in the season (when they fill their tag) which lightens up the numbers of hunters on public land.

All of these states also have mandatory 24-hour call-in (automated service, no man hours) or check in rules. The call-in and check in rules keep many hunters from cheating and gives the states very defined kill data without having to guess as our DNR does in Michigan. These two simple rules make a huge difference in the balance (buck to doe ratios) of their deer herds and allow many bucks to grow to maturity, which in turn makes hunting more appealing to non-residents and residents. Please keep in mind, for what it’s worth, that I am not a QDM advocate.

Rest assured, passing this law in its current state will bring some immediate revenue into the DNR, but the long term ramifications will be not be good, and once passed it is very difficult to reverse. Passing this law is simply giving into greedy manufacturers, throwing ethics aside, and paying no attention to solid statistics that obviously separate Michigan from any other state, including Ohio.

I also spoke with two distributors that sell archery goods and within a couple years after Ohio passed their crossbow law their business with archery dealers went down the you know what. Lets see, a crossbow does not have to be fit to the individual as a bow does, so their is no customer service required, negating the need for pro shops. Crossbows are like short range guns that do not require practice so once set up their owners rarely have to replace cables and strings. There are less lost arrows and wore out equipment that has to be replaced or upgraded. No leagues due to not having to practice. Anyway, a percentage of archery businesses will go under within a few years, they are barely hanging in there now. More speculation. I've bought more xbows in the last 3 years since they became legal in VA than I did compounds in the 3 years before that. I buy arrows because it eats them and they're gone after I shoot a deer. I buy all the other gear as well. More opinionated crap.

Nice story and sounds good but it's go too many holes and opinions in it. Nothing new, nothing factual, just more scare talk for those that don't want to share.

[Terry Williams]

Has it really ever been about anything other than full inclusion?

[Terry Williams]

John you'll get em busy for a week

[Riva]

Has it really ever been about anything other than full inclusion?

Originally, no. In the beginning, it was all about the disability issue. Then came the MBH "position statement" and that got people thinking. MBH became recalistrant, unyielding, unable to compromise,even if they wanted to. That, more than anything else, awakened the sleeping giant and filled them with a terrible resolve that you saw in the Michigan House of Representative's vote of whopping 94-14 in favor of full inclusion"

Remember, after this discourse is concluded and full inclusion is the reality, you will look back for somebody to blame. Look only towards the leaders of your organization, for all this happened because they steadfastley steered your ship towards its doom by their failure to seek compromise.

[November Sunrise]

Remember, after this discourse is concluded and full inclusion is the reality, you will look back for somebody to blame. Look only towards the leaders of your organization, for all this happened because they steadfastley steered your ship towards its doom by their failure to seek compromise.

Exactly.

[BigBirdVA]

John you'll get em busy for a weekNot really. Different wrapper, same stale product inside. No surprise in my box. :lol:

[J Eberhart]

For what its worth, I was asked to join MBH last year at the W&W show in Imly City which I did. The last time I was a member of MBH was in the mid 1970s. So I had not been a member of MBH for over 30 years and I will not rejoin. I am also not on their payroll, where do people get some of this stuff anyway.

I apologize for mispeaking on the 1 buck in Illinois instead of 2 and mispeaking on the 24 hour check in in Indiana instead of 48 hours.

I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right.

Hope all is well with everyone.

[boehr]

...If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right....But what does it matter if they are or are not? There are many individuals that want HB5741 to pass that have no vested interest in those companies or even wish to use a crossbow just as well.

[November Sunrise]

I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right.

Hope all is well with everyone.

You're "absolutely certain" of nothing. The individuals who spoke at the committee meeting are listed on the committee minutes posted on the michigan.gov site. Whit1 has already explained the facts to you regarding who the speakers were.

Since you express such disdain for the crossbow manufacturers who are all "greedy", I think we deserve to know how profit incentives tie in to the positions that you take and the products that you promote.

As a manufacturers rep, do you currently profit from the sale of compound and/or recurve bows?

In your books and magazine articles you frequently promote Scentlok, Rivers West, and Ambush Tree Saddles. Are you a rep for any of these products?

[Terry Williams]

Why do you have such a hatred for MBH, they have done more for bow hunters than any other organiztion in the state. Who would look out for bow hunting if it wasn't them? You? Horton? Parker? Who?

Also the senate has yet to vote and the real sleeping giant may be the "bow hunters" in the state when they discover what has happened.

[November Sunrise]

But what does it matter if they are or are not? There are many individuals that want HB5741 to pass that have no vested interest in those companies or even wish to use a crossbow just as well.

Some who object to full inclusion are individuals who profit from the current restrictions. Such as the individual who owns an archery shop and spoke against HB 5741 at the committee meeting. It's unclear whether or not Eberhart is one of those individuals. He stated earlier in this thread that he's a manufacturers rep for hunting equipment products but to date has refused to answer my questions of whether he profits from the sale of compound bows or accessories or the various products that he promotes in his writings.

[Liv4Huntin']

With regards to that meeting of which you speak. .... we're still waiting for your proof.
~m~

[Whit1]

I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right.

Hope all is well with everyone.


Name them John, other than Chuck Jordan. Dan Hendricks has direct ties to the American Crossbow Federation. That is not a crossbow manufacturer's group although the manufacturers do advertise with the AFC.

With the words "at least" you strongly suggest there were others. Name them.

I hope all is well with you as well.

[BigBirdVA]

You're "absolutely certain" of nothing. The individuals who spoke at the committee meeting are listed on the committee minutes posted on the michigan.gov site. Whit1 has already explained the facts to you regarding who the speakers were.

Since you express such disdain for the crossbow manufacturers who are all "greedy", I think we deserve to know how profit incentives tie in to the positions that you take and the products that you promote.

As a manufacturers rep, do you currently profit from the sale of compound and/or recurve bows?

In your books and magazine articles you frequently promote Scentlok, Rivers West, and Ambush Tree Saddles. Are you a rep for any of these products?That's different don't you know. It's our season and it's all right for us to profit. The fact that the same archery shops, larger big box sporting goods stores and all the other small similar items xbows use will be bought by xbow users doesn't matter. BowTech and Parker make xbows so hows all that work out in their plan? Boycot the evil xbow manufacturers?


And if he represents ScentLoc that in itself says something. Gee I don't see any xbow manufacturers looking as any class action lawsuits over a questionable product. One who in the opinion of many is the biggest lie going in hunting today.


Just another greedy person trying despartly to justify their actions any way they can.

[BigBirdVA]

Name them John, other than Chuck Jordan. Dan Hendricks has direct ties to the American Crossbow Federation. That is not a crossbow manufacturer's group although the manufacturers do advertise with the AFC.

With the words "at least" you strongly suggest there were others. Name them.

I hope all is well with you as well.Anyone that speaks out must be doing it for money. I've been accused numerous times of being on the payroll. I've got 2 hats and a shirt at shows but hundreds of others got a hat too. Darn it, where's my free xbow at? :lol:

They're tying any way to discredit anyone that is pro xbow. When you have nothing to work with the money angle does sound the best.

[Michihunter]

For what its worth, I was asked to join MBH last year at the W&W show in Imly City which I did. The last time I was a member of MBH was in the mid 1970s. So I had not been a member of MBH for over 30 years and I will not rejoin. I am also not on their payroll, where do people get some of this stuff anyway.

I apologize for mispeaking on the 1 buck in Illinois instead of 2 and mispeaking on the 24 hour check in in Indiana instead of 48 hours.

I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right.

Hope all is well with everyone.Ironically enough, the person that mentioned that you may be on the MBH payroll (albeit sarcastically I'm sure) is an officer of the MBH.:lol::lol:

As for our "right" to believe that the xbow mfg's are NOT at the forefront of this bill, well that is backed up by the bill writer's assistant who is a major part of the research that went into the writing of it. The man comes off as a pretty credible source whereas you sir are admittedly tied into the industry through sales. Not only that, but the evidence that Whit produced regarding the speakers seems a bit more credible than someone just saying "I was there so I know".

Taking that a step further, what difference does it make if the mfg's are in fact behind full inclusion. You make this seem somehow sinister. It's also pretty evident that more than a few bowhunters (including myself) support the full inclusion. I can assure you that not only will I not profit off of this inclusion possibility, but I have never spoken with an xbow mfg personally.

As was asked of others here that have announced their wishes against full inclusion, what is YOUR true reason for being against full inclusion. Your original post was certainly long in words yet short in facts. Please share your true feelings.

[Riva]

For what its worth, I was asked to join MBH last year at the W&W show in Imly (Imlay) City which I did. The last time I was a member of MBH was in the mid 1970s. So I had not been a member of MBH for over 30 years and I will not rejoin. I am also not on their payroll, where do people get some of this stuff anyway.

I apologize for mispeaking (misspeaking)on the 1 buck in Illinois instead of 2 and mispeaking (misspeaking) on the 24 hour check in in Indiana instead of 48 hours.

I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manuactureres (manufacturers) are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess thats their right.

Hope all is well with everyone.

Well, John, from the sounds of your retractions above, perhaps the title of your next book should be:
Ready, Fire, Aim:
Expert Techniques At Discrediting People Without Facts

I am sure that you could find a dozen or so or your pals to write testimonials for you. Heck, you can even write a chapter on "Putting toothpaste back in the tube" which you have so valiantly attempted to do with the above mea culpa. I'll even proofread the book for you on a pro- bono basis, like I have for this post (re:red).

Now, let's move along to your final comment, if we may, specifically:

"I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers."


John, I will put the same challenge to you that I did to Mr. Keck; Put your money where your mouth is! You say three of the people speaking were from the crossbow industry. Mr. Keck states that there were five so, we'll use his even bigger number. Well, we all know for fact that one guy was. Another guy was from an organization that promotes crossbow inclusion and sells magazines and memberships. I'll give you a "half a person" on that guy. That leaves three people, John. C'mon now, you went on record by saying that you're absolutely certain that these people speaking at the meeting were from "the industry". It's time for you to back up your statement with some hard green.

Here's my wager. John... How about the name, the brand and the assets of the Deer John Products? That will include any/all book royalties going forward (including "Ready Fire, Aim"), personal appearance fees going forward , the domain name and website and, of course, the deer head collection. You know, the same kind of stuff Fred Trost shelled out when he made silly, unsubstantiated statements. That's got to be worth say, a few hundred grand, easy. I'll match it, John. $250,000 if you can prove that a total of five people testifying that day have a direct business affiliation with the crossbow industry as you assert. Time to put your money where your mouth is. John I win; I own the book. You win: I write the check.

What sayeth ye?:rolleyes:

[swampbuck]

come on, Somebody take the bet !!!!:lol:

[November Sunrise]

come on, Somebody take the bet !!!!:lol:

These guys are used to getting away with a bunch of bluster and hot air about crossbow manufacturer conspiracies. Riva's highlighted the emptiness of their claims with his offer.

Personally, I hope they continue to misrepresent information, as Keck did in the Michigan Outdoor News article and as Eberhart did here on this thread. Their misrepresentations provide abundant opportunities to highlight how they spin information.

[Munsterlndr]

Name them John, other than Chuck Jordan.

Just for clarification I'd like to point out that Fred Bear testified at numerous public hearings during his lifetime, despite his ties to "industry". This silly red herring that anti-crossbow opponents throw out, that anybody connected to "industry" should be immediately discredited is ridiculous. One should note that Chuck Jordan is also a member of the National Bowhunters Hall of Fame. He is in there with guys like Fred Bear, Roy Case, Howard Hill, Chief Compton, Ishi and all of the other icons that the traditional bow hunters love to worship. He has a long history of involvement with manufacturing vertical bows and arrows in addition to being involved with the crossbow industry. As an individual of prominence within the bow hunting community and as someone who has actually hunted with both weapons, his testimony provided the legislators with valuable insight. Funny how someone testifying with actual hunting experience using both vertical and crossbows and who can honestly describe the differences, is judged by MBH to be biased, yet I'm betting that none of the three individuals who testified against crossbows have ever hunted with one, and as such they were simply speculating and had no personal experience to base an opinion on.

[swampbuck]

These guys are used to getting away with a bunch of bluster and hot air about crossbow manufacturer conspiracies. Riva's highlighted the emptiness of their claims with his offer.

Personally, I hope they continue to misrepresent information, as Keck did in the Michigan Outdoor News article and as Eberhart did here on this thread. Their misrepresentations provide abundant opportunities to highlight how they spin information.

maybe they would take this bet.....

IF the MBHA can prove that the manufacturers are responsible for the bill then the supporters will withdraw theyre support for full inclusion

if the supporters can prove that those responsible for the bill are not affiliated with the manufacturers, Then the MBHA will offer and publically express theyre full support of full inclusion.

Lets find out who knows the truth and who is just blowing hot air.

[Riva]

maybe they would take this bet.....

IF the MBH can prove that the manufacturers are responsible for the bill then the supporters will withdraw their support for full inclusion

if the supporters can prove that those responsible for the bill are not affiliated with the manufacturers, Then the MBH will offer and publicly express their full support of full inclusion.

Let's find out who knows the truth and who is just blowing hot air.

Swampbuck, slow down there sporty, slight correction here...

We already know who is responsible for the bill and that is a member of the Michigan House of Representatives. That is not the issue, nor the issue that I scribed.

The issue is, that a few anti-crossbow advocates have stated that those individuals presenting at the House Committee were representatives of the crossbow industry. A Mr.Keck, in an article published in which he was quoted, stated that there were five people of the eight that presented (actually seven, but who's counting?) that were from "the industry". John Eberhart is "absolutely certain" that there were three.

Again, we already know who introduced the bill. I, for one, want those who make grandiose statements like these to be held accountable for their words. Already were getting the apologetics that one fellow might be up there in years and perhaps "knoweth not what he doth". And for the other, this thing is being dismissed as "oh well, boys will be boys".

I say baloney!

It's a big, grown up world we live in and you simply can't go around making statements like that to serve your cause without being able to (1) back them up with proof or (2) being held accountable for making false statements.

MBH has for decades preserved their anti- crossbow agenda by engaging in hysterical hyperbole like we have recently witnessed. And tragically, nobody has ever pulled them on the carpet for it. Well, there's a new sheriff in town and it's called the truth. You either speak it, zip it or, pay the piper!

So, my challenge to these two gentlemen still stands: Speak it, zip it or, pay the piper!:D

[swampbuck]

I should have worded it better, I was actually refering to the same numbers you were. meaning level of manufacturer involvment.

your not looking for some retirement funds are you riva.:lol:

[D-BEAVER]

You guys sure are quick to condemn John and his "agenda"... How about your agendas? You can't be this passionate without having an agenda... How about you Riva... What do you stand to gain by full inclusion of crossbows? Surely it's something, or you wouldn't be standing on one of the tallest soapboxes I've ever seen. Are YOU a crossbow manufacturer?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... As far as crossbows go, I could take 'em or leave 'em. I just don't like the thought of crowding our public lands any more than they already are. As John has pointed out, we have the highest bowhnter densities per square mile in the nation(by far)... along with the worst number of trophy bucks per hunter... Maybe someone will be so kind as to hop up on a soapbox and explain to me how adding another weapon to the mix is going to help matters in this regard.

[ridgewalker]

Mr. Eberhardt, I was not questioning your ethics. I was questioning your knowledge of the application process. Using a % for a standard does not work, has not worked, and will not work as neither will some artificial age mark. Folks that have special needs come in all ages and with different challenges. Either you can pull a bow or you can't. Many said the sky would fall when compounds were allowed and as far as I know it is still there.:rolleyes:

[Munsterlndr]

You guys sure are quick to condemn John and his "agenda"... How about your agendas? You can't be this passionate without having an agenda... How about you Riva... What do you stand to gain by full inclusion of crossbows? Surely it's something, or you wouldn't be standing on one of the tallest soapboxes I've ever seen. Are YOU a crossbow manufacturer?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... As far as crossbows go, I could take 'em or leave 'em. I just don't like the thought of crowding our public lands any more than they already are. As John has pointed out, we have the highest bowhnter densities per square mile in the nation(by far)... along with the worst number of trophy bucks per hunter... Maybe someone will be so kind as to hop up on a soapbox and explain to me how adding another weapon to the mix is going to help matters in this regard.

Trust me, Riva is not affiliated in any way with any crossbow manufacturer and he has nothing personally to gain as he already has a valid crossbow permit. I know some find this hard to believe but many of us are supportive of the crossbow issue simply based on fairness and the hypocrisy & selfishness evidenced by a small select group of bow hunters who want to monopolize the season and exclude other hunters out of fears that someone may shoot "their" deer.

Michigan's deer herd is a public resource and the public lands that deer are hunted on are owned collectively by the people of the State of Michigan. To curb hunter opportunity so that fewer individuals will have the opportunity to utilize those public hunting lands seems to run counter to the whole concept of public land. Some of Michigan's State Park campgrounds are so popular that you have to make reservations a year in advance. Should we pass a rule saying "we'll allow RV's to use our campgrounds but people with 5th wheels will not be allowed to use State campgrounds, so that there will be more room for people with RV's." Does that sound like an equitable arrangement, because that is analogous to the argument that you put forth limiting crossbow inclusion so that vertical bow hunters can have less competition while hunting on public lands.

Nothing wrong with hunting trophy bucks, but if that is your passion I suggest that you do like 85% of the other hunters in Michigan and acquire or lease some private land to hunt on. Then you won't have to share the woods with other hunters and can dictate to others how they hunt.

[Riva]

You guys sure are quick to condemn John and his "agenda"... How about your agendas? You can't be this passionate without having an agenda... How about you Riva... What do you stand to gain by full inclusion of crossbows? Surely it's something, or you wouldn't be standing on one of the tallest soapboxes I've ever seen. Are YOU a crossbow manufacturer?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... As far as crossbows go, I could take 'em or leave 'em. I just don't like the thought of crowding our public lands any more than they already are. As John has pointed out, we have the highest bowhunter densities per square mile in the nation(by far)... along with the worst number of trophy bucks per hunter... Maybe someone will be so kind as to hop up on a soapbox and explain to me how adding another weapon to the mix is going to help matters in this regard.

Excuse me but, it was these two gentlemen that spoke first, not the other way around. They stated that some of the folks that appeared in front of the House Committee were representatives of the crossbow industry. Eberhart stated that he was "absolutely certain" that three of them were.

I am of the opinion that they are full of malarkey and should be held accountable for their words. I like to play poker and, I know when the other guy has a losing hand. Theirs is a losing hand. I hope they call my bet.

I challenged them on it and now, you want to shoot the messenger. Guess that's to be expected nowadays. As far as my personal motives, I suggest you read my many posts hereabouts. They go a long way back. However, specific to your inquiry surrounding my personal intentions motives and/or what I may "gain" from all this, I won't dignify it with a response.

And, D-Beaver, if you're so concerned about overcrowding on our public land, as you state, you should obviously have no objection to people having a free choice to use a crossbow or a regular bow on private land. Now there's a novel idea.:D

[tommy-n]

jealosy:gaga: Some of those big bucks were taken on public land. Funny how the internet has made everyone an expert. Have another donut and type away, I'm going outside

[D-BEAVER]

Trust me, Riva is not affiliated in any way with any crossbow manufacturer and he has nothing personally to gain as he already has a valid crossbow permit. I know some find this hard to believe but many of us are supportive of the crossbow issue simply based on fairness and the hypocrisy & selfishness evidenced by a small select group of bow hunters who want to monopolize the season and exclude other hunters out of fears that someone may shoot "their" deer.

Michigan's deer herd is a public resource and the public lands that deer are hunted on are owned collectively by the people of the State of Michigan. To curb hunter opportunity so that fewer individuals will have the opportunity to utilize those public hunting lands seems to run counter to the whole concept of public land. Some of Michigan's State Park campgrounds are so popular that you have to make reservations a year in advance. Should we pass a rule saying "we'll allow RV's to use our campgrounds but people with 5th wheels will not be allowed to use State campgrounds, so that there will be more room for people with RV's." Does that sound like an equitable arrangement, because that is analogous to the argument that you put forth limiting crossbow inclusion so that vertical bow hunters can have less competition while hunting on public lands.

Nothing wrong with hunting trophy bucks, but if that is your passion I suggest that you do like 85% of the other hunters in Michigan and acquire or lease some private land to hunt on. Then you won't have to share the woods with other hunters and can dictate to others how they hunt.

You're comparing apples to oranges. What's the difference between an RV and a 5th wheel, really? Are these campgrounds trying to curb camper opportunity by not allowing people to haul in mobile homes?

A crossbow is not a bow. If it were, it would already be allowed.

That being said, I do believe there is room for the x-bow and more opportunities should be allowed. I just don't like the idea of able-bodied, lazy men flocking to them in droves because they're easier to use.

Call me crazy, but I think anyone who has any handicap whatsoever should be granted the privillege of using a crossbow. I'm talking ms, arthritis, tendonitis... heck, an ulcer or hemroid for all I care. I'd also like to see anyone over the age of 60, or under the age of 18 to have the same right. All women should also be permitted to full inclusion. I'm also for anyone having the right to use one on their own land.

... BUT, if able-bodied "Bubba" wants to bowhunt, he should have to use a BOW, just as his father and grandfather did..

[November Sunrise]

... BUT, if able-bodied "Bubba" wants to bowhunt, he should have to use a BOW, just as his father and grandfaher did..

95+% of able bodied archers shoot compound bows. They could shoot a longbow or a recurve, but they choose the easy way of hunting with a compound. The archers who shoot traditional equipment are the ones who have credibility when it comes to discussions of purism in archery. On the other hand, ompound shooters have zero credibility on this topic. None. Nada. Zilch.

[D-BEAVER]

95+% of able bodied archers shoot compound bows. They choose to shoot a longbow or a recurve, but they choose the easy way of hunting with a compound. The archers who shoot traditional equipment are the ones who have credibility when it comes to discussions of purism in archery. On the other hand, ompound shooters have zero credibility on this topic. None. Nada. Zilch.

We're not debating compound bows, which have been allowed since before many of our bowhunters were born and are all they know... we're debating x-bows, which have never been allowed.

[Munsterlndr]

You're comparing apples to oranges. What's the difference between an RV and a 5th wheel, really? Are these campgrounds trying to curb camper opportunity by not allowing people to haul in mobile homes?


NO, it's an apples to apples analogy. A 5th wheel is not an RV, it lacks an engine and the means for independent mobility but on a functional basis, the ultimate purpose is the same, both provide shelter. When your parked at the campground and it's raining it really does not matter whether your in an RV or 5th wheel. Very analogous to vertical bows and crossbows. Both are variations of bows that have minor differences in functionality but in terms of the end result, providing the means to harvest a deer with an arrow, they are virtually interchangeable, just like an RV and a 5th wheel. It would be as silly to discriminate against 5th wheel users in favor of RV users as it is to not allow the unrestricted use of crossbows during archery season.

[November Sunrise]

We're not debating compound bows, which have been allowed since before many of our bowhunters were born and are all they know... we're debating x-bows, which have never been allowed.

No, actually I was discussing credibility, and the fact that compound shooters who point to the tradition of what grandpa used are completely lacking in credibility. The way that most archers have wrapped their arms around every technological advance to come down the pipe related to bows, accessories, equipment, and clothing establishes the fact that they don't have an ounce of committment to tradition. Often these are the demagogues who bring up feeble minded references to "the traditions of Fred Bear" while at the same time choosing to hunt with high let off compound bows, illuminated sight pins, trigger releases, carbon arrows, mechanical broadheads, laser rangefinders, scent lok clothing, etc. The incongruency between their words and actions demonstrate that they're incapable of objectivity. They meet the textbook definition of zealotry.

[Swamp Ghost]

95+% of able bodied archers shoot compound bows. They could shoot a longbow or a recurve, but they choose the easy way of hunting with a compound. The archers who shoot traditional equipment are the ones who have credibility when it comes to discussions of purism in archery. On the other hand, ompound shooters have zero credibility on this topic. None. Nada. Zilch.

Apparently the compound isn't that easy. If it was as easy as some say it is everyone would be bowhunting, but some make the "choice" not to particpate.

Hence the need to add a stock, required safety, and a trigger mechanism to increase "opportunity" and "choice".:rolleyes:

[Munsterlndr]

From this picture which was posted on a traditional archery site, it's certainly clear that longbow shooters draw a distinction between the equipment that they use and what the vast majority of bow hunters use. As NS has said, compound users trying to hide behind the "hallowed traditions" of archery are simply a joke.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Munsterlndr/sac.jpg

[D-BEAVER]

No, actually I was discussing credibility, and the fact that compound shooters who point to the tradition of what grandpa used are completely lacking in credibility. The way that most archers have wrapped their arms around every technological advance to come down the pipe related to bows, accessories, equipment, and clothing establishes the fact that they don't have an ounce of committment to tradition. Often these are the demagogues who bring up feeble minded references to "the traditions of Fred Bear" while at the same time choosing to hunt with high let off compound bows, illuminated sight pins, trigger releases, carbon arrows, mechanical broadheads, laser rangefinders, scent lok clothing, etc. The incongruency between their words and actions demonstrate that they're incapable of objectivity. They meet the textbook definition of zealotry.

So the average 30 something bowhunter should be ashamed that he was born after compounds had been around awhile and were widley accepted as a legal means to harvest game during bow season? Should he feel like less of a hunter because he hasn't gone back to primitive technology that was obsolete before he was even born? Should he also trade in his Chevy for a horse and buggy?

The fact of the matter is that a compound bow is still a bow. It has to be hand drawn and hand held. While bows have certainly evolved over the years and will continue to do so, the fundamentals are still the same... hand drawn, hand held... Crossbows do not meet this criteria.

[November Sunrise]

You guys sure are quick to condemn John and his "agenda".

The web is the great equalizer in terms of information.

Eberhart can spew misinformation about the meeting attendance of crossbow manufactuers in his articles and there's no legitimate opportunity for correction. When he spews the same misinformation on here it gets corrected. In his articles he can shill for certain products and fail to disclose that he sells them. On the web he can't get away with those games. In Michigan Outdoor News Keck can make false claims about Ohio shortening their archery season, about who and how many people spoke at a committee meeting, etc. On the web those claims get corrected.

The web is a really comfortable place for someone who's consistent and who operates from a point of integrity. It's an uncomforable place for zealots who will make whatever claim is convenient to attempt to prove a point. The truth always eventually comes to light.

[Swamp Ghost]

compound users trying to hide behind the "hallowed traditions" of archery are simply a joke

As are crossbow advocates hiding behind "revenue", "retention", "recruitment", "disablity", "youth", "scientific management", "opportunity".... the list goes on and and on.....

[November Sunrise]

So the average 30 something bowhunter should be ashamed that he was born after compounds had been around awhile and were widley accepted as a legal means to harvest game during bow season? Should he feel like less of a hunter because he hasn't gone back to primitive technology that was obsolete before he was even born? Should he also trade in his Chevy for a horse and buggy?

Of course not. An archer who chooses to shoot a compound doesn't have any reason to hang his head about anything. He simply shouldn't live under the illusion that he has any credibility when it comes to discussions about the supposed "traditions" of archery.

[Liv4Huntin']

So the average 30 something bowhunter should be ashamed that he was born after compounds had been around awhile and were widley accepted as a legal means to harvest game during bow season? Should he feel like less of a hunter because he hasn't gone back to primitive technology that was obsolete before he was even born? Should he also trade in his Chevy for a horse and buggy?

The fact of the matter is that a compound bow is still a bow. It has to be hand drawn and hand held. While bows have certainly evolved over the years and will continue to do so, the fundamentals are still the same... hand drawn, hand held... Crossbows do not meet this criteria.


You may feel ashamed if you choose to do so. However, no one is saying you should.

The crossbow still is a bow and is hand drawn. Even if using a 'cocking device' the HANDS still operate same. Just as a compound user using a release aid is hand-drawing the compound bow.

So yes, crossbows meet full well the criteria of being a bow, as has been discussed and debated repeatedly.
~m~

[Swamp Ghost]

Apparently the compound isn't that easy. If it was as easy as some say it is everyone would be bowhunting, but some make the "choice" not to particpate.

Hence the need to add a stock, required safety, and a trigger mechanism to increase "opportunity" and "choice".:rolleyes:

Forgot to mention the removal of the whole drawing the bow in the presence of game thing......

[Swamp Ghost]

You may feel ashamed if you choose to do so.

The crossbow still is a bow and is hand drawn. Even if using a 'cocking device' the HANDS still operate same. Just as a compound user using a release is hand-drawing the comound bow.

So yes, crossbows meet full well the criteria of being a bow, as has been discussed and debated repeatedly.
~m~

LOL!

And a compound shooter is a Zealot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

The need to be considered a bowhunter blinds people to reality.

Are crossbowhunters and bowhunters equals as deer hunters, I would have to say yes.

Are they the same? Absolutely not.

The fact is one uses an entirely different skill set than the other, an entirely different process to become proficient, use and become successful with.

The amount of fantasy that has crept into the psychy of some of you guys is incredible.

After giving it some thought I will leaving the Bow vs Crossbow debates. The whole thing is distasteful and I find myself a bit irritated....

See you at the Senate hearings, if there are any :)

[Munsterlndr]

So the average 30 something bowhunter should be ashamed that he was born after compounds had been around awhile and were widley accepted as a legal means to harvest game during bow season? Should he feel like less of a hunter because he hasn't gone back to primitive technology that was obsolete before he was even born? Should he also trade in his Chevy for a horse and buggy?

The fact of the matter is that a compound bow is still a bow. It has to be hand drawn and hand held. While bows have certainly evolved over the years and will continue to do so, the fundamentals are still the same... hand drawn, hand held... Crossbows do not meet this criteria.

If you spend any amount of time reading posts on trad bow forums you will quickly come to the realization that many of the trad bow guys view hunters who use compounds with almost as much disdain as they do crossbow user. So from their perspective, guys who use bows with "training wheels" should feel like less of a hunter because they are using technology to make things easier.

Secondly the distinctions that you note "hand drawn and hand held" are as rapidly diminishing as a spilled cup of water on a hot summer day. Compound bows are not any more "hand drawn" than crossbows are. Compound bows employ a mechanical advantage that assists the user in reaching full draw. Some crossbows are fully hand drawn while others employ a mechanical device that assists the user in reaching full draw, just as compounds do, so there is basically no distinction between the two weapons in terms of being "hand drawn".

As far as being hand held, with the advent of high-let off bows, this distinction has become so marginal as to be insignificant. As pictured below, a 99% let off bow requires such little pressure to be held at full draw, that the user can take his hand off it when held horizontally and the weight of the riser is sufficient to keep it at full draw indefinitely. If instead of holding the string with his other hand, the user hung it on a hook, that bow would remain fully drawn until released, just like a crossbow. Even when held in a shooting position, it can easily be held at full draw for 5 minutes or so, an amount of time that allows the user to be at full draw way before an animal is close enough to be spooked by the motion of drawing. As I said, the distinctions that you note have diminished to the point of being inconsequential.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Munsterlndr/munstersconcept.jpg

[Riva]

You're comparing apples to oranges. What's the difference between an RV and a 5th wheel, really? Are these campgrounds trying to curb camper opportunity by not allowing people to haul in mobile homes?

A crossbow is not a bow. If it were, it would already be allowed.

That being said, I do believe there is room for the x-bow and more opportunities should be allowed. I just don't like the idea of able-bodied, lazy men flocking to them in droves because they're easier to use.

Call me crazy, but I think anyone who has any handicap whatsoever should be granted the privillege of using a crossbow. I'm talking ms, arthritis, tendonitis... heck, an ulcer or hemroid for all I care. I'd also like to see anyone over the age of 60, or under the age of 18 to have the same right. All women should also be permitted to full inclusion. I'm also for anyone having the right to use one on their own land.

... BUT, if able-bodied "Bubba" wants to bowhunt, he should have to use a BOW, just as his father and grandfather did..


Woman: 50.5% US population

1-19 years: 27.5% US Population

65 years or older: 12.6% US population

Males age 20-65: 31% US population

Males age 20-65 w/no medical conditions whatsoever: 10% US population

Private Land Hunters (85%)

When you merge and purge, your "Bubba quotient" is about 10%. All things considered, full inclusion really makes sense now, doesn't it. :D

[D-BEAVER]

Woman: 50.5% US population

1-19 years: 27.5% US Population

65 years or older: 12.6% US population

Males age 20-65: 31% US population

Males age 20-65 w/no medical conditions whatsoever: 10% US population

Private Land Hunters (85%)

When you merge and purge, your "Bubba quotient" is about 10%. All things considered, full inclusion really makes sense now, doesn't it. :D

99% of all statistics can be made to illustrate a point 100% of the time. :D Your statisics do not even begin to tell the whole story. How many of each of those categories currently bowunt? This changes the entire shape of things.

You haven't changed my mind. I firmly believe there is no room in the woods for able-bodied lazy men who have chosen to shun bowhunting until the x-bow inclusion came about. Even if this only keeps a handful of these guys out of the woods, I believe it's for the best.

[Michihunter]

99% of all statistics can be made to illustrate a point 100% of the time. :D Your statisics do not even begin to tell the whole story. How many of each of those categories currently bowunt? THis changes the entire shape of things.

You haven't changed my mind. I firmly believe there is no room in the woods for able-bodied lazy men who have chosen to shun bowhunting until the x-bow inclusion came about. Even if this only keeps a handful of these guys out of the woods, I believe it's for the best.So you merely discriminate against 'able bodied lazy men' is that correct? Can you define what exactly that is?:confused:

[D-BEAVER]

If you spend any amount of time reading posts on trad bow forums you will quickly come to the realization that many of the trad bow guys view hunters who use compounds with almost as much disdain as they do crossbow user. So from their perspective, guys who use bows with "training wheels" should feel like less of a hunter because they are using technology to make things easier.

Secondly the distinctions that you note "hand drawn and hand held" are as rapidly diminishing as a spilled cup of water on a hot summer day. Compound bows are not any more "hand drawn" than crossbows are. Compound bows employ a mechanical advantage that assists the user in reaching full draw. Some crossbows are fully hand drawn while others employ a mechanical device that assists the user in reaching full draw, just as compounds do, so there is basically no distinction between the two weapons in terms of being "hand drawn".

As far as being hand held, with the advent of high-let off bows, this distinction has become so marginal as to be insignificant. As pictured below, a 99% let off bow requires such little pressure to be held at full draw, that the user can take his hand off it when held horizontally and the weight of the riser is sufficient to keep it at full draw indefinitely. If instead of holding the string with his other hand, the user hung it on a hook, that bow would remain fully drawn until released, just like a crossbow. Even when held in a shooting position, it can easily be held at full draw for 5 minutes or so, an amount of time that allows the user to be at full draw way before an animal is close enough to be spooked by the motion of drawing. As I said, the distinctions that you note have diminished to the point of being inconsequential.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Munsterlndr/munstersconcept.jpg

If you know anything about compound bows, you'll know that the bow illustrated here is the exception, rather than the rule. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to go to your local archery shop and purchase such a bow today. I'm betting they don't have one that will do this... I'm betting the 10 closest arhery shops to you do not stock a bow that will acomplish this feat.

[Michihunter]

If you know anything about compound bows, you'll know that the bow illustrated here is the exception, rather than the rule. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to go to your local archery shop and purchase such a bow today. I'm betting they don't have one that will do this... I'm betting the 10 closest arhery shops to you do not stock a bow that will acomplish this feat.Is that bow banned from archery season? Nope!! So regardless if it's an exception or not, it's a reality of a compound bow. Just like ALL xbows aren't just point and shoot weapons.;)

[D-BEAVER]

So you merely discriminate against 'able bodied lazy men' is that correct? Can you define what exactly that is?:confused:

Beaver's Dictionary defines able-bodied lazy men as anyone devoid of a physical defect that begins bowhuting for the first time after the x-bow is considered legal methodology. ;)

[D-BEAVER]

Is that bow banned from archery season? Nope!! So regardless if it's an exception or not, it's a reality of a compound bow. Just like ALL xbows aren't just point and shoot weapons.;)

I'm with you. It should be banned... but it's a moot point if you can't go to an archery shop and purchase one, isn't it?

[Riva]

As are crossbow advocates hiding behind "revenue", "retention", "recruitment", "disablity", "youth", "scientific management", "opportunity".... the list goes on and and on.....

I wouldn't exactly call 94-14 "hiding". Rather, I'd call it bragging!

A thing of beauty,actually.

BTW , swampy, nice to have you back with us. Was wondering where you went to with all your interpretive slants.:D

Curious, I haven't heard a peep from Keck or Eberhart on the interrogatory I posed to them. The same way I haven't heard any response in 2 months from MBH on what exactly they mean by the "vigorous scrutiny" on the disability issue. I guess simply well have have to go by your whimsical insertion from a few days back regarding the latter:"The MBH also lobbied to have MBH's officers proof read the application, attend the exam, and be sworn in as CO's to enforce the permit law".


This was indeed whimsical on your part wasn't it, Swamp??;)

[Michihunter]

Beaver's Dictionary defines able-bodied lazy men as anyone devoid of a physical defect that begins bowhuting for the first time after the x-bow is considered legal methodology. ;)So I personallly wouldn't fit that definition if I were to pick up a xbow and hunt? Afterall, I've hunted with both trad and compound bows over the last 30 years?
BTW- You do realize you called it BOWhunting?:D:D

[Michihunter]

I'm with you. It should be banned... but it's a moot point if you can't go to an archery shop and purchase one, isn't it?
Oneida's are 90+ % LO. Monster's too. Bet I can get one of those as well as a Concept. Point is far from moot.

[wildcoy73]

99% of all statistics can be made to illustrate a point 100% of the time. :D Your statisics do not even begin to tell the whole story. How many of each of those categories currently bowunt? This changes the entire shape of things.

You haven't changed my mind. I firmly believe there is no room in the woods for able-bodied lazy men who have chosen to shun bowhunting until the x-bow inclusion came about. Even if this only keeps a handful of these guys out of the woods, I believe it's for the best.


So you are oka with my wife a children being in the woods with a crossbow?

[D-BEAVER]

So I personallly wouldn't fit that definition if I were to pick up a xbow and hunt? Afterall, I've hunted with both trad and compound bows over the last 30 years?
BTW- You do realize you called it BOWhunting?:D:D

It is called bowhunting, not CROSSBOWHUNTING... but since you asked, you wouldn't fit my definition... call me crazy, but I could care less if every active bowhunter decides to trade their bow for a crossbow. BUT, when we begin seeing non-bowhunters take up the sport because it's now easy enough for them, I'm opposed.

[D-BEAVER]

So you are oka with my wife a children being in the woods with a crossbow?

Absolutely.

[Michihunter]

It is called bowhunting, not CROSSBOWHUNTING... but since you asked, you wouldn't fit my definition... call me crazy, but I could care less if every active bowhunter decides to trade their bow for a crossbow. BUT, when we begin seeing non-bowhunters take up the sport because it's now easy enough for them, I'm opposed.
Nor is it called COMPOUND bowhunting, LONGbowhunting, or RECURVEbowhunting. :D:D

[D-BEAVER]

Oneida's are 90+ % LO. Monster's too. Bet I can get one of those as well as a Concept. Point is far from moot.

While all of these are fine bows, combined thy probably account for less than 2% of bow sales in Michigan. It would be even less if we included the areas outside of Michigan. That's not meant to take away anything from them, I'm just saying that they're not exacty mainstream or highly sought after.

And for what it's worth... The Oneida is not available with 90+% let-off. A few crafty individuals have figured out how to modify them to achieve this goal.

[wildcoy73]

Absolutely.

Beaver thats great news. we have a chance to allow that. let you senator know this and by next year they will be allowed to use the crossbow. Just like I am able to use my compound bow.Yhat is so great of you to support this issue. I will forward your last few responce to my senator. so he can see the support you are giving.

I thank you for the support

[D-BEAVER]

Beaver thats great news. we have a chance to allow that. let you senator know this and by next year they will be allowed to use the crossbow. Just like I am able to use my compound bow.Yhat is so great of you to support this issue. I will forward your last few responce to my senator. so he can see the support you are giving.

I thank you for the support

I truly believe my support, or lack thereof will have no effect whatsoever on the inevitable outcome. This is going to pass whether we like it or not, I'm afraid... I've merely been expressing my humble opinions, as many of you have been...

[wildcoy73]

Yes you have been stating your voice beaver and it has shown that your not against the crossbow during the archery season. What you against are other hunters joining you in the woods. And with that being said I believe it shows that those for crossbows are not thinking of themselves but are thinking of all the sportsman in the world.

[Munsterlndr]

If you know anything about compound bows, you'll know that the bow illustrated here is the exception, rather than the rule. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to go to your local archery shop and purchase such a bow today. I'm betting they don't have one that will do this... I'm betting the 10 closest arhery shops to you do not stock a bow that will acomplish this feat.

Your point is totally moot. I purchased this bow from an archery shop in Grand Rapids about a month ago, no special order needed, it was in stock, bought off the shelf. It is commercially available to anyone who wants to buy one. 10 years ago you would have had a hard time finding an 80% let off compound at your local retailer, now they are common. None of my local car dealers had the Lexus SUV that I wanted to buy last winter so I had to go to Grand Rapids to purchase one, too. This bow is commercially available today. Anybody that wants one can get one within a few days. If your refusing to respond to the points that I made by inferring that the above pictured bow is so unique that nobody actually has one, you would lose that argument. Like I said in the previous post, the distinctions that you noted between the two types of weapons are rapidly disappearing. Believe me, the Senate committee will certainly be interested to see a demonstration of what is pictured above. ;)

[D-BEAVER]

Your point is totally moot. I purchased this bow from an archery shop in Grand Rapids about a month ago, no special order needed, it was in stock, bought off the shelf. It is commercially available to anyone who wants to buy one. 10 years ago you would have had a hard time finding an 85% let off compound at your local retailer, now they are common. None of my local car dealers had the Lexus SUV that I wanted to buy last winter so I had to go to Grand Rapids to purchase one, too. This bow is commercially available today. Anybody that wants one can get one within a few days. If your refusing to respond to the points that I made by inferring that the above pictured bow is so unique that nobody actually has one, you would lose that argument. Like I said in the previous post, the distinctions that you noted between the two types of weapons are rapidly disappearing. Believe me, the Senate committee will certainly be interested to see a demonstration of what is pictures above. ;)

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.

[Michihunter]

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.And like I said, I'd like for anyone to go to a store and just buy any xbow and see if it's just point and shoot easy as some claim.;)

[D-BEAVER]

And like I said, I'd like for anyone to go to a store and just buy any xbow and see if it's just point and shoot easy as some claim.;)

Any store worth it's salt will ensure that it is sighted in before you leave... after that it is pretty much point and shoot.

[wildcoy73]

First of all You do not fix my post. second of all you are painting a broad line by saying all those that would come into the archery season are lazy, and you can not prove that 100% of the time. You have been taken with your own post. So now is the time to fest up. The crossbow is comming to the woods near you. and you can either help them out or leave the woods.
No one is saying that you must share the season with them. If you choose not to hunt with them during the season you have that choice of not going out into the woods.
I for one will be happy to have all the crossbow hunter in the woods while I am using my compound bow.

[Munsterlndr]

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.

Your missing the point, who cares what the "average" archer owns? What difference does it make? The point is that commercially available vertical bows that are 100% legal in Michigan, can be held at full draw for long periods of time and the demonstration picture merely exemplifies how easy they are to hold. If you are a non-bow hunter and are looking at this issue in an unbiased manner, it's going to look pretty silly if someone is basing their argument for denying crossbow inclusion on the fact that vertical bows have to be held at full draw, when a 99% let-off bow is legal to use and available to anyone who wants one. You may think there is a huge distinction between the two but layman will not see it that way. And yes, the bow in that picture will be in attendance at the Senate committee meeting for the Senators to look at and give it a try. ;)

Just out of curiosity, why would you be in favor of banning 99% let off bows? I would love to hear the rationale behind that totally arbitrary stance? :lol:

[Michihunter]

Any store worth it's salt will ensure that it is sighted in before you leave... after that it is pretty much point and shoot.Any store worth it's salt could also tell you where you could obtain a 90+ % LO bow if that's what was wanted. As for sighting in a bow for someone else, I'd hope you know better than that.;)

[sputty]

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.
But it is legal, and would not have to drawn in the presence of game. Seems to me, one could hold this bow back for a looooong time.Looks like drawing in the presence of game is no longer a valid arguement.:lol:

[Riva]

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.

"Hey Beave" (my impression of Eddie Haskel),

Your logic is flawed however; I think that you're bursting at the seams waiting for somebody to ask you if you are employed at a sporting goods store. Well, if you do, hurray!;)

Now, let's turn you little hypothetical back in time. Let's say it's 1966. Traditional longbow hunters are exclaiming "the world is ending, the world is ending" with the advent of the newly invented compound bow. So, to stunt expansion, the long bow people try to isolate the newest technology and say, "we shouldn't allow these; only 1% of the Michigan bow hunting population owns a bow capable of doing this!"

Fast forward 30 years.... 95% of all the bows are compound bows.

Moral of the story: Today's snapshot is not tomorrow's snapshot. Sometimes the tree in the background grows! :)

[Liv4Huntin']

BUT, when we begin seeing non-bowhunters take up the sport because it's now easy enough for them, I'm opposed.

Gee. . . if everyone were as selfish and stingy with Michigan's outdoor resources as this post ' suggests ' you are, well, let's just say you are part of the problem for declining archery hunters being in our outdoors since you're not part of the solution in mentoring!

All outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen thank you for your generously sharing in the excitement, fun, and bounty. :rolleyes:

~m~

[Liv4Huntin']

While all of these are fine bows, combined thy probably account for less than 2% of bow sales in Michigan. It would be even less if we included the areas outside of Michigan.

SO WHAT?????? These are still available AS A CHOICE !! Do you even hear yourself??? Jeesh!!
~m~

[D-BEAVER]

Your missing the point, who cares what the "average" archer owns? What difference does it make? The point is that commercially available vertical bows that are 100% legal in Michigan, can be held at full draw for long periods of time and the demonstration picture merely exemplifies how easy they are to hold. If you are a non-bow hunter and are looking at this issue in an unbiased manner, it's going to look pretty silly if someone is basing their argument for denying crossbow inclusion on the fact that vertical bows have to be held at full draw, when a 99% let-off bow is legal to use and available to anyone who wants one. You may think there is a huge distinction between the two but layman will not see it that way. And yes, the bow in that picture will be in attendance at the Senate committee meeting for the Senators to look at and give it a try. ;)

Just out of curiosity, why would you be in favor of banning 99% let off bows? I would love to hear the rationale behind that totally arbitrary stance? :lol:

Simple. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Heck, if we allow 99% let-off, we might as well allow xbows...

[wildcoy73]

We do allow 99% let off

[D-BEAVER]

Gee. . . if everyone were as selfish and stingy with Michigan's outdoor resources as this post ' suggests ' you are, well, let's just say you are part of the problem for declining archery hunters being in our outdoors since you're not part of the solution in mentoring!

All outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen thank you for your generously sharing in the excitement, fun, and bounty. :rolleyes:

~m~

Until you've hunted in my overcrowded neck of the woods don't be so quick to judge. It's bad... and I fear it's going to get worse when this law passes.

[D-BEAVER]

We do allow 99% let off

I know and I've said that we shouldn't.

[Liv4Huntin']

It's that type of misinformation presented to law makers that allows BS laws to become a reality. Are you going to be presenting such a demonstration?

How about presenting a fair demonstration... ask a member of the comittee to visit an archery shop of their choice and attempt this for themself with the first bow they see... how about the second, third.

You see where I'm going? This particular bow is a very poor example of what the average archer owns. I would bet my last dollar that far less than 1% of Michigans bowhunting population owns a bow capable of doing this.

Talk about misinformation! When you go to buy a new car do you always find EVERY OPTION you want on every car in the lot or do you have to ORDER YOUR CAR with the options you want?? You're really stretching here, a sure sign of grasping for anything you can to try to make a point that is useless. Keep stretching, tho....
Nice try.
~m~

[D-BEAVER]

"Hey Beave" (my impression of Eddie Haskel),

Your logic is flawed however; I think that you're bursting at the seams waiting for somebody to ask you if you are employed at a sporting goods store. Well, if you do, hurray!;)

Now, let's turn you little hypothetical back in time. Let's say it's 1966. Traditional longbow hunters are exclaiming "the world is ending, the world is ending" with the advent of the newly invented compound bow. So, to stunt expansion, the long bow people try to isolate the newest technology and say, "we shouldn't allow these; only 1% of the Michigan bow hunting population owns a bow capable of doing this!"

Fast forward 30 years.... 95% of all the bows are compound bows.

Moral of the story: Today's snapshot is not tomorrow's snapshot. Sometimes the tree in the background grows! :)

What does this have to do with anything?

[Munsterlndr]

Heck, if we allow 99% let-off, we might as well allow xbows...


;) My point exactly!

How do you feel about 98% let-offs? 97%? Would you ban Mikey's 92% let-off Monster bows?

Love to hear the justification for where you draw the line. I'm betting that it will be a totally arbitrary point that is intellectually indefensible. :lol:

[Liv4Huntin']

Until you've hunted in my overcrowded neck of the woods don't be so quick to judge. It's bad... and I fear it's going to get worse when this law passes.

So, as with other posters who are against crossbow inclusion, you have made it plain that it is all about YOU.
~m~

[Terry Williams]

If we anti's didn't pop in here every once in awhile just what would you guys do? You'd be like Maytag repairmen, very lonely.

[Liv4Huntin']

If we anti's didn't pop in here every once in awhile just what would you guys do? You'd be like Maytag repairmen, very lonely.

:lol: :lol: Good one! Just 'keeping us on our toes', eh???
~m~

[Whit1]

You guys sure are quick to condemn John and his "agenda"... How about your agendas? You can't be this passionate without having an agenda.


I'll give you my agenda as well as a bit of personal history which I've shared on these boards and other places, including in public.

I bowhunted (compound bow) for 22 years until I had my left hip replaced on Oct. 4th of '01 until I asked the surgeon if it would be okay if I got up into trees in order to bowhunt. His response, "If you do get up into trees you take the chance of falling out and ruining a perfectly good hip replacement." That settled the issue for me and I planned to bowhunt from the ground.

Thinking about ground hunting I came to the realization that one of the greatest thrills I derived from bowhunting was sitting in a treestand for almost two months and watching everything nature offers unfold around me. Ground hunting just doesn't do the same thing.

In September I'll be having my right hip replaced and that cements my decision not to get up into trees even more.

I am perfectly capable of drawing and shooting a bow with killing accuracy, although I haven't drawn a bow since before my hip surgery. I have no interest in using a crossbow. I have no financial interest in any crossbow company.

My sole interest in crossbow inclusion resulted from the years I've spend as a mod in these forums. I read and re-read the claims by crossbow inclusion (a more recently used phrase) proponents and those opposed. I began to wonder who was right in their claims. Rather than rely on an internet forum or what an organization might say I began to do some research by contacting states where inclusion was the way with archery season asking for data and details. What every state relayed to me showed that crossbow inclusion had no ill effects on the deer herd, did increase the numbers of archery hunters to a certain extent, and showed that the crossbow was not the super weapon it has been made out to be by some.

I came to the conclusion that the claims made by those opposed to crossbow inclusion were either bogus or came from fear. The word FEAR can be used to represent False Evidence Appearing Real and what I discovered in my research convinced me that FEAR was indeed a strong motivating factor that drove the opponents of crossbow inclusion to their stance.

Considering that in the past decade MI has lost over 80,000 bowhunters and the DNR has been strapped for funds (keep in mind that even with the "finding"....:dizzy: :rolleyes: of an extra $10 million the DNR is still underfunded for the job it has to do here in MI) any infusion of new hunters would be welcome from a fiscal standpoint.

Crossbow inclusion offers MI archery deer hunters (a portion of crossbow users come from the ranks of vertical bowhunters) choice and opportunity. That's it; that's my agenda.

Those who have read these crossbow threads for the past few months have seen me post what I say above before. It is nothing new.

[TOW]

I'll give you my agenda as well as a bit of personal history which I've shared on these boards and other places, including in public.

I bowhunted (compound bow) for 22 years until I had my left hip replaced on Oct. 4th of '01 until I asked the surgeon if it would be okay if I got up into trees in order to bowhunt. His response, "If you do get up into trees you take the chance of falling out and ruining a perfectly good hip replacement." That settled the issue for me and I planned to bowhunt from the ground.

Thinking about ground hunting I came to the realization that one of the greatest thrills I derived from bowhunting was sitting in a treestand for almost two months and watching everything nature offers unfold around me. Ground hunting just doesn't do the same thing.

In September I'll be having my right hip replaced and that cements my decision not to get up into trees even more.

I am perfectly capable of drawing and shooting a bow with killing accuracy, although I haven't drawn a bow since before my hip surgery. I have no interest in using a crossbow. I have no financial interest in any crossbow company.

My sole interest in crossbow inclusion resulted from the years I've spend as a mod in these forums. I read and re-read the claims by crossbow inclusion (a more recently used phrase) proponents and those opposed. I began to wonder who was right in their claims. Rather than rely on an internet forum or what an organization might say I began to do some research by contacting states where inclusion was the way with archery season asking for data and details. What every state relayed to me showed that crossbow inclusion had no ill effects on the deer herd, did increase the numbers of archery hunters to a certain extent, and showed that the crossbow was not the super weapon it has been made out to be by some.

I came to the conclusion that the claims made by those opposed to crossbow inclusion were either bogus or came from fear. The word FEAR can be used to represent False Evidence Appearing Real and what I discovered in my research convinced me that FEAR was indeed a strong motivating factor that drove the opponents of crossbow inclusion to their stance.

Considering that in the past decade MI has lost over 80,000 bowhunters and the DNR has been strapped for funds (keep in mind that even with the "finding"....:dizzy: :rolleyes: of an extra $10 million the DNR is still underfunded for the job it has to do here in MI) any infusion of new hunters would be welcome from a fiscal standpoint.

Crossbow inclusion offers MI archery deer hunters (a portion of crossbow users come from the ranks of vertical bowhunters) choice and opportunity. That's it; that's my agenda.

Those who have read these crossbow threads for the past few months have seen me post what I say above before. It is nothing new.


Nothing like doing our own research and making a determination on true facts.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

If we anti's didn't pop in here every once in awhile just what would you guys do? You'd be like Maytag repairmen, very lonely.
WOW, I'VE been gone for 3 weeks shooting my crossbow, fishing, and working on my place up north. i come back and hook up the p.c. and the peeing match is still going:lol::lol::lol:

probably have a good civil discussion on crossbow hunting, scopes, (like you compound guys), arrow shafts, fletchings, knocks, lighted or not (like you com. boys), silencers, broadheads, exspandable or not, just like you ANTI'S.

as far as being like the maytag repairmen, isn't that the way you guys WANT THE WOODS TO YOURSELVES???????:lol::lol::lol

[Terry Williams]

What hunter doesn't like to have the woods to themselves. But with 300,000 bow hunters we are rarely alone.

[goemado]

Just a question here..... could all your puff and arguments against crossbow inclusion be boiled down to your unwillingness to (in your imaginations) share in the hunting of UNPRESSURED DEER????
~m~

I saw one of those once -- she was running for her life! :rolleyes:

Wow.

[Munsterlndr]

What hunter doesn't like to have the woods to themselves. But with 300,000 bow hunters we are rarely alone.

But only 45,000 of those hunters hunt on public land. Michigan is a big state with lots and lots of public land available to hunt on. Plenty of room for everybody. If you are really concerned about not having to share with other hunters, it just takes a little effort but since you vertical bow guys are real big on not taking the easy way out, you should not mind driving a little ways to find some room to roam. ;)

[Michihunter]

But only 45,000 of those hunters hunt on public land. Michigan is a big state with lots and lots of public land available to hunt on. Plenty of room for everybody. If you are really concerned about not having to share with other hunters, it just takes a little effort but since you vertical bow guys are real big on not taking the easy way out, you should not mind driving a little ways to find some room to roam. ;)
Driving? Isn't that too easy?:yikes:

[Munsterlndr]

Driving? Isn't that too easy?:yikes:

Well, since they are traditionalists I'm assuming that they will be driving Model T's, so the frequent tire punctures and getting stuck on two-tracks adds enough complexity to the challenge to satisfy their ego's. ;)

[D-BEAVER]

It seems I’ve ruffled a few feathers and for that I’d like to apologize. Please remember guys, I’m just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things before moving on.

As I’ve stated many times, I’m not anti-crossbow, I’m simply concerned about the possible ramifications of allowing anyone and everyone the privilege of using one during our regular bow season. Please allow me to offer a few examples…


We’ve already established the fact that our state has the more bowhunters per square mile than anywhere else in the nation. Couple this with the fact that we have the lowest mature buck harvest per bowhunter and this makes for a very lousy combination, as far as I’m concerned. What’s going to happen when we open the floodgates by inviting more hunters to take the field in the fall with crossbows? How could this possibly help the balance? It cannot and will not, unless we make some other drastic changes in regulations to offset its effects.
If and when this takes place, we’ll not only see some new hunters, we’ll see a number of firearm converts. Many of these people are not educated to what is and is not an ethical, responsible shot with archery tackle. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t like the idea of a number of wounded deer lost, or left suffering due to irresponsible shot placement. Many ‘ol time firearm hunters will aim for the shoulders as they’ve been taught to do with firearms. This is obviously not where we would like to place a broadhead.
The crossbow is a weapon surrounded by many myths. The average Joe lacks the technical knowledge in archery gear necessary to dispel these myths and believes the crossbow is a long range weapon. This is why the crossbow has many nicknames such as “string gun”. This fact concerns me further in regards to irresponsible shot selection. We don’t want people taking unrealistically long shots or shots at running game, do we? This is not only bad for the game we are hunting, but potentially dangerous for anyone who may be sharing the woods with such an individual.
I simply believe we, as hunters, have more important issues to address. If we’re in the mood for legislation, why not lobby for some laws that will actually ensure betterment for the future of bowhunting and for the herd itself? Things like the earn a buck program, a one buck per season limit, mandatory check stations, antler restrictions, a shorter and/or later firearms season, an increase in non-resident tag prices, changes to our baiting regulations, etc. I could go on and on… and I’m sure many of you could, as well.

In closing I’d like to say that because of my unique position I have the opportunity to talk to numerous bowhunters on a daily basis. The vast majority of them are aware of the pending legislation. It seems to me that the general consensus is that this is bad for the future of bowhunting… and the only reason it’s being considered is because of the potential revenue to be obtained from an increase in license sales. I hear this daily, so I’m not alone in this regard.

Change is sometimes good, but always uncertain. Can any of us be certain that the full inclusion of crossbows in our bow season, the season we’ve come to know and love, will not negatively impact the season and sport as we know it? We simply cannot be sure. Maybe my fears are unfounded, maybe not… But I care enough about the future of bowhunting to say that I’d rather not find out. Can you really blame me for not wanting to see such radical changes made to something I hold so near and dear to my heart?

[Michihunter]

It seems I’ve ruffled a few feathers and for that I’d like to apologize. Please remember guys, I’m just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things before moving on.

As I’ve stated many times, I’m not anti-crossbow, I’m simply concerned about the possible ramifications of allowing anyone and everyone the privilege of using one during our regular bow season. Please allow me to offer a few examples…


We’ve already established the fact that our state has the more bowhunters per square mile than anywhere else in the nation. Couple this with the fact that we have the lowest mature buck harvest per bowhunter and this makes for a very lousy combination, as far as I’m concerned. What’s going to happen when we open the floodgates by inviting more hunters to take the field in the fall with crossbows? How could this possibly help the balance? It cannot and will not, unless we make some other drastic changes in regulations to offset its effects.
If and when this takes place, we’ll not only see some new hunters, we’ll see a number of firearm converts. Many of these people are not educated to what is and is not an ethical, responsible shot with archery tackle. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t like the idea of a number of wounded deer lost, or left suffering due to irresponsible shot placement. Many ‘ol time firearm hunters will aim for the shoulders as they’ve been taught to do with firearms. This is obviously not where we would like to place a broadhead.
The crossbow is a weapon surrounded by many myths. The average Joe lacks the technical knowledge in archery gear necessary to dispel these myths and believes the crossbow is a long range weapon. This is why the crossbow has many nicknames such as “string gun”. This fact concerns me further in regards to irresponsible shot selection. We don’t want people taking unrealistically long shots or shots at running game, do we? This is not only bad for the game we are hunting, but potentially dangerous for anyone who may be sharing the woods with such an individual.
I simply believe we, as hunters, have more important issues to address. If we’re in the mood for legislation, why not lobby for some laws that will actually ensure betterment for the future of bowhunting and for the herd itself? Things like the earn a buck program, a one buck per season limit, mandatory check stations, antler restrictions, a shorter and/or later firearms season, an increase in non-resident tag prices, changes to our baiting regulations, etc. I could go on and on… and I’m sure many of you could, as well.

In closing I’d like to say that because of my unique position I have the opportunity to talk to numerous bowhunters on a daily basis. The vast majority of them are aware of the pending legislation. It seems to me that the general consensus is that this is bad for the future of bowhunting… and the only reason it’s being considered is because of the potential revenue to be obtained from an increase in license sales. I hear this daily, so I’m not alone in this regard.

Change is sometimes good, but always uncertain. Can any of us be certain that the full inclusion of crossbows in our bow season, the season we’ve come to know and love, will not negatively impact the season and sport as we know it? We simply cannot be sure. Maybe my fears are unfounded, maybe not… But I care enough about the future of bowhunting to say that I’d rather not find out. Can you really blame me for not wanting to see such radical changes made to something I hold so near and dear to my heart?

That may be the most reasonable response by someone against full inclusion that I have heard. Still don't necessarily agree with the assessments but I can certainly respect the opinion.;)

[Munsterlndr]

Beaver -

Being a relative newby, I'd suggest you avail yourself of the search function and read the several hundred crossbow threads that are available for your perusal. You raise no points that have not been raised at least a dozen times before and which have been responded to at length.

The bottom line is that we have lost 80,000 bow hunters in Michigan in the last decade and that trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Overcrowding is a strawman "sky is falling" argument since the vast majority of Michigan hunters hunt on private land.

Wounded animals are never a good thing but based on evidence from numerous other states which have incorporated crossbows, they have seen no huge increase in wounding rates any more than is commonly associated with vertical bow users. Let's be Frank here, the wounding rate currently experienced by bow hunters is nothing to crow about and it's hard to imagine how crossbows could be much worse. Some guys may take some shots that are too long but balance that with the increased accuracy at shorter ranges for other users and it will probably be a wash. Incorporate crossbows into hunter safety, that will lay the basis for a sound understanding for future hunters.

I think you should give firearms hunters just a little more credit, bow hunters like to portray them as idiots but we read just as many threads each fall by bow hunters that shoot a deer and can't or don't bother to recover it as we do from firearms hunters. When you are talking about hunter populations of hundreds of thousands of people, there are bound to be some yahoos but the vast majority of either group are ethical hunters who know the limitations of their weapons.

Change is not only good but it's inevitable. Nothing stays the same, things evolve and change over the course of time. Compare the game of golf as played today to what the equipment and the game was like at it's inception. technology has an inevitable impact. It's called progress. The hunting dynamic changed when Fred Bear lobbied for the establishment of archery seasons. At the time, many firearms hunters predicted that archers would wipe out the herd and it would ruin hunting. There are now twice as many bow hunters in Michigan as there were firearms hunter when the first archery season was established in 1937. Far from being the ruination of hunting, the initiation of another season has allowed millions of sportsmen to enjoy recreating in our outdoors over the years and our deer herd is far from ruined. The inclusion of crossbows in archery season will simply provide expanded opportunity and will be all but forgotten as an issue a year after the law is changed. This entire debate is a mountain out of a molehill, as evidenced by every other state that has gone to full inclusion.

[Michihunter]

* We’ve already established the fact that our state has the more bowhunters per square mile than anywhere else in the nation. Couple this with the fact that we have the lowest mature buck harvest per bowhunter and this makes for a very lousy combination, as far as I’m concerned. What’s going to happen when we open the floodgates by inviting more hunters to take the field in the fall with crossbows? How could this possibly help the balance? It cannot and will not, unless we make some other drastic changes in regulations to offset its effects. As has been stated before, 85% of all hunters use private land where regulations can be (and normally are) placed on the participants. Adding a weapon to that mix shouldn't affect anything already in place. As for BH/mi2, I'm not so sure that's been established properly. If you take into effect the concentrations of hunters, it would certainly depend on what area you are referring to.;)
* If and when this takes place, we’ll not only see some new hunters, we’ll see a number of firearm converts. Many of these people are not educated to what is and is not an ethical, responsible shot with archery tackle. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t like the idea of a number of wounded deer lost, or left suffering due to irresponsible shot placement. Many ‘ol time firearm hunters will aim for the shoulders as they’ve been taught to do with firearms. This is obviously not where we would like to place a broadhead. Anytime you establish a new regulation you will have a few that will be uneducated to that rule. Should this stop us from making new rules??
* The crossbow is a weapon surrounded by many myths. The average Joe lacks the technical knowledge in archery gear necessary to dispel these myths and believes the crossbow is a long range weapon. This is why the crossbow has many nicknames such as “string gun”. This fact concerns me further in regards to irresponsible shot selection. We don’t want people taking unrealistically long shots or shots at running game, do we? This is not only bad for the game we are hunting, but potentially dangerous for anyone who may be sharing the woods with such an individual. Once again, mis- education or a lack thereof should not determine the rules. Don't you suppose that happened with the introduction of the compound? And look, we survived that pretty well, didn't we.
* I simply believe we, as hunters, have more important issues to address. If we’re in the mood for legislation, why not lobby for some laws that will actually ensure betterment for the future of bowhunting and for the herd itself? Things like the earn a buck program, a one buck per season limit, mandatory check stations, antler restrictions, a shorter and/or later firearms season, an increase in non-resident tag prices, changes to our baiting regulations, etc. I could go on and on… and I’m sure many of you could, as well. Harvest regulations regarding management should regulate the deer taken, not the weapon used to take it.;)

[wildcoy73]

Beaver:
Glad to see a true responce to why crossbows are not allowed during archery season.
From What I see when hunting a state game area in south west Michigan is yes the easy to get to area are overcrowded, but with just a little research it is very easy to find areas in this public area that no one hunts during the archery season. With the loss of bowhunter and the shift of hunters to the south, I see a slight increase in public hunting, but not nearly the numbers to match that of the 80's and 90's.
First reason I see this is the move of people out of the state.
Second is the cost of a crossbow. At about $400.00 for a starter not many will be spending the money, and we in Michigan do not have a used market for the crossbow at this time.
Third gun hunters and muzzle loader have shown us they are better at taking does. I can not see this changing with them just for the weapon in hand. Many gun hunters holding a doe tag shot the first deer that walks in, and I believe they will still do it.
Yes they may take a mature buck but in genral with baiting they are not going to see that mature buck. they will get a few young bucks but we as bowhunter allready due that. They will increase the doe harvest for us. And many believe this will help out or bucks.
So I do not see I real problem with this when the crossbow comes to be.

[skipper34]

To add to Munster's very articulate post, the same "sky is falling" attitude was shared by the bowhunters when the compound bow came on the market back in the 60's. I was one of those who scorned them for what they were. But inevitably the smoke cleared and now the compound bow is the bow of choice for the vast majority of hunters, including myself. This is not to suggest that the crossbow will take the place of the compound bow. It simply means that adding another weapon of choice for the archery season will not be the end of deer hunting as we know it. The vast majority will still employ the modern compound bow. There are nitwits in every hunting season, bow and firearm, this is unpreventable. But to suggest that the Michigan woods will be filled with them because of the crossbow is simply unfounded, and there is absolutely no data to suggest otherwise.

[butter21]

As has been stated before, 85% of all hunters use private land.;)
So it wont affect the 15% or so that hunt on public land only. :yikes:

[butter21]

Beaver:
Glad to see a true responce to why crossbows are not allowed during archery season.
From What I see when hunting a state game area in south west Michigan is yes the easy to get to area are overcrowded, but with just a little research it is very easy to find areas in this public area that no one hunts during the archery season. With the loss of bowhunter and the shift of hunters to the south, I see a slight increase in public hunting, but not nearly the numbers to match that of the 80's and 90's.
First reason I see this is the move of people out of the state.
Second is the cost of a crossbow. At about $400.00 for a starter not many will be spending the money, and we in Michigan do not have a used market for the crossbow at this time.
Third gun hunters and muzzle loader have shown us they are better at taking does. I can not see this changing with them just for the weapon in hand. Many gun hunters holding a doe tag shot the first deer that walks in, and I believe they will still do it.
Yes they may take a mature buck but in genral with baiting they are not going to see that mature buck. they will get a few young bucks but we as bowhunter allready due that. They will increase the doe harvest for us. And many believe this will help out or bucks.
So I do not see I real problem with this when the crossbow comes to be.
So 1 1/2 year old buck harvest wont go up?

[BigBirdVA]

So 1 1/2 year old buck harvest wont go up?Maybe it's up from so many compound hunters in the woods. :D

[Whit1]

That may be the most reasonable response by someone against full inclusion that I have heard. Still don't necessarily agree with the assessments but I can certainly respect the opinion.;)

The above was directed at DB's resonable, refreshing, response against full inclusion. I don't agree with the points he makes and neither does the research data from other states, but his (that'd be you Don) calm, reasoned approach to explaining himself is very much appreciated.

As for the average Joe/Jane archery hunter being so opposed to crossbow inclusion I can understand that attitude after all the years of anti-crossbow commentary of doom and gloom if such a thing were to happen.

Even the members of MBH, at the hearing, when pressed for some, any, scientific data rather than "emotion" and "opinion" (the quotes reflect what one of the committee members said) they had to admit they had none. Keep in mind that this has been after years of battling the crossbow fight and being very familiar with at least part (about 33%) of the presentation as presented by those in favor of HB5741 H2. Within a few short months by asking the right questions in the right places.........state fish and game agencies for instance......it is possible to build a case for inclusion involving substantial, documented evidence.

[Michihunter]

So it wont affect the 15% or so that hunt on public land only. :yikes:
Considering the amount of public land available per the number of hunters on public land- NO.;)

[D-BEAVER]

I'm very happy that some of you can respect my opinion even if you don't agree with it.

I believe full inclusion could work IF we were willing and able to make some other changes in our current regualtions to go along with it, some of which I've aleady commented on... This is the point that I guess I'd like to stress the most.

No harm, no foul guys. I really have no ill intentions and didn't want to offend anyone.

[November Sunrise]

No harm, no foul guys. I really have no ill intentions and didn't want to offend anyone.

Oh Yeah!! Well, I'm offended, and ....

Just kidding D-Beaver:).

Carry on.

[butter21]

Maybe it's up from so many compound hunters in the woods. :D
Did you think of that all by yourself? You probably haven't even hunted in Michigan.

Considering the amount of public land available per the number of hunters on public land- NO.;)
Will you pay for my gas to find public land farther away? Also do you only hunt private land?

[Michihunter]

Will you pay for my gas to find public land farther away? Also do you only hunt private land?
Why would I pay your gas? I'm already traveling 275 miles one way. Only difference between me and you is that I don't worry what YOU are doing or how YOU will affect ME because YOU have just as much RIGHT to be where I am. But to answer your other question, I mainly hunt Thompson's Harbor (feel free to come on up. I'll show you some good spots;)) which is public land(but I also hunt private property near the same area). Find another hunter within a mile of you and you're really accomplishing something. And the only time you may find that is on the openers.;)

[BigBirdVA]

Did you think of that all by yourself?


Will you pay for my gas to find public land farther away? Also do you only hunt private land?Nope. I hunt and have hunted both public land and private land. I hunted public land last year because it was bow only when I had private land to hunt. The private was gun. I hunt Sika deer every year on a public land hunt here in VA. It's a lottery hunt and they allow a limited number. I'll probably get skunked this year but - there are usually 25 or so Sika taken out of the 150 people they let hunt in 2 @ 75 hunters per group. Each group gets 3 days only to hunt. The last 15 years or so I've been skunked 1 time and have averaged 2 per year there. One year 4 of us took 25% of the deer taken out of there. I love public land. I use the masses to my advantage. I have the patience to sit and let others move the deer to me and I'm willing to work, spelled walk to the back to get a deer. I do quite well on public land.

As a note we have little public land near me or in Eastern VA. Most is in central or western VA. I have to drive or pay to join a club. 80% of the land here is leased by gun clubs that run deer hounds. Deer hounds is another whole issue in itself. :rant:

[butter21]

Why would I pay your gas? I'm already traveling 275 miles one way. Only difference between me and you is that I don't worry what YOU are doing or how YOU will affect ME because YOU have just as much RIGHT to be where I am. But to answer your other question, I mainly hunt Thompson's Harbor (feel free to come on up. I'll show you some good spots;)) which is public land(but I also hunt private property near the same area). Find another hunter within a mile of you and you're really accomplishing something. And the only time you may find that is on the openers.;)
I don't have the money to drive that far or to find unhunted public land, is what i was saying.

[Michihunter]

I don't have the money to drive that far or to find unhunted public land, is what i was saying.
I think the word you're having trouble with is "PUBLIC" meaning more than just Butter21 has the right to the land:D:D

[BigBirdVA]

I think the word you're having trouble with is "PUBLIC" meaning more than just Butter21 has the right to the land:D:DHe needs to come hunt here for a year. We have deer hunting with dogs here. We're having a big issue here with the increased illegal training of deer hounds in the eastern part. The end result is you can have deer being chased by dogs almost every day you hunt. Then to top is all off the owner of the hounds can legally trespass on your private land to retrieve his illegally running hounds. It's illegal to chase deer but not fox. All they have to say is they're fox hounds and they can't be given a ticket - regardless of what the dog is actually chasing. Also dog at large laws do not apply to hunting hounds. Swell huh? :dizzy:

A few hunters sitting in a tree during bow season is nothing.

[butter21]

I think the word you're having trouble with is "PUBLIC" meaning more than just Butter21 has the right to the land:D:D
I didn't say they couldn't but we were talking about more people hunting on public land if full inclusion passes. Not if they have the right to which, anyone obviously does.

He needs to come hunt here for a year. We have deer hunting with dogs here. We're having a big issue here with the increased illegal training of deer hounds in the eastern part. The end result is you can have deer being chased by dogs almost every day you hunt. Then to top is all off the owner of the hounds can legally trespass on your private land to retrieve his illegally running hounds. It's illegal to chase deer but not fox. All they have to say is they're fox hounds and they can't be given a ticket - regardless of what the dog is actually chasing. Also dog at large laws do not apply to hunting hounds. Swell huh? :dizzy:

A few hunters sitting in a tree during bow season is nothing.
Maybe you should hunt a season in Michigan because you know everything about it. :lol:

[Michihunter]

Where you bowhunting Butter that you can't find an area that isn't full? I've been in a few areas where you may find some stands but after the 1st it's rare that they are even used. As for adding more people let's do some math here. Let's go out on a limb and say 100k more bowhunters of which 85 k will more than likely hunt private. That's a mere addition of 15k to public land which has lost approx 10k in the last few years (85% of 80k).

[D-BEAVER]

I can't speak for butter, but I can say that it's very crowded in my neck of the woods... This includes everywhere from Linwood, north to Alger, west to Gladwin and east to AuGres.

I'm not saying that its impossible to find a good spot, but it sure is tough.

[Michihunter]

I can't speak for butter, but I can say that it's very crowded in my neck of the woods... This includes everywhere from Linwood, north to Alger, west to Gladwin and east to AuGres.

I'm not saying that its impossible to find a good spot, but it sure is tough.

I thought Bowhunting was meant to be tough (just kidding Beave!!):p:lol::lol:

[Whit1]

With this talk of public land and crowded hunting conditions it is very likely, as has been experienced in other states, that many hunters who give crossbows a go already bowhunt with a compound bow. They are already in the woods so for them no new bodies will be added.

[J Eberhart]

November Sunrise

I quit reading replies after this one by the avove sender, so I will reply to it and leave this site alone for a while.

As mentioned in my reply I am a rep that sells items that I would make money from if this law were passed. Specifically crossbow ammo, or bolts, and yes I do sell youth arrows for regular bows that require practice, after all that is why we have kids shooting bows at a young age so that they learn the proper form and strengthen the right muscle groups to shoot enough poundage for hunting deer. Crossbows require none of that whatsover, you can pick up the activity and be proficient at it within a half hour. I know someone is going to say you can do the same with a compound, you are only kidding yourself, definitely not me becfause I have shot both. Keep it for your pro crossbow buds.

I have not represented a bow company since Golden Eagle and our representation of Golden Eagle ended in 1995. I will never represent another bow company because they all bring out their new models in the fall and the reps have to be out selling bows nearly full time from October through November, and I like to have some time to enjoy bowhunting. So the answer to your first question is no, I do not represent any lines that are compound or recurve bow specific.

I used an Anderson Treesling since 1981 and switched to an Ambush saddle in 2005. I am not a representative for the saddle but I do endorse it and have my pic and name on the Ambush saddle only because it is the lightest weight of their 3 saddles and takes up the least amount of space in my backpack, and no I have never made one penny from endorsing it. I endorse it because it is the best product out there for bowhunting, again I am sorry I disappointed you.

I am the representative for Scent Lok and Rivers West and I am going to tell you why. I started using Scent Lok clothing in the mid 1990s and was absolutely amazed at how it worked when taken care of PROPERLY. Always looking for the edge over a deers nose I bought it assuming it would be a waste of money. I was so impressed with how well it worked that at the archery show two years later I bugged the hell out of Greg Sessleman (owner) to represent Scent Lok in Michigan. Hardly anybody even knew what it was at the time. I represent it and speak highly of it because it works, and aids hunters that are willing to do the extra work and care for it properly to get closer to deer on a regular basis. I am sure many hunters do not use it or have used it without success and that is likely because they; did not care for it properly (by far the most common reason), did not wear the entire suit with gloves and headcover (if entire suit is not wore it doesnt work to its potential), sit over a baitpile where deer know to look for them in trees and if a deer snorts or runs off the easy thing to do is blame it on something other than themselves sitting on a baitpile, do not periodically wash their pack in scent free detergent yet get into it every day to reload it or rearrange the contents with their bare hands (may as well take a human scent wick with you). That Scent Lok works is not up for discussion with me, I have proven it to myself many times on many downwind kills that I never would have had without it, period! That is the only reason why I mention it, to help hunters become more proficient against a deers nose, if you use it fine, if not that's your loss, I do not care.

I also represent Rivers West for exactly the same reason, it works better than anything else that I have tried against rain, cold, and wind and yet it (H2P fabric garments) is extremely quiet. Back in January of 2004 Rivers West a buyer had Rivers West send me a Backcountry jacket to try the next season. It was 5 degrees out the night I recieved the coat so I put it on the front porch overninght to see how noisy and stiff it would be the next morning (simulating sitting for a long period in bitter colod without moving). I was blown away because the fabric was quiet and soft, just as it was when I put it out. The only suit I had everh had that was that quiet was an old Browning Hydro Fleece suit that had extremely long loft to the fleece. Browning quit making that suit and went to a shorter napped Hydro Suede suit in the late 90s, anything with a short nap will not mask the noise of the Teflon of Polyurethane membrane and the new Browning Hydro Suede suit was no exception.

That fall (with a pair of Backcountry pants) I sat in a torential downpour for 3 hours without even getting damp. I felt that Rivers West had passed the 2 most important test for a waterproof allweather suit. It was warm yet quiet in cold weather and totally waterproof for rain (which I hunt in a lot), and was obviously windproof. It had some other aspects to it that separated it from other stuff on the market as well, but those were my main 2 concerns. Yes, I pursued the line and now represent it because it works for staying on stand longer during inclement weather conditions. I mention it in my writing for those reasons and not for the monetary reasons you obviously think. I mention lots of items I do not rep because I like to tell hunters what is the best out there for their money (in my opinion of course).

I used to rep for a crossbow manufacturer and only sold them when asked by a buyer if I represented the line. I never ever pushed the agenda to make more money, it is not about the money.

You guys are more than welcome to beat me up as much as you want, seems like some of you guys like to do that with absolutely no solid background of what you are saying or accusing.

[J Eberhart]

Whit

You actually believe yourself about no aditional hunters, you have got to be kidding. Anybody that thinks there will not be gun hunters convert to crossbow hunting to enjoy its ease of use (just like a short range gun)during warm weather conditions is way out there. Ohio's license sales went up dramatically. And without question, state lands are going to take the brunt of it.

[BigBirdVA]

I didn't say they couldn't but we were talking about more people hunting on public land if full inclusion passes. Not if they have the right to which, anyone obviously does.


Maybe you should hunt a season in Michigan because you know everything about it. :lol:I really want to as everything there is so darn different than the rest of the hunting world. You should feel lucky to be in the most unique place anyone has ever hunted deer in.:lol:

[Michihunter]

Actually John it was you that came on and spoke about the xbow mfg's being the reason for the change in bill. The ball was laid in your court when you were called on the 'at least 3" comment. The following quote is laughable:seems like some of you guys like to do that with absolutely no solid background of what you are saying or accusing.
No one 'accused' you of anything. You were merely asked IF you would benefit from non-inclusion and you have yet to answer that specifically. Nor have you answered the specific question of the "3 xbow reps". If you feel we are without solid background, share your wisdom.

[BigBirdVA]

November Sunrise

I quit reading replies after this one by the avove sender, so I will reply to it and leave this site alone for a while.

As mentioned in my reply I am a rep that sells items that I would make money from if this law were passed. Specifically crossbow ammo, or bolts, and yes I do sell youth arrows for regular bows that require practice, after all that is why we have kids shooting bows at a young age so that they learn the proper form and strengthen the right muscle groups to shoot enough poundage for hunting deer. Crossbows require none of that whatsover, you can pick up the activity and be proficient at it within a half hour. I know someone is going to say you can do the same with a compound, you are only kidding yourself, definitely not me becfause I have shot both. Keep it for your pro crossbow buds.

I have not represented a bow company since Golden Eagle and our representation of Golden Eagle ended in 1995. I will never represent another bow company because they all bring out their new models in the fall and the reps have to be out selling bows nearly full time from October through November, and I like to have some time to enjoy bowhunting. So the answer to your first question is no, I do not represent any lines that are compound or recurve bow specific.

I used an Anderson Treesling since 1981 and switched to an Ambush saddle in 2005. I am not a representative for the saddle but I do endorse it and have my pic and name on the Ambush saddle only because it is the lightest weight of their 3 saddles and takes up the least amount of space in my backpack, and no I have never made one penny from endorsing it. I endorse it because it is the best product out there for bowhunting, again I am sorry I disappointed you.

I am the representative for Scent Lok and Rivers West and I am going to tell you why. I started using Scent Lok clothing in the mid 1990s and was absolutely amazed at how it worked when taken care of PROPERLY. Always looking for the edge over a deers nose I bought it assuming it would be a waste of money. I was so impressed with how well it worked that at the archery show two years later I bugged the hell out of Greg Sessleman (owner) to represent Scent Lok in Michigan. Hardly anybody even knew what it was at the time. I represent it and speak highly of it because it works, and aids hunters that are willing to do the extra work and care for it properly to get closer to deer on a regular basis. I am sure many hunters do not use it or have used it without success and that is likely because they; did not care for it properly (by far the most common reason), did not wear the entire suit with gloves and headcover (if entire suit is not wore it doesnt work to its potential), sit over a baitpile where deer know to look for them in trees and if a deer snorts or runs off the easy thing to do is blame it on something other than themselves sitting on a baitpile, do not periodically wash their pack in scent free detergent yet get into it every day to reload it or rearrange the contents with their bare hands (may as well take a human scent wick with you). That Scent Lok works is not up for discussion with me, I have proven it to myself many times on many downwind kills that I never would have had without it, period! That is the only reason why I mention it, to help hunters become more proficient against a deers nose, if you use it fine, if not that's your loss, I do not care.

I also represent Rivers West for exactly the same reason, it works better than anything else that I have tried against rain, cold, and wind and yet it (H2P fabric garments) is extremely quiet. Back in January of 2004 Rivers West a buyer had Rivers West send me a Backcountry jacket to try the next season. It was 5 degrees out the night I recieved the coat so I put it on the front porch overninght to see how noisy and stiff it would be the next morning (simulating sitting for a long period in bitter colod without moving). I was blown away because the fabric was quiet and soft, just as it was when I put it out. The only suit I had everh had that was that quiet was an old Browning Hydro Fleece suit that had extremely long loft to the fleece. Browning quit making that suit and went to a shorter napped Hydro Suede suit in the late 90s, anything with a short nap will not mask the noise of the Teflon of Polyurethane membrane and the new Browning Hydro Suede suit was no exception.

That fall (with a pair of Backcountry pants) I sat in a torential downpour for 3 hours without even getting damp. I felt that Rivers West had passed the 2 most important test for a waterproof allweather suit. It was warm yet quiet in cold weather and totally waterproof for rain (which I hunt in a lot), and was obviously windproof. It had some other aspects to it that separated it from other stuff on the market as well, but those were my main 2 concerns. Yes, I pursued the line and now represent it because it works for staying on stand longer during inclement weather conditions. I mention it in my writing for those reasons and not for the monetary reasons you obviously think. I mention lots of items I do not rep because I like to tell hunters what is the best out there for their money (in my opinion of course).

I used to rep for a crossbow manufacturer and only sold them when asked by a buyer if I represented the line. I never ever pushed the agenda to make more money, it is not about the money.

You guys are more than welcome to beat me up as much as you want, seems like some of you guys like to do that with absolutely no solid background of what you are saying or accusing.
Hey hows that class action suit against ScentKrock going?

[November Sunrise]

November Sunrise

I quit reading replies after this one by the avove sender, so I will reply to it and leave this site alone for a while.

As mentioned in my reply I am a rep that sells items that I would make money from if this law were passed. Specifically crossbow ammo, or bolts, and yes I do sell youth arrows for regular bows that require practice, after all that is why we have kids shooting bows at a young age so that they learn the proper form and strengthen the right muscle groups to shoot enough poundage for hunting deer. Crossbows require none of that whatsover, you can pick up the activity and be proficient at it within a half hour. I know someone is going to say you can do the same with a compound, you are only kidding yourself, definitely not me becfause I have shot both. Keep it for your pro crossbow buds.

I have not represented a bow company since Golden Eagle and our representation of Golden Eagle ended in 1995. I will never represent another bow company because they all bring out their new models in the fall and the reps have to be out selling bows nearly full time from October through November, and I like to have some time to enjoy bowhunting. So the answer to your first question is no, I do not represent any lines that are compound or recurve bow specific.

I used an Anderson Treesling since 1981 and switched to an Ambush saddle in 2005. I am not a representative for the saddle but I do endorse it and have my pic and name on the Ambush saddle only because it is the lightest weight of their 3 saddles and takes up the least amount of space in my backpack, and no I have never made one penny from endorsing it. I endorse it because it is the best product out there for bowhunting, again I am sorry I disappointed you.

I am the representative for Scent Lok and Rivers West and I am going to tell you why. I started using Scent Lok clothing in the mid 1990s and was absolutely amazed at how it worked when taken care of PROPERLY. Always looking for the edge over a deers nose I bought it assuming it would be a waste of money. I was so impressed with how well it worked that at the archery show two years later I bugged the hell out of Greg Sessleman (owner) to represent Scent Lok in Michigan. Hardly anybody even knew what it was at the time. I represent it and speak highly of it because it works, and aids hunters that are willing to do the extra work and care for it properly to get closer to deer on a regular basis. I am sure many hunters do not use it or have used it without success and that is likely because they; did not care for it properly (by far the most common reason), did not wear the entire suit with gloves and headcover (if entire suit is not wore it doesnt work to its potential), sit over a baitpile where deer know to look for them in trees and if a deer snorts or runs off the easy thing to do is blame it on something other than themselves sitting on a baitpile, do not periodically wash their pack in scent free detergent yet get into it every day to reload it or rearrange the contents with their bare hands (may as well take a human scent wick with you). That Scent Lok works is not up for discussion with me, I have proven it to myself many times on many downwind kills that I never would have had without it, period! That is the only reason why I mention it, to help hunters become more proficient against a deers nose, if you use it fine, if not that's your loss, I do not care.

I also represent Rivers West for exactly the same reason, it works better than anything else that I have tried against rain, cold, and wind and yet it (H2P fabric garments) is extremely quiet. Back in January of 2004 Rivers West a buyer had Rivers West send me a Backcountry jacket to try the next season. It was 5 degrees out the night I recieved the coat so I put it on the front porch overninght to see how noisy and stiff it would be the next morning (simulating sitting for a long period in bitter colod without moving). I was blown away because the fabric was quiet and soft, just as it was when I put it out. The only suit I had everh had that was that quiet was an old Browning Hydro Fleece suit that had extremely long loft to the fleece. Browning quit making that suit and went to a shorter napped Hydro Suede suit in the late 90s, anything with a short nap will not mask the noise of the Teflon of Polyurethane membrane and the new Browning Hydro Suede suit was no exception.

That fall (with a pair of Backcountry pants) I sat in a torential downpour for 3 hours without even getting damp. I felt that Rivers West had passed the 2 most important test for a waterproof allweather suit. It was warm yet quiet in cold weather and totally waterproof for rain (which I hunt in a lot), and was obviously windproof. It had some other aspects to it that separated it from other stuff on the market as well, but those were my main 2 concerns. Yes, I pursued the line and now represent it because it works for staying on stand longer during inclement weather conditions. I mention it in my writing for those reasons and not for the monetary reasons you obviously think. I mention lots of items I do not rep because I like to tell hunters what is the best out there for their money (in my opinion of course).

I used to rep for a crossbow manufacturer and only sold them when asked by a buyer if I represented the line. I never ever pushed the agenda to make more money, it is not about the money.

You guys are more than welcome to beat me up as much as you want, seems like some of you guys like to do that with absolutely no solid background of what you are saying or accusing.


Firstly, you falsely accused individuals who spoke at committee meetings of having ties to the crossbow industry. You also made false claims about the number of individuals who spoke at the meeting who had industry ties.

Secondly, you attempted to claim that the motives of crossbow manufacturers were somehow different of that of any business owner. Now you disclose that several of the products you constantly promote in your magazine articles are also products that you sell. At one point previously have you disclosed to your readers that some of the products you're promoting in articles also happen to be products that you sell? On the Rivers West website you even have a testimonial posted as being a satisified customer. First time I've ever seen a scenario where someone who sells for a company attempts to just pass themselves off as a satisfied customer.
http://www.riverswest.com/hifi_fabrics.html.

Your initial post also had many errors regarding buck limits in other states, hunter density numbers, etc. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that those weren't intentional.

This isn't the pretend world of writing magazine articles that go unchallenged. If you're going to come on here and make inaccurate claims expect that you're going to be called on them.

[swoosh]

Whit

You actually believe yourself about no aditional hunters, you have got to be kidding. Anybody that thinks there will not be gun hunters convert to crossbow hunting to enjoy its ease of use (just like a short range gun)during warm weather conditions is way out there. Ohio's license sales went up dramatically. And without question, state lands are going to take the brunt of it.

Anybody have this data?

I would like to see it right after and 5 years later and so on;)

Right now Ohio's numbers are 2 to 1 correct? Same as MI is right now.

Off topic but that rivers west stuff looks sweet, thx for the heads up

[Riva]

November Sunrise
You guys are more than welcome to beat me up as much as you want, seems like some of you guys like to do that with absolutely no solid background of what you are saying or accusing.


John,

I, for one, could give a ratzazz if you are rep for these companies. In fact, I hope you make a ton of money off these efforts. I don't hate money. The more the merrier! And, I wish you luck on your various enterprises.

However, my issue with you is that you have made a statement that is categorically false, and YOU KNOW IT. In my opinion, your purpose in making such a statement was to cast dispersion up those people that spoke at that House committee meeting last June so that it would push a public consensus towards the anti-crossbow advocacy and perhaps even influence a legislator’s vote.

It really is a shallow tactic, however; it's a free country John, and you can say anything you want. However, when you say something that like you did, you have to be prepared to prove what you say is true or, be prepared to be held accountable for saying something that is not true. Nuff said.

John, if you are "absolutely certain" (your words, not mine) that three of those people that testified at the committee meeting were, in fact, representatives of the crossbow industry, I challenge you to prove it.

[Michihunter]

Anybody have this data?

I would like to see it right after and 5 years later and so on;)

Right now Ohio's numbers are 2 to 1 correct? Same as MI is right now.

Off topic but that rivers west stuff looks sweet, thx for the heads upIt's reasonable to assume that license sales went up 30 years ago. They did everywhere else too. That doesn't mean that it coincided with xbow users though. I'd love to see that data myself. ;)

[swoosh]

Ok

The riverswest stuff looks awesome, I am going with Back Country Jkt and pants.

What the heck were we talking about:lol:

[J Eberhart]

last reply

I am absolutely certain because they are fellow reps that represent xbow comapnies and are firends of mine whom I have been arguing with just as with you. They told me they were there and spoke, but I will not disclose their names.

The lawsuit is not over yet, don't count your chickens before they hatch. You obviously do not know much about activated carbon and in how many filtration devices and other types of similar adsorbtion purposes it is used for.

[Terry Williams]

Thanks for speaking up John.

[Michihunter]

last reply

I am absolutely certain because they are fellow reps that represent xbow comapnies and are firends of mine whom I have been arguing with just as with you. They told me they were there and spoke, but I will not disclose their names.

So you weren't there personally? Here's your chance to make a $250k and you won't reveal the names of people that are on public record? Might want to call them and ask permission if they're your friends.:lol::lol:

[Kelly Johnson]

I've seen enough.
We're so far off topic here it'll never get back.

[Whit1]

Whit

You actually believe yourself about no aditional hunters, you have got to be kidding. Anybody that thinks there will not be gun hunters convert to crossbow hunting to enjoy its ease of use (just like a short range gun)during warm weather conditions is way out there. Ohio's license sales went up dramatically. And without question, state lands are going to take the brunt of it.

John, that's not what I said in my post. I said "many". Of course there will be new archery hunters with crossbow inclusion. It's the "hundreds of thousands" figure that won't happen.