Michigan Outdoor News Crossbow Poll

[November Sunrise]

Online poll. Voice your support or opposition to the crossbow legislation.

http://michiganoutdoornews.com/

[Whit1]

I saw the poll and thought, "What an opportunity". However, upon further investigation, it was pointed out to me that they poll is set up to allow a "vote early and vote often" scenario. You can vote as often as you like.

The poll is worthless and even worse than worthless due to the fact that computer sitters can just add to the total vote on whichever side of the issue they sit.

[wally-eye]

Milt:

I see the poll has already been compromised. I hope that the staff running that poll realize what a fiasco they have on their hands if they leave it in its current configuration.......

Dan

[BigBirdVA]

Typical internet poll. Easily compromised. The ones that work best are email verification type. That way the obsessed vote stuffer on each side cancel each other out and you get a closer to real picture. Still all internet polls can be way off. When you see the poll go from one side in single digits to ahead overnight you know what happened.


I just checked and you can delete the cookie for the site and you can vote as many times as you want. :sad:


Gee wonder who didn't get much sleep last night hammering on their keyboard voting? LOL

[lang49]

Looks accurate to me. I voted no 4 times but the no result only incremented once. Looks like you'll have to find a better excuse as to why these numbers don't support your cause :evilsmile

[Michihunter]

Looks accurate to me. I voted no 4 times but the no result only incremented once. Looks like you'll have to find a better excuse as to why these numbers don't support your cause :evilsmile
Might want to read the comment above yours. All it takes is a cookie delete and yu can vote again. I think the only people passionate enough to go through that trouble would be an anti.;)

[Riva]

Typical internet poll. Easily compromised. The ones that work best are email verification type. That way the obsessed vote stuffer on each side cancel each other out and you get a closer to real picture. Still all internet polls can be way off. When you see the poll go from one side in single digits to ahead overnight you know what happened.
I just checked and you can delete the cookie for the site and you can vote as many times as you want. :sad:
Gee wonder who didn't get much sleep last night hammering on their keyboard voting? LOL

Actually, I like the kind of polling that doesn't simply indicate personal preferences and attitudes but rather, has some real substance and actionable matter behind it. A good example of such was the vote on HB5741 H2, a bill that will allow for full inclusion of the crossbow during any Michigan hunting season where archery equipment is currently permitted. That was a classic example of bi-partison censensus (polling) which incidentally, would be a classic example within any high school civics textexbook. In this instance, the duly-elected legislators voted overwhelmingly, 94 -14, in favor of this landmark bill. :D

[Michihunter]

Actually, I like the kind of polling that doesn't simply indicate personal preferences and attitudes but rather, has some real substance and actionable matter behind it. A good example of such was the vote on HB5741 H2, a bill that will allow for full inclusion of the crossbow during any Michigan hunting season where archery equipment is currently permitted. That was a classic example of bi-partison censensus (polling) which incidentally, would be a classic example within any high school civics textexbook. In this instance, the duly-elected legislators voted overwhelmingly, 94 -14, in favor of this landmark bill. :DOf the 14 naysayers, how many were from the Detroit arrea.:yikes:

[Riva]

Of the 14 naysayers, how many were from the Detroit arrea.:yikes:

The dissenting votes did not come from the Detroit area,as you might imply. In fact, only one dissenting vote came from Wayne County (Constan). Rather, the dissenting votes came from a cross section of the entire state:as did the 94 affirmative votes.:)

Dissenting Votes:


Agema: Ottowa
Green: Kent
Meekhof: Ingham
Proos: Berrien
Hildenbrand: Kent
Moolenaar: Saginaw
Sak: Kent
Constan: Wayne
Lindberg: Schoolcraft
Nitz: Berrien
DeRoche: Oakland
McDowell: Macinaw
Walker: Kalkaska
Booher: Osceola

[Michihunter]

The dissenting votes did not come from the Detroit area,as you might imply. In fact, only one dissenting vote came from Wayne County (Constan). Rather, the dissenting votes came from a cross section of the entire state:as did the 94 affirmative votes.:)

Dissenting Votes:


Agema: Ottowa
Green: Kent
Meekhof: Ingham
Proos: Berrien
Hildenbrand: Kent
Moolenaar: Saginaw
Sak: Kent
Constan: Wayne
Lindberg: Schoolcraft
Nitz: Berrien
DeRoche: Oakland
McDowell: Macinaw
Walker: Kalkaska
Booher: Osceola


I'm actually somewhat surprised by that. And not to get picky on ya but I see two votes( DeRoche out of Oakland) which is still somewhat surprising. This vote has more strength than I originally suspected.;)

[BigBirdVA]

Looks accurate to me. I voted no 4 times but the no result only incremented once. Looks like you'll have to find a better excuse as to why these numbers don't support your cause :evilsmileUh.... maybe you need to learn computers and how the internet works before you make such claims. :help:

Delete cookies, delete cache, close and open browser, and you can vote all you like if you follow these steps for each vote. I just tried it earlier this morning when I saw the totals jumped overnight. Worked for me but I have other things running when I visit a site like a script blocker for one. Believe me anyone that wants to alter the vote can easily do it. This is not the first vote or poll like this to be screwed up by a few. That's why more accurate polls use email verification to get results. Most people that try to skew the results only have so many email addresses to cast votes from so it's more accurate.

[TOW]

You do not even have to delete your cookies for this one.

Just wait a certain length of time and go back and vote - AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN......

This reminds me of the infamous Outdoor Life one that swung all over the place. The ODL people were aware of the ballot stuffing but loved it as their hit count went up. They love to show advertisers "hit counts" - poll be dammed..

[BigBirdVA]

We all know how a properly run poll turns out.................. NJ, KY, and it goes on and on.........:D

[Swamp Ghost]

Uh.... maybe you need to learn computers and how the internet works before you make such claims. :help:

Delete cookies, delete cache, close and open browser, and you can vote all you like if you follow these steps for each vote. I just tried it earlier this morning when I saw the totals jumped overnight. Worked for me but I have other things running when I visit a site like a script blocker for one. Believe me anyone that wants to alter the vote can easily do it. This is not the first vote or poll like this to be screwed up by a few. That's why more accurate polls use email verification to get results. Most people that try to skew the results only have so many email addresses to cast votes from so it's more accurate.

Sounds like some folks have experience at stacking an on-line poll....:lol:

[Joe Archer]

Sounds like some folks have experience at stacking an on-line poll....:lol:
Now thats funny! I don't care what you are shooting!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
<----<<<

[November Sunrise]

I can't believe you guys are so critical of this highly scientific poll that I posted a link to. I'm stung by the criticism...crushed as it were...here I thought that you guys were my friends....swamp ghost, will you be my friend?.....in the words of the great convicted felon Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

[Swamp Ghost]

I can't believe you guys are so critical of this highly scientific poll that I posted a link to. I'm stung by the criticism...crushed as it were...here I thought that you guys were my friends....swamp ghost, will you be my friend?.....in the words of the great convicted felon Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

I disagree with my friends all the time.;)

[wildcoy73]

LOL how many times can we hold a poll on this site, and have the results come out in favor of the crossbow? Atleast with the site poll you only get to vote once. I see a problem with this poll by allowing users to vote many times a few can be many in the eye of the poll. I will be sending out e-mails today that show the results of the two polls I have done on this sight and also let my senator know that this newest poll can not be trusted to speak for the sportsman in Michigan, along with the facts of how the poll is run.
the guys against this must be happy with the results, but I must ask all of you that support crossbows to let your senator know that the poll has a flaw and the true voice of the sportsman is to allow crossbows during all hunting season in Michigan.

[November Sunrise]

I disagree with my friends all the time.;)

Me too.

Matter of fact, now that I think about it, I often even disagree with myself :confused:

[Swamp Ghost]

"We do have some concerns as the bill was passed by the house," Eichinger told Michigan Outdoor News. "Section 40113A of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act states that it is the authority of the NRC to regulate the taking of game. We feel we should give full faith to the (NRC's subcommittee on crossbows) and the work they have done on this issue over the last four or five months."

In addition, Keck said that in 2000, the Legislature transferred the authority to regulate the use of crossbows to the NRC. Sheltrown's bill, he said, although it doesn't spell it out, attempts to take back that authority.


I'd rather take my chances with the NRC and that ain't sayin much.......

Doesn't the NRC have the final say in what weapons will be used and where?

Doesn't prop. G allow for modifications of this type of legislation?

Could get interesting.......

Kind of contradicts some claims by Shelltrown's mouthpiece:


No, Proposal G does not allow the NRC to alter statutory law. Proposal G only gives the NRC the sole authority to issue game orders (administrative rules). In terms of legal weight, theses rank below statutory law. They may not contradict statutory law.

Legislative authority in our system of government begins and ends with the electorate and its ELECTED representatives in the LEGISLATIVE branch who are DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ELECTORATE. Other than through a ballot referendum by the electorate, legislation can only be introduced by an elected legislator. And the Legislature has the final word through its ability to override a gubanatorial veto.

Proposal G was adopted as a change to statutory law. It is not Constitutional law. If it had been adopted as a Constitutional change, it would not survived a challenge in federal court.

One of the false things stated by the anti-crossbow crowd in this debate is that by moving the crossbow bill, the Legislature is somehow intruding on the authority of the NRC. This is not the case. In terms of crossbows, the NRC only has the authority to issue permits for permanently disabled individuals. Anything beyond this needs legislative action. Regardless, the Legislature has oversight authority over the NRC and DNR anyway.

Seems Dan Eichinger, the DNR's legislative liaison, disagrees with bradymsu's interpretation. He's not the only one.

[BigBirdVA]

Sounds like some folks have experience at stacking an on-line poll....:lol:No lots of experience in computers and what can be done with one. I know they can be skewed. Some don't. It's pointless to even click on the links to simple online polls.


Anytime you set up something where the anti-xbow faction can get to it you have to make sure the doors are locked and the dog put inside.

[2PawsRiver]

LOL how many times can we hold a poll on this site, and have the results come out in favor of the crossbow?

Many times, but I don't assume this site is a good cross representation of the outdoorsmen in the state. The majority come from one section of the state.

None of the people I know and hunt with in this area support full inclusion.

[TOW]

Sounds like some folks have experience at stacking an on-line poll....:lol:

You might say that we were given a lesson when the Outdoor Life crossbow poll swung 80,000 anti votes in a matter of hours.

Polls where a person has to be a member of the site (such as this one) are much more reliabe, but still are not "scientific".

[BigBirdVA]

Well if you don't like the results then make your own survey. UBNJ didn't like the one their DNR made. The questions were all wrong ( gee where have we heard that before?) so they made their own. They won't give actual numbers but they were surprised when their own club membership was split down the middle on it. Guess they need a different survey. Like this.......

Please answer the following question.

1. Do you approve of xbows during bow season?

No - I don't want them in bow season.
Yes - I don't want them in bow season.


There UBNJ (and others) approved ! :lol:

Here's the link where they cry in detail about it. :gaga:
http://www.ubnj.org/camp/fire.html

[TOW]

Well if you don't like the results then make your own survey. UBNJ didn't like the one their DNR made. The questions were all wrong ( gee where have we heard that before?) so they made their own. They won't give actual numbers but they were surprised when their own club membership was split down the middle on it. Guess they need a different survey. Like this.......

There UBNJ (and others) approved ! :lol:

Here's the link where they cry in detail about it. :gaga:
http://www.ubnj.org/camp/fire.html


WOW!! What an eye opener - for them..

On their web site they openly admit that their membership was "SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE". In other words, 50% of their members support Crossbows.

It is futile to resist....

[wildcoy73]

Many times, but I don't assume this site is a good cross representation of the outdoorsmen in the state. The majority come from one section of the state.

None of the people I know and hunt with in this area support full inclusion.

Please wake up you live in south Michigan and that is the majority of hunters stomping grounds.
If you have not met hunters in your area that support the crossbow you need to get outdoors a bit more.
Yes I will believe the polls on this site alot more than the others. we have hunter from every county in this state and none of them where excluded in the poll.

[2PawsRiver]

Please wake up you live in south Michigan and that is the majority of hunters stomping grounds.
If you have not met hunters in your area that support the crossbow you need to get outdoors a bit more.


If you look close under most of the screen names you will see their location. If you pay attention to their locations you will see that the majority of members from Southern Michigan are from the East side of the state.

I am from Southwest Michigan which has a lower percentage of membership, much like the UP. More then likely it is in line with the actual populations associated with different areas of the state.

As for my time outdoors, I prefer quality over quantity. Same applies to the outdoorsmen I associate with. I am sure there are many hunters in Southwest Michigan who support the inclusion of Crossbows, I just don't know them.

[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]

Kind of contradicts some claims by Shelltrown's mouthpiece:




Seems Dan Eichinger, the DNR's legislative liaison, disagrees with bradymsu's interpretation. He's not the only one.

They may disagree but brady is correct. and that article with the comments by the mbh mouthpeice came off as a poorly written commedy. It seems to me that some of theyre statements are so outrageous that they bring discredit to the organization.

[Munsterlndr]

Kind of interesting to look at the poll and then look at the comments that people have left. The poll looks pretty evenly divided but the comments sure lean towards one side of the issue! Sure makes one wonder about how many times a few individuals must have voted. ;)

[Riva]

They may disagree but brady is correct. and that article with the comments by the mbh mouthpeice came off as a poorly written commedy. It seems to me that some of theyre statements are so outrageous that they bring discredit to the organization.

Discredit--my foot! "Shame" is a better word to decribe the patent untruths mouthed by the MBH guy in that article. You know, that for an organization that states that they maintain a certain "purity" alongside some "cherished traditions", actual facts seem to take second fiddle when making a statement, pro or con, on the crossbow issue. However; most of us have come to realize that this tactic has become standard issue for them, much akin to yelling the word "fire" in a crowded theater!

[Swamp Ghost]

Discredit--my foot! "Shame" is a better word to decribe the patent untruths mouthed by the MBH guy in that article. You know, that for an organization that states that they maintain a certain "purity" alongside some "cherished traditions", actual facts seem to take second fiddle when making a statement, pro or con, on the crossbow issue. However; most of us have come to realize that this tactic has become standard issue for them, much akin to yelling the word "fire" in a crowded theater!

I forgot, the crossbow advocate and the HB5741 H2 pushers are pure as a January snowfall.....:rolleyes:

[Riva]

I forgot, the crossbow advocate and the HB5741 H2 pushers are pure as a January snowfall.....:rolleyes:

Swampy. of all the things that you have penned surrounding this voluminous topic, that is probably the closest thing to an 100% accurate statment that a person can make. I/we appreciace your candor.:D

[Swamp Ghost]

Swampy. of all the things that you have penned surrounding this voluminous topic, that is probably the closest thing to an 100% accurate statment that a person can make. I/we appreciace your candor.:D

I get a real kick out of folks that place themselves on a pedestal. ;)

[butter21]

Wonder what the pro crossbow people would be saying if they were winning this poll. I'm not saying this poll is set up good, but its just funny that your losing, so discredit it.

[TOW]

Wonder what the pro crossbow people would be saying if they were winning this poll. I'm not saying this poll is set up good, but its just funny that your losing, so discredit it.

I think that the multivoting was pointed out real quick before the poll got slanted.

Post #2 here..

[Riva]

I think that the multivoting was pointed out real quick before the poll got slanted.

Post #2 here..


Poll, schmoll. Who cares? The only one that counts is this one:

HB5741 H2

For: 94

Against: 14

"The motion prevailed"

[butter21]

I think that the multivoting was pointed out real quick before the poll got slanted.

Post #2 here..
Thus why I said this poll is not set up good.

[Terry Williams]

I think that the multivoting was pointed out real quick before the poll got slanted.

Post #2 here..


Does slanted equate too losing?

[TOW]

Does slanted equate too losing?

nope. it can slant both ways

[Terry Williams]

nope. it can slant both ways


Your absolutely correct and thats the unfortunate part of these types of "polls".

[TOW]

Your absolutely correct and thats the unfortunate part of these types of "polls".


The sad part about Terry, is that they could make it where it is one vote per customer.

They really don't care if the poll is slanted either way, as long as they get hits.

[Terry Williams]

We all know that polls often times mean very little in the outcome of an issue. Although politicians are probably more prone to be influenced by them than the general public.

[TOW]

We all know that polls often times mean very little in the outcome of an issue. Although politicians are probably more prone to be influenced by them than the general public.

LOL...... some politicans, actually most, would not know how to govern without polls telling them which way the wind is blowing.

That is one reason I am still a Bush supporter as he did his own thing polls be dammed.

[bradymsu]

Swamp Ghost, no where in Dan Eichinger's statement is anything that says the NRC has the power to supercede state law because of Proposal G. In fact, I would be very surprised to ever see anyone from the NRC or DNR make this argument. Keep in mind that state law, section 324.40114 to be precise, currently only allows the DNR to issue crossbow permits to people who are permanently disabled.

The NRC recognizes that it does not have the authority under Proposal G to extend crossbow permits to anyone other than the permanently disabled. We know that because on the issue of offering crossbow permits to people who are temporarily disabled, the NRC has said that the change must go before the Legislature.

And even though Sheltrown and the NRC both recognize that the NRC does not have the authority under Proposal G to go beyond 324.40114, Sheltrown asked the NRC if it would like to explore the issue and make a recommendation to the Legislature. The NRC declined. Keep in mind that it declined to even hold a public discussion on the issue, not that it held a discussion and decided expanding crossbow use was a bad idea. I'm not going to guess in public why the NRC doesn't want to discuss this issue and make a recommendation to the Legislature. But we know that it isn't because the NRC/DNR is concerned about safety or management impact due to Mr. Eichinger's answers to these questions put before him by the House committee.

To be fair, I'm not an attorney. So to make sure I was correct about the NRC's authority under Proposal G, I asked the attorneys at the Legislative Service Bureau about this issue. These are the attorneys that actually drafted both the crossbow law and Prosposal G. LSB told me that Prosposal G was simply a legislative finding ratified by voters that the NRC has the authority to issue administrative rules for the taking of game. It did not take away any authority from the Legislature. It does not give the NRC the authority to make or change statutory law. And statutory law trumps administrative rules.

LSB went on to tell me that even if someone were to make the long-shot argument that Proposal G (MCL 324.40113a) allows the NRC the authority to address the broader use of crossbows beyond the permanently disabled because Proposal G was adopted after the original adoption of the crossbow law, they'd still be wrong. And the reason they'd be wrong is that the Legislature re-ratified the section of law that addresses crossbows (40114) just last month when it adopted Public Act 169 of 2008 dealing with modified bows. Ironically, this public act was introduced and adopted at the request of MBH, meaning MBH undermined what little argument they actually had that the crossbow issue should be addressed by the NRC, not the Legislature.

Saying the Legislature is stepping on the NRC's toes by addressing the issue of full inclusion of crossbows, age restrictions, permits for the temporarily disabled or any use beyond permits for the permanently disabled is incorrect. For people who like analogies, it would be like saying that it's wrong of you not to lend your bow to my 9 year old son to allow him to hunt deer. First of all, it's not his bow. Second of all, he couldn't hunt deer with it even if it was.

Even beyond all of this is the basic concept of our form of government that the Legislative branch of government directly elected by and accountable to the people has the highest and final authority to make law under the Constitution.

If anyone would like to attempt to make an argument about how the NRC would have authority to change Michigan's crossbow law due to Proposal G or any other legal authority, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this is a dead argument and MBH is clearly wrong.

On another topic, no legislator is going to take the results from that on-line poll seriously. Legislators do sometimes factor public opinion obtained through polling into their votes but it's from very different types of polls than the one being discussed here.

[swampbuck]

thanks for the clarification.

[Michihunter]

Anybody hear that pin drop?:lol::lol: Looks like brady shut dem boys up quick. Not bad for a sparty!:D:D

[BigBirdVA]

Somebody let all the air out of that argument. :lol: Nice one. :D

[Swamp Ghost]

Law is all about intepretation, get the right Judge or Representative and anything is possible....

Law can be re-written or overturned and a house bill can be stopped in a Senate commitee.

[Michihunter]

Law is all about intepretation, get the right Judge or Representative and anything is possible....

Law can be re-written or overturned and a house bill can be stopped in a Senate commitee.SG- You sure do get the 1st place trophy for perserverance. Even if it's with huge stretches of the imagination, you still get up from the count. I think we need a 3 knockdown and your out rule here.:lol::lol:

[Munsterlndr]

Boy, the comments that have been posted after the article sure seem pretty one sided. For the most part people are in favor of full inclusion and then you have one guy desperately defending MBH and trying to mis-direct the debate. Anybody want to lay odds that "Purist" and Swamp Ghost are the same person? :lol:

[swampbuck]

Law is all about intepretation, get the right Judge or Representative and anything is possible....

Law can be re-written or overturned and a house bill can be stopped in a Senate commitee.

Do you not realize that bradymsu is actually Rep. Sheltrowns aid, who did the research and provided the legal opinion. And He has probably looked at more crossbow data and laws than all of us put together in the last few months, Or are you so blinded by your fear of what crossbows will do to YOUR season that you cant accept reality.

[Kelly Johnson]

Do you not realize that bradymsu is actually Rep. Sheltrowns aid, who did the research and provided the legal opinion. And He has probably looked at more crossbow data and laws than all of us put together in the last few months, Or are you so blinded by your fear of what crossbows will do to YOUR season that you cant accept reality.

Anyone can look for, and find, data to support an issue when the desired end result is kept in mind from inception.;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Boy, the comments that have been posted after the article sure seem pretty one sided. For the most part people are in favor of full inclusion and then you have one guy desperately defending MBH and trying to mis-direct the debate. Anybody want to lay odds that "Purist" and Swamp Ghost are the same person? :lol:

There is a comment section?

Good to know.

[Swamp Ghost]

Do you not realize that bradymsu is actually Rep. Sheltrowns aid, who did the research and provided the legal opinion. And He has probably looked at more crossbow data and laws than all of us put together in the last few months, Or are you so blinded by your fear of what crossbows will do to YOUR season that you cant accept reality.

Aids making legal opinions.....:lol:

Did he recommend the good representative's opinion on DNR revenue and increasing MI's deer herd as well? :rolleyes:

I am not and never have "feared" the crossbow.

I simply oppose crossbow inclusion in MI's "archery" season.

[Swamp Ghost]

After gleaning over the comments I see alot of out of state crossbow users and bowhunting bashers.

You guys win.....:lol:

[swampbuck]

Aids making legal opinions.....:lol:

Did he recommend the good representative's opinion on DNR revenue and increasing MI's deer herd as well? :rolleyes:

I am not and never have "feared" the crossbow.

I simply oppose crossbow inclusion in MI's "archery" season.

Are you refering to his opinion that they need to provide a better product if they want to double the price, or are you refering to the arrangment he made to get 6.5 mil from the general fund to keep the dnr solvent late last year that was cancelled when they "found" the 10 mil.

As far as the meeting in west branch about increasing the deer herd, it involved a specific area and was arranged at the request of residents of the district who elected him as theyre Rep., Sounds like he was/is doing the job he was elected too. or maybe you are refering to the statewide series of deer management meetings a few years ago, So that the public could get theyre voices heard, I thought that was a good idea myself.

You dont happen to own lake front property do you, He has a lake access bill out there. His O.R.V. bill just passed, do you ride orv's. both are targeted at increasing/preserving opportunitys for outdoor recreation. and both of those bills seek to return authority to the LOCAL govt. Maybe you just dont realize when a politician is doing the job they are elected to do. And while I am extremely happy with his crossbow efforts I fully realize that had the anti guys/mbha BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THEYRE CASE AS WELL AS THE PRO CROSSBOW SIDE HE WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING FULL INCLUSION, AND THEY DID HAVE THEYRE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH HIM PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE BILL AND FAILED TO PRESENT A SOLID CASE. IN FACT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THEY DIDNT TAKE UP HIS OFFER TO MEET. As a matter of fact after getting frustrated with the nrc stalling for months partially because of the mbha last fall he gave them notice to do something before spring or he would. They didnt, he did. Again could he maybe have been doing the job that the voters elected him for

And as far as Brady, You may think he is just an aid. I think you would be surprised the amount of s*** he has been through on all of our our behalfs on several issues. dont underestimate his experience or dedication to the job that he does. His job involves a bit more than making coffee.

[bradymsu]

Swamp Ghost, As I volunteered in the last post, I am not an attorney. That's why I asked the opinion of the attorneys who actually drafted Proposal G and the original crossbow law. And I've reported their answer.

Regarding DNR revenue, where do you disagree with Rep. Sheltrown? He supports a modest fee increase combined with General Fund restoration to the department and a fairer distribution of costs on user groups who are not currently paying anything (hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, birdwatchers, etc.) who you are subsidizing. Sheltrown even won a commitment from the Governor last December to restore $5 million in General Fund support to the DNR that was eventually scuttled when it was reveled the DNR was holding $10 million in reserve funds that were previously unreported.

What about Michigan's deer herd? Unless you are a farmer or an insurance agent, there is general consensus that Zone 3 is overpopulated, Zone 2 is slightly underpopulated, and Zone 1 is quite underpopulated. The NRC wisely adjusted the recommendations from DNR's Wildlife Division over it's past two meetings to deal with this and to improve buck quality in the UP. Again, where do you disagree with Sheltrown?

I'll be the first to admit that we make mistakes. We can't be experts from the beginning on every natural resource issue. A good example is a bill that was introduced this year to auction off some Elk licenses to the highest bidders. The bill's sponsor told us it would increase revenue to the DNR's Wildlife Fund and Sheltrown had about an hour to decide to co-sponsor it. He added his name as a co-sponsor. Once we had time to explore the issue, we realized we had made a mistake. Consequently, the bill will not be given a hearing. We were wrong and we freely admit that.

The same goes for crossbows. The bill we drafted only provided for 69 and older. We introduced the bill mainly to encourage the NRC to take up discusison of crossbows which had not happened since its workgroup was ordered by Chairman Charters seven months prior. Following introduction of the bill, our research in other states and feedback from wildlife management folks in Michigan indicated full inclusion made more sense from a sound scientific management standpoint than our bill as introduced. Again, we had the humility to admit we were wrong and to adopt the wiser public policy.

And we do acknowledge you are right on several points. Full inclusion of crossbows will alter the heritage of the traditional archery deer season, perhaps even more than the full inclusion of compound bows did several decades ago. Crossbows are in some ways easier to use than vertical bows although they are in other ways harder, especially compared to some of the ultra-modern (and legal) compound bows. And full inclusion of crossbows will increase the number of people in the woods in October. Although given the 20%+ drop in archery hunters over the past 10 years and that continuing trend, crossbows will likely only help slow the loss of bowhunters.

What I'm coming to is an admission that we're sometimes wrong on natural resources issues, just like the DNR, NRC, MUCC or anyone with a long-term passion for Michigan's outdoors is. But looking at the facts about crossbows and the trend in Michigan's bowhunting season, we're asking you and MBH to have the same humility. Work with us to help combat the long-term loss of hunters rather than looking out for your own personal short-term interests. We ought to be allies, not adversaries. We share the same real enemies and cultural challanges.

[Michihunter]

Swamp Ghost, As I volunteered in the last post, I am not an attorney. That's why I asked the opinion of the attorneys who actually drafted Proposal G and the original crossbow law. And I've reported their answer.

Regarding DNR revenue, where do you disagree with Rep. Sheltrown? He supports a modest fee increase combined with General Fund restoration to the department and a fairer distribution of costs on user groups who are not currently paying anything (hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, birdwatchers, etc.) who you are subsidizing. Sheltrown even won a commitment from the Governor last December to restore $5 million in General Fund support to the DNR that was eventually scuttled when it was reveled the DNR was holding $10 million in reserve funds that were previously unreported.

What about Michigan's deer herd? Unless you are a farmer or an insurance agent, there is general consensus that Zone 3 is overpopulated, Zone 2 is slightly underpopulated, and Zone 1 is quite underpopulated. The NRC wisely adjusted the recommendations from DNR's Wildlife Division over it's past two meetings to deal with this and to improve buck quality in the UP. Again, where do you disagree with Sheltrown?

I'll be the first to admit that we make mistakes. We can't be experts from the beginning on every natural resource issue. A good example is a bill that was introduced this year to auction off some Elk licenses to the highest bidders. The bill's sponsor told us it would increase revenue to the DNR's Wildlife Fund and Sheltrown had about an hour to decide to co-sponsor it. He added his name as a co-sponsor. Once we had time to explore the issue, we realized we had made a mistake. Consequently, the bill will not be given a hearing. We were wrong and we freely admit that.

The same goes for crossbows. The bill we drafted only provided for 69 and older. We introduced the bill mainly to encourage the NRC to take up discusison of crossbows which had not happened since its workgroup was formed seven months prior. Following introduction of the bill, our research in other states and feedback from wildlife management folks in Michigan indicated full inclusion made more sense from a sound scientific management standpoint than our bill as introduced. Again, we had the humility to admit we were wrong and to adopt the wiser public policy.

And we do acknowledge you are right on several points. Full inclusion of crossbows will alter the heritage of the traditional archery deer season, perhaps even more than the full inclusion of compound bows did several decades ago. Crossbows are in some ways easier to use than vertical bows although they are in other ways harder, especially compared to some of the ultra-modern (and legal) compound bows. And full inclusion of crossbows will increase the number of people in the woods in October. Although given the 20%+ drop in archery hunters over the past 10 years and that continuing trend, crossbows will likely only help slow the loss of bowhunters.

What I'm coming to is an admission that we're sometimes wrong on natural resources issues, just like the DNR, NRC, MUCC or anyone with a long-term passion for Michigan's outdoors is. But looking at the facts about crossbows and the trend in Michigan's bowhunting season, we're asking you and MBH to have the same humility. Work with us to help combat the long-term loss of hunters rather than looking out for your own personal short-term interests. We ought to be allies, not adversaries. We share the same real enemies and cultural challanges.

Keep posting things like that and you'll take all the fun out of these 'debates' we have here.:lol::lol:

[Swamp Ghost]

Swamp Ghost, As I volunteered in the last post, I am not an attorney. That's why I asked the opinion of the attorneys who actually drafted Proposal G and the original crossbow law. And I've reported their answer.

Regarding DNR revenue, where do you disagree with Rep. Sheltrown? He supports a modest fee increase combined with General Fund restoration to the department and a fairer distribution of costs on user groups who are not currently paying anything (hikers, mountain bikers, mushroom pickers, birdwatchers, etc.) who you are subsidizing. Sheltrown even won a commitment from the Governor last December to restore $5 million in General Fund support to the DNR that was eventually scuttled when it was reveled the DNR was holding $10 million in reserve funds that were previously unreported.

What about Michigan's deer herd? Unless you are a farmer or an insurance agent, there is general consensus that Zone 3 is overpopulated, Zone 2 is slightly underpopulated, and Zone 1 is quite underpopulated. The NRC wisely adjusted the recommendations from DNR's Wildlife Division over it's past two meetings to deal with this and to improve buck quality in the UP. Again, where do you disagree with Sheltrown?

I'll be the first to admit that we make mistakes. We can't be experts from the beginning on every natural resource issue. A good example is a bill that was introduced this year to auction off some Elk licenses to the highest bidders. The bill's sponsor told us it would increase revenue to the DNR's Wildlife Fund and Sheltrown had about an hour to decide to co-sponsor it. He added his name as a co-sponsor. Once we had time to explore the issue, we realized we had made a mistake. Consequently, the bill will not be given a hearing. We were wrong and we freely admit that.

The same goes for crossbows. The bill we drafted only provided for 69 and older. We introduced the bill mainly to encourage the NRC to take up discusison of crossbows which had not happened since its workgroup was ordered by Chairman Charters seven months prior. Following introduction of the bill, our research in other states and feedback from wildlife management folks in Michigan indicated full inclusion made more sense from a sound scientific management standpoint than our bill as introduced. Again, we had the humility to admit we were wrong and to adopt the wiser public policy.

And we do acknowledge you are right on several points. Full inclusion of crossbows will alter the heritage of the traditional archery deer season, perhaps even more than the full inclusion of compound bows did several decades ago. Crossbows are in some ways easier to use than vertical bows although they are in other ways harder, especially compared to some of the ultra-modern (and legal) compound bows. And full inclusion of crossbows will increase the number of people in the woods in October. Although given the 20%+ drop in archery hunters over the past 10 years and that continuing trend, crossbows will likely only help slow the loss of bowhunters.

What I'm coming to is an admission that we're sometimes wrong on natural resources issues, just like the DNR, NRC, MUCC or anyone with a long-term passion for Michigan's outdoors is. But looking at the facts about crossbows and the trend in Michigan's bowhunting season, we're asking you and MBH to have the same humility. Work with us to help combat the long-term loss of hunters rather than looking out for your own personal short-term interests. We ought to be allies, not adversaries. We share the same real enemies and cultural challanges.

Adversarial on one issue doen't make a general adversary.

Bowhunter's hold a consistant percantage of firearm hunters, hovering around 50%, bowhunter trends follow gunhunter trends.

SO why the focus on a weapon issue involving "archery" season? POLITICS

IS the crossbow a long term solution to anything? NO

When I hear Rep. Sheltrown's comments about increasing the the NLP deer herd (with TB and CWD still a threat) and chastising the DNR request for license fee increases based on "what they have done to the deer herd" it's nothing more than pandering, as is HB 5471 H2, political pandering.

I recall all quite a bit of focus placed on the revenue aspect of full inclusion and how it would play a big factor in why the Govenor would sign it.

Instead of the real solution of a much needed license fee increase, we get an unfounded possibility and spectualtion in return in the form of crossbow inclusion as an answer.

Instead of a real plan to counter MI's declining number of hunter's and exploding, lop-sided deer herd, we get another "lessor" weapon to use within the constraints of outdated deer management.

I really don't know why I am surprised by this, it's simply a continual cycle of ineptetude by a disfunctional, uninformed, out of touch electorate.

I also don't know why we are discussing Rep. Sheltrown's and the House's involvment anymore, when another of their short-sighted mistakes sits in a Senate commitee.

[BigBirdVA]

After gleaning over the comments I see alot of out of state crossbow users and bowhunting bashers.

You guys win.....:lol:You need new glasses.