NRC Disability Workgroup and Continued Obstruction by MBH Reps

[November Sunrise]

At their May meeting the NRC Crossbow Disability Work Group met.

Here's a link to the minutes:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/5-8-08_nrc_minutes_237117_7.pdf

From page 12:

Following discussion, Rex Darlington made a motion, supported by Chuck Jordan, to set the minimum bow poundage to 35 pounds for a "functional draw test." Motion passed unanimously.

Following discussion, Chuck Jordan made a motion, supported by Dr. Wilming, to require a minimum of four (4) seconds of holding the bow in shooting position for a "functional draw test." If unable to do so, this may qualify the applicant for a crossbow permit. Motion passed 6-2.

Following discussion, Chuck Jordan made a motion, supported by Jeff DeRegnacourt, to accept physicians, and physical and occupational therapists to perform the muscle weakness and range of motion evaluations, provided that test methods and results are submitted with the application. Motion passed 6-4.


The NRC Crossbow Disability Work Group met again in June.

Here's a link to their minutes:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/NRC_6-5-06_Minutes_242003_7.pdf

From page 13:

Following discussion, Bruce Levey made a motion, supported by Jerry Keck, to change the draft permit testing criteria to 30 pounds of resistance and to eliminate the four second hold requirement. Motion failed with 6 voting yes and 7 voting no.

Just in case this isn't clear, here's another case where the MBH reps voted to make the approval process more difficult for those with disabilities. Instead of sticking with what the work group had passed in May (can an applicant draw a 35 lb bow and hold it for 4 seconds?)they instead proposed that if an individual can draw 30 lbs and hold it for even a fraction of a second then that individual should be denied a crossbow permit. Thanfully their motion failed.

My understanding is that the NRC will vote in August of whether or not to approve the recommendations of the work group which in essence consists of what was agreed to at the May meeting.

[Riva]

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.

I would like to share that the above quote was taken from a purportedly renowned archery legend, and an anti-crossbow activist, John Eberhart.

Why would the same organization advocate the testing criteria be lowered to a mere 30 pounds and no hold time?. Could it be that..oh gosh! :yikes:

[boehr]

It would be a good time to flood e-mails and letters to the NRC supporting the 35 pound 4 second test for approval along with the continued fight in support of the House Bill that just flat out allows a crossbow to be used by everyone during bow season.

[Michihunter]

It would be a good time to flood e-mails and letters to the NRC supporting the 35 pound 4 second test for approval along with the continued fight in support of the House Bill that just flat out allows a crossbow to be used by everyone during bow season.
IMO that would be taking a step backwards. Everyone SHOULD be able to use a bow of a different flavor. Not only that, the resources necessary to test out everyone that would be apt to take this test would certainly seem to be overwhelming for a department that seems to be low in the coffers.

[TOW]

My personal opinion is that no one should hunt deer with 35 pound pull bow.

Yes, I know that deer have been killed with that poundage but by and large that is very, very marginal and all things had better line up just right..

Question - Who will conduct this "pull test"?

[BigBirdVA]

My personal opinion is that no one should hunt deer with 35 pound pull bow.

Yes, I know that deer have been killed with that poundage but by and large that is very, very marginal and all things had better line up just right..

Question - Who will conduct this "pull test"?Swampy will! :yikes:

[Liv4Huntin']

This still does not address any shoulder condition that would not allow for the 'shooter' to raise/hold up the bow. Nor does it address the hours of practice with repetitive motion required to execute ethical shots in the field. Not a good solution, IMO.
~m~

[Munsterlndr]

My personal opinion is that no one should hunt deer with 35 pound pull bow.


35lbs? Heck, Bob Garner, one of our former NRC commissioners told a story at an NRC meeting about hunting with a 27 lb. bow and thought that was just fine for taking a whitetail and thus crossbows were not needed by anybody. :rolleyes:


The whole pull test thing is a bogus criteria anyway, as there are individuals who can pull a 35 or 40 lb. bow and hold it for five seconds but can't take the cumulative strain of pulling that bow twenty or thirty times a day to practice or can't pull that weight after sitting immobile out in the cold for a few hours. Full inclusion is the rational solution as has been proved in a dozen other states.

[Tom Morang]

Munsterlndr said:

"35lbs? Heck, Bob Garner, one of our former NRC commissioners told a story at an NRC meeting about hunting with a 27 lb. bow and thought that was just fine for taking a whitetail and thus crossbows were not needed by anybody."


Tim, Chuck, or Jeff or whatever your name is are you absolutely certain that is exactly what Bob Garner said?



"The problem with libel in the Internet-era is twofold - the anonymity of the Internet makes lying both easier and harder to correct, and the use of lies creates hatred that makes reconciling opposing factions difficult, if not outright impossible."---Danielle Allen

[November Sunrise]

"The problem with libel in the Internet-era is twofold - the anonymity of the Internet makes lying both easier and harder to correct, and the use of lies creates hatred that makes reconciling opposing factions difficult, if not outright impossible."---Danielle Allen

Tom,

Was there something in what I posted from the minutes that was incorrect?

You're a stand up guy, with a well deserved reputation for being a person of integrity. My understanding is that you're also an active member of MBH.

Can you give us some insight in terms of what gives with these continued shenanigans by some MBH leaders in terms of them continually attempting to complicate and obstruct the permit process for disabled hunters?

I'm not looking for anything related to why they object to full inclusion. My puzzlement is the stance they've taken on their website of opposing a reduction in the disability limit to anything less than 80%, as well as the tactic they attempted in the workgroup and that I highlighted here of trying to make it much harder for those with disabilities to qualify for a permit.

[Munsterlndr]

Munsterlndr said:

"35lbs? Heck, Bob Garner, one of our former NRC commissioners told a story at an NRC meeting about hunting with a 27 lb. bow and thought that was just fine for taking a whitetail and thus crossbows were not needed by anybody."


Tim, Chuck, or Jeff or whatever your name is are you absolutely certain that is exactly what Bob Garner said?


It's none of the above, Tom but nice try.

Garner made the statement that he had used a 27 lb bow to harvest a deer during his response to someone speaking about crossbows during the public comment portion of an NRC meeting, I believe it was sometime in 2005. I have a copy of the minutes with the exact quote somewhere, just can't put my hand on it at the moment but I'll post it when I find it.

[Riva]

I for one, would like to know precisely what the Michigan Bowhunters Association means by the text contained in your public position statement regarding the current standard for determining crossbow permit eligibility for physically challenged hunters, specifically:

Also, we would be very supportive of a more "vigorous scrutiny" of crossbow permit applications by the DNR Law division to further address the abuse issue.

Help me with this one, will ya, Tom?

How exactly do you guys define a "vigorous scrutiny"?

- Before?

- During?

- After?

Considering, when there are only, by last count, approximately 15,000 disabled persons currently able to meet the State of Michigan's current criteria that allows a disabled person the opportunity to participate as an equal during the Michigan archery season, just how cataclysmic can it be that some disabled person, who does not quite meet this profoundly overly restrictive criteria, yet is still unable to pull or hold a bow, be turned aside?

Could this number be an additional five disabled persons?

Could it be an additional 100 disabled persons?

Is the additional of just "one" disabled person that doesn't meet the current criteria, yet still cannot pull or hold a regular bow, too many to you?

Tom, you're the first person from the MBH to comment on these critically important matters to date. Please, for all of us here, expand on EXACTLY whatyou guys really mean by your official position statement reagrding "vigorous scrutiny". Some of us are frightened by its inference to vigilantism and the compromise of one's constitutional rights. Regrettably, only you guys can clear these matters up because, after all, they're your words, not mine!


Thanks, Tom.

[Tom Morang]

Jeff, thank you, what you posted was correct as far as I know(minus your comments of course). Teresa doesn't make many mistakes. But all I can really say is that I have not worked on this particular issue and I'm not comfortable making comments on it. My question and comment was only directed at Munsterlndr in regards to his comment about what Bob Garner may have said at a NRC meeting.

Riva, I can not comment on your questions as I am not an officer of MBH. I made no comment on this thread other than to ask a question of Munster, or Jeff, or Tim,or Milt;) or whoever he is.

BTW Law Division has looked into some crossbow applications after the permits were granted. I don't think there is any need to be frightened.

Whit, don't change the subject. I was specifically asking Munster the question, he's a big boy.

Munster, I remember that meeting and I don't believe Bob ever said "crossbows were not needed by anybody". I know better than that. But for the sake of argument if you find those minutes please post them and I will stand corrected.

I would like to comment on the power of a 30 lb. modern compound bow.
In the fall of 2001 I broke my left wrist keeping me out of the hunt for 4 weeks. In December I used a 28lb bow using my right arm and a mouth tab and took a nice 2.5 year old doe. Thank God Michigan does not have a minimum bow weight law. They keep a lot of women and children in the woods(and clod hoppers like me). There are methods and equipment choices other than a crossbow for those of us that may need it. Can we make it better? Sure. Let's see what the NRC comes up with, my guess is you will appreciate it.

You might ask why we didn't make allowances for temporary permits when we wrote the original crossbow bill. The Department (DNR) at that time didn't want to be burdened with that task so it was left out of the legislation by request I believe. The original bill passed the house and the senate (unanimously) and signed by the Governor in one short session, sort of a landmark public act.

Best Regards,
Tom

"The problem with libel in the Internet-era is twofold - the anonymity of the Internet makes lying both easier and harder to correct, and the use of lies creates hatred that makes reconciling opposing factions difficult, if not outright impossible."---Danielle Allen

[Munsterlndr]

Munster, I remember that meeting and I don't believe Bob ever said "crossbows were not needed by anybody". I know better than that. But for the sake of argument if you find those minutes please post them and I will stand corrected.

I would like to comment on the power of a 30 lb. modern compound bow.
In the fall of 2001 I broke my left wrist keeping me out of the hunt for 4 weeks. In December I used a 28lb bow using my right arm and a mouth tab and took a nice 2.5 year old doe. Thank God Michigan does not have a minimum bow weight law. They keep a lot of women and children in the woods(and clod hoppers like me). There are methods and equipment choices other than a crossbow for those of us that may need it. Can we make it better? Sure. Let's see what the NRC comes up with, my guess is you will appreciate it.


Tom -
If you look at the statement that I made you will see there were no quotation marks around it. It was made in the context of a thread about the ethics of recommending low poundage weights for vertical bows and what level of weight is acceptable. I was pointing out that one of our former NRC Commissioners seemed to think that 27 lbs was sufficient to hunt with. You clearly remember the story if you were at the meeting. The implication in that meeting from the statement Garner made about using a 27 lb. bow was clear, that a low poundage vertical bow was a perfectly reasonable tool to use to harvest a deer and thus crossbows were not really needed by those that could not pull standard bow weights. I would have used quotation marks had I been quoting him verbatim. I should not have implied that he felt that crossbows were not needed by anybody but it was pretty clear that he felt that low poundage bows were a reasonable alternative to crossbows for younger or weaker hunters who could not draw the amount of poundage that is generally accepted as the ethical minimum of approx. 40 lbs. If you want to join Bob on the "low poundage" bandwagon as a good idea for Woman and kids, have at it. Good luck selling the idea that it's acceptable for bow hunters to use weights under 35 - 40 lbs to the vast majority of hunters, most bow hunters included. It's a bad idea that will result in a lot of wounded deer and disappointed hunters. But I guess some will go to any lengths to keep those "evil" crossbows from being used during archery season. ;)

Why do you think that most states have a minimum poundage limit on bows? Because it is almost universally accepted that as the poundage is reduced the energy imparted by the arrow is decreased to the point where it is often non-lethal and the potential for wounding the deer is increased substantially. Promoting regulations that would steer individuals into using low poundage weapons that have only a marginal capability of a clean and ethical harvest, instead of allowing them to use a viable alternative weapon that could help insure an ethical kill, seems to me at best short-sighted and at worst bordering on unethical.

[Tom Morang]

Thanks for clearing that up Munster. Did you find the minutes you were looking for? I'm so glad you expounded on your original statement and intent.

As far as bow poundage is concerned a modern compound bow of 30lb. plus is very capable of killing a deer. That is a fact.

I can see that if you were promoting crossbows you might want to call using a low poundage bow "at best short-sighted and at worst bordering on unethical." If you want to debate ethics I would remind you that there are many who believe that nothing less than a gun should be used to kill anything. Do we really want to go there?

I would expect you to promote nothing other than a crossbow, but, as you said that is your opinion and you are entitled to it no matter who you may be. Jeff, Tim, Rex, whoever. ;)


Best Regards,
Tom



"The problem with libel in the Internet-era is twofold - the anonymity of the Internet makes lying both easier and harder to correct, and the use of lies creates hatred that makes reconciling opposing factions difficult, if not outright impossible."---Danielle Allen

[MERGANZER]

Any test of that nature is bogus anyhow. Remember OJ trying to put on the glove?????? Gimme break you can fake not being able to pulla b ow b ack pretty easily IMO. If you are disabled fine!!!!! Otherwise stop the laziness and get a bow

Ganzer

[Riva]

Riva, I can not comment on your questions as I am not an officer of MBH. I made no comment on this thread other than to ask a question of Munster, or Jeff, or Tim,or Milt;) or whoever he is.

BTW Law Division has looked into some crossbow applications after the permits were granted. I don't think there is any need to be frightened.


Well then, if there is no need to be frightened, then precisely why was this language inserted into the MBH position statement? It's either flagrant puffery or, they actually mean it.

My concerns are twofold:

First, as a disabled hunter that already uses a crossbow, I do not want produce my crossbow permit (that I carry on my person at all times while afield) to any person unless it association with some other legal matter and not the fact that I am simply carrying a crossbow. The possibility that some knucklehead would blatantly hunt with a crossbow in broad daylight without a disability permit whatsoever is so miniscule, that it virtually discounts this as a criterion to advocate for a "vigorous scrutiny."

That stated, if a duly authorized official of the state indeed asked me to produce my permit (which I would) one has to be aware that there is absolutely nothing that official can do with it other than to say "thank you very much" and hand it back to me. That person is certainly not going to quantify my disability. At least, I hope not. So, this whole charade boils down to harassment directed specifically towards crossbow hunters.

Second, I have some real concerns that if implemented, we would be accruing incremental costs at a time of enormous budgetary difficulty within the DNR. The reality is that taxpayers and license purchasers in this state would be required to, willingly or unwillingly; underwrite a private organization's anti-crossbow agenda. Mind you, this stuff happens all the time, however; people should know where their tax dollar is going and why?

[Tom Morang]

Oh no Riva they were looking for permits that were obtained fraudulently. Still no need to worry Riva, or Dennis, or Tim or whoever you are, that was done quite some time ago.

Are you possibly from Liberty Kansas, or Liberal Kansas? No joking.

Best Regards,
Tom


"The problem with libel in the Internet-era is twofold - the anonymity of the Internet makes lying both easier and harder to correct, and the use of lies creates hatred that makes reconciling opposing factions difficult, if not outright impossible."---Danielle Allen

[BigBirdVA]

Any test of that nature is bogus anyhow. Remember OJ trying to put on the glove?????? Gimme break you can fake not being able to pulla b ow b ack pretty easily IMO. If you are disabled fine!!!!! Otherwise stop the laziness and get a bow

GanzerExactly, ditch the compound and get a traditional bow. :lol:

[swoosh]

Any test of that nature is bogus anyhow. Remember OJ trying to put on the glove?????? Gimme break you can fake not being able to pulla b ow b ack pretty easily IMO. If you are disabled fine!!!!! Otherwise stop the laziness and get a bow

Ganzer


Why I am now an Archery Hunter, and not a bowhunter:lol:

[November Sunrise]

Let's get back on topic fellas.

[Riva]

Oh no Riva they were looking for permits that were obtained fraudulently. Still no need to worry Riva, or Dennis, or Tim or whoever you are, that was done quite some time ago.

Are you possibly from Liberty Kansas, or Liberal Kansas? No joking.

Best Regards,
Tom

No Tom, or Pete or Lance or whoever you are; I'm not from Kansas. No joking.

I don't care what they did some time ago. That's past tense. The "vigorous scutiny" is what they propose going forward. Any idea what they mean by this cuz MBH sure aint backing up thier own words with much as far as an explanation?

Best regards,
Riva

[Terry Williams]

If we remove the words "vigorous scrutiny" will you love us?

[Michihunter]

If we remove the words "vigorous scrutiny" will you love us?
I bet he'd love ya if you took his bet!!:D:D

[Terry Williams]

Come to the MBH rendezous this weekend and make your case to the board.

[swoosh]

Come to the NBH rendezous this weekend and make your case to the board.


Sure where is the Nimrod Bowhunters meeting:lol:

[Terry Williams]

LOL.....I asked for that didn't I. MBH and its at Marion.

[Terry Williams]

Also N is for normal

[swoosh]

Look up Nimrod;) in Hebrew means "Hunter"

[Whit1]

No Tom, or Pete or Lance or whoever you are; I'm not from Kansas. No joking.
Riva

Tom is Tom and he's a decent guy who has a passion, a legitimate passion for bowhunting. He just sees things differently than you, I, and others, but also the same as some others. He is a sportsman of the highest caliber.

[Terry Williams]

First, what does the name Nimrod mean? It comes from the Hebrew verb marad, meaning "rebel." Adding an "n" before the "m" it becomes an infinitive construct, "Nimrod." (see Kautzsch 1910: 137 2b, also BDB 1962: 597). The meaning then is "The Rebel." Thus "Nimrod" may not be the character's name at all. It is more likely a derisive term of a type, a representative, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. Rebellion began soon after the Flood as civilizations were restored. At that time this person became very prominent.

Nimrod was a mighty hunter

[Whit1]

According to Noah..........of the Webster's and dictionary fame rather than that guy who built the Ark.

Nimrod, n. Hebrew nimrodh
1 Biblical, the son of Cush, referred to as a mighty hunter Gen. 10:8-9
2 (often, n.) a hunter

Doing a bit of reading into the meaning one might say that Nimrodh was Cush's son. Therefore he was, as is used in the parlance of some languages, Cushson. This might indicate that Nimrodh used a crossbow as a hunting weapon due to the fact that we all know that those who use a crossbow are lazy and thus they rest their toosh on a cushion while hunting..........:lol:

[Terry Williams]

It is further often assumed that Nimrod's reign included war and terror, and that he was a hunter not only of animals, but also a person who used aggression against other humans. The Hebrew translated "before" in the phrase "Mighty hunter before the LORD" is commonly analysed as meaning literally "in the Face of" in this interpretation, to suggest a certain rebelliousness in the establishment of a human government. Since some of the towns mentioned were in the territory of Assyria, which is connected to Shem's son Asshur, Nimrod is sometimes speculated to have invaded territory that did not belong to him

[swampbuck]

T. Williams,

You live in Ohio, So I am going to guess that you do some hunting there and/or know some resident Ohio hunters. could you tell us......

1- Have crossbow hunters had a directly negative effect on your hunting in ohio ?

2- do other hunters that you know of in Ohio complain of any negative effects directly related to crossbow hunters ?

3-Is there any group in Ohio showing an interest or attempting to get crossbows removed from archery season ?

4-have you or any others noted a negative effect on the resource that can be directly attributed to crossbows ?

[Terry Williams]

T. Williams,

You live in Ohio, So I am going to guess that you do some hunting there and/or know some resident Ohio hunters. could you tell us......

1- Have crossbow hunters had a directly negative effect on your hunting in ohio ?

2- do other hunters that you know of in Ohio complain of any negative effects directly related to crossbow hunters ?

3-Is there any group in Ohio showing an interest or attempting to get crossbows removed from archery season ?

4-have you or any others noted a negative effect on the resource that can be directly attributed to crossbows ?


1. I haven't hunted in Ohio in over 30 years. So I don't have any exp in Ohio.

2, Only on some website that I frequent, no personal exp.

3. I'm cetain OBA would like too, although I'm a member I haven't communicated with anyone fro OBA in a long time

4. N/A due to above.

Sorry that probably didn't help you much, but it was the complete truth.