Over harvest of bucks

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn has voiced his concern about full inclusion resulting in an over harvest of bucks, apparently based on a somewhat cryptic reference from the DNR. I'd like to explore that viewpoint a little more.

I'd submit that the major problem we face is an under harvest of does instead of an over harvest of bucks. We are harvesting 100,000 fewer does a year than we were ten years ago and it's resulting in chronic over-population problems in the SLP. The way to combat this is to aggressively increase the number of hunters in the woods, especially hunters with the option of harvesting does with the combo license. Full inclusion will boost the number of hunters hunting during the time period that that the DNR would prefer to harvest surplus does.

So I'd like to ask Kenn, how many more bucks being harvested a year would get us to the critical point? Would we be in danger of negatively impacting the herd if 5,000 additional bucks were harvested? 10,000? 50,000? Please put a number on your concerns. As long as you just throw out a vague "too many" bucks would be harvested, it's impossible to have a rational discussion about it and really examine your concern. If you continue to just stand by the "too many" rhetoric, it starts to sound like Chicken Little and it's hard to take such concerns very seriously.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

one would think that if the MDNR thought we had an over harvest of bucks that they would have mandated a stop to the 2 bucks per hunter in an instant. having said that, it hasn't happened, therefore we have no over harvest of bucks. the only other option is that the MDNR is also in violation of proposal G and not using scientific data to base their deer program on. if this is truely the issue, than we have no need to pay for any of the MDNR biologists.
the way i see it is the vast majority of hunters beit bow or gun just want to shoot something with antlers and don't know or care how old a deer is. they just want meat and bragging rights, period. not everyone has the time or knowledge to hunt older bucks and thats just the way it is, has been, and will always be. it has nothing to do with being lazy either, they just don't care.
until the state starts a deer management program that address's game unit by game unit deer quotas and deer kills per unit any and all inbalances will continue to the end of time. IMHO

[ridgewalker]

:yeahthat:I agree highly with both posts!

[skulldugary]

I agree also...

[kenn1320]

Munstrlndr, thanks for starting this topic. I did some more thinking, and I feel we are already at that point. I will do my best to contact people, would really like to contact John Ozega(spelling). So I dont have numbers, but can only tell you what Ive read. As I mentioned in a different post, our current harvest of bucks is made up of 70% yearling bucks. I actually recall reading it was higher then that, Im sorry I dont have that number in front of me. I will research that and get back to this post with that info as well. I did see the harvest numbers from 2007 and was qouting 16% of hunters get 2 bucks. That is not correct, as one of the other posters corrected me. That number is 3 or 5% get 2 bucks and 16% get 2 deer. Guys this only makes the situation worse. I have been a big fan of OBR(one buck rule). However in reviewing the numbers, that will do little to help our situation. If only 5%(I will look this up again)are shooting 2 bucks, then eliminating the 2 buck rule would vurtually do nothing. What this boils down to, is there just isnt enough bucks to go around. Seriously, if a big number of our current hunters did something to increase their success, we are in trouble. I thought the baiting ban was a great thing, step in the right direction. However many studies have been done, and eliminating the use of bait actually increases daytime deer activity, which increases the harvest. This has been shown even in the same state, where half could bait, other half could not. I dont know what the ratio of bucks killed with and with out bait, so I have no hard numbers on the effect. I fear if all those studies are correct, our harvest will go up every year, till we get all the "baiters" out of the woods. Yes Im implying we have hunters among us who are still breaking that rule. With all the bait I saw delivered and then sold in a weekend, its still happening. I know people dont like to hear restrictions, but if we want a herd that is balanced, and within the carrying capacity of the land, we need to seriously restric our buck harvest, and increase our doe harvest. I took 2 does in the early season this year, easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I will be curious to see how that season did in terms of harvest and hunter acceptance. I could have shot more, but no place to donate the meat. I tried 2 different places on the feed the hungry website, no answer or replys(emailed and called the numbers). This has to be something the DNR spends some time on, or we will have a hard time justifying killing more does. At least I will, as Im not going to kill them just to do it.
Again Munstrlndr, thank you for addressing this topic with me and others.
Ken

[Munsterlndr]

5.2% harvest a second buck which accounts for around 35,000 extra bucks harvested but you are missing the point as far as the potential benefit from OBR, it would be far greater than just those 35,000 bucks, Large numbers of yearling's are killed by hunters who don't hesitate to pull the trigger because they know they have another buck tag so they can keep on buck hunting. If they were done buck hunting for the year when they pulled that trigger, they would very likely pass on a whole lot of yearling's and shoot a doe instead, that is the true benefit of OBR.

The reason that I asked you for a number is because there is just no evidence that there is any danger of us negatively impacting the herd, even if the buck harvest is increased. With the herd approaching 2 million, there are more bucks born every year than are currently harvested, so we are no danger of running out. Now I will grant you that generally we have a lousy buck age structure and that it would be nice to decrease the antlered harvest to try and improve the number of older bucks in the herd but that is more frosting on the cake compared to the compelling need to increase the number of antlerless deer harvested, to decrease the chronic overpopulation problem.

As I posted previously, the DNR wants the population reduced and the only way to do it is to encourage more hunters to take the field. It's either going to be in extended antlerless firearms seasons that will continue to encroach on archery season or it's going to be crossbows. Of the two, crossbows will have much less of an impact on vertical bow hunters. Yes, some more bucks will be killed be not all that many. If we added 100,000 crossbow hunters, realistically we might harvest 15,000 additional bucks. In a herd of close to 2 million, that's a drop in the bucket.

And by the way, let me share this with you, the quote from the DNR that you provided us with, "to further improve the percentage of bucks in the fall herd, we will have to find acceptable ways to reduce buck harvest." , that you feel is evidence that the DNR is concerned with current levels of buck harvest; well, I would not worry about it too much.

That quote was from Ed Langenau, from a report that he put together in 1994. That was prior to the advent of the combo license and prior to a substantial increase in the the number of antlerless permits that are made available. It was also prior to us losing around 200,000 hunters. Last year we harvested about 100,000 more bucks than in 1994, when Ed wrote this report and all without the inclusion of crossbows. The geographic distribution of deer in Michigan is totally different from when those words were spoken. So I would not bet the bank on that quote as being indicative of current DNR concerns about the level of buck harvest, ;)

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

1320 how in the world can you make such a baseless and foundless statement that there aren't enough bucks to go around.:dizzy: has it even entered your mind that alot of the hunters out in the woods JUST STINK AT DEER HUNTING? just because the buck take numbers aren't up to your expectations means absolutely nothing. deer just out smart most hunters. don't foget all the little things that spook deer and put them on the nocturnal alert. i cannot for the life of me understand how there JUST AREN'T ENOUGH BUCKS we have been whacken and stacking bucks in this state since the 70's. the deer are out of control in this state and yet there aren't enough. i can remember seeing 100 does aday and only 1 buck if lucky back in the 60's with my dad. i think you have been watching the outdoor channel way to much.
nothing like keeping up on current events a 1994 quote yep that solves this mystery

[Michihunter]

That quote was from Ed Langenau, from a report that he put together in 1994. That was prior to the advent of the combo license and prior to a substantial increase in the the number of antlerless permits that are made available. It was also prior to us losing around 200,000 hunters. Last year we harvested about 100,000 more bucks than in 1994, when Ed wrote this report and all without the inclusion of crossbows. The geographic distribution of deer in Michigan is totally different from when those words were spoken. So I would not bet the bank on that quote as being indicative of current DNR concerns about the level of buck harvest, ;)Thanks for digging up the source and time that statement was made Munster. I had a feeling it was a bit outdated. Especially when you consider that I've yet to see a biologist suggest that an antlerless harvest increase wouldn't help sex ratios.

[plugger]

Fisheries managers have found that a slot limit is often the most appropriate managment stratagey but would never be accepted by whitetail hunters. Our great lakes salmon size limit of 10" is pretty much meaningless. I realy beleive the over population of does is mainly an acess issue and nothing more. I dont know of any state land that is over populated.

[Michihunter]

Fisheries managers have found that a slot limit is often the most appropriate managment stratagey but would never be accepted by whitetail hunters. Our great lakes salmon size limit of 10" is pretty much meaningless. I realy beleive the over population of does is mainly an acess issue and nothing more. I dont know of any state land that is over populated.I'd certainly agree. But then you have to consider that most hunting is already taking place on private land and that 86% of all kills were there with the following breakdown- 90% of all antlerless and 83% of all antlered bucks. Pretty substantial regardless of your position on the issue. With that in mind one could assume that rules above and beyond the states regulations are in place on a good portion of those private lands and that too must be put into consideration. If people were in favor of any management rule change, it would be reflected in their practices already.

[plugger]

Land owners will decide what the dynamics of the deer population will be. The dnr has given us the tools to manage the population and the land owners hold the final say. On my farms I control what is killed , by rules and access. If hunters on private land manage for trophy bucks thats what will be. If landowners manage for maximum buck harvest thats what will be. I dont think the dnr can or should do much more than they are now. My opinion is michigan is on the way up as a trophy state and other states are on the way down.

[kenn1320]

DMZ, have you ever heard you can get more fly's with honey then vinager? Munstrlndr has reached out to my concern by posting this thread, and you stick your fat mouth into it with more bashing. I can promise you the last thing the pro xbow guys need is a hot head like yourself with a sharp tongue. Do your cause a favor and well you know what to do. Look at your very example, 100 does and no bucks. Was that not a direct result of buck only hunting(over harvest of bucks)? Do you want those times back again, cause it can happen. Once your herd gets over 70% of the lands carrying capacity, fawn recruitment rates go WAY down. Arent you all saying our herd is too high?

I just read an article by John Ozoga and he does not have much in terms of scientific data on this. Basically the studys he has researched did not have predation as one of the factors. Coyotes, bears, cars, bob cats, wolves, and yes us hunters all factor into predation. He said while these predators grow in numbers, they will have an affect on recruitment. He said many of these deer have not known predation like this in over 100yrs. To qoute the article (Dec 2008 WnW): Data analysis also revealed that sex ratios cannot be reduced without increasing the buck age structure and vice versa. Therefore, deer populations with unbalanced adult sex ratios and young age structure are generally indicative of buck over harvest. Interestingly, although removal of adult females from the population helped lower herd density, female mortality had minimal direct affect on sex ratios. Hence, unbalanced sex ratios were not readily corrected by merely increasing the female harvest in populations of realatively low density. Keyser and his colleagues warned that reported adult sex ratios higher then 3.5 does per buck "should be viewed crtically", but may indicate that relative herd densities are too high. According to these investigators, "Management biologist also should carefully evaluate adult male mortality rates when attempting to develop harvest strategies designed to create more balanced sex ratios. Reliance on increased harvest of adult females alone will bring about unsatisfactory results(unless relative density is quite high). Reductions in adult male harvest rates will be necessary to help balance sex ratios and also will increase mean male age."
Johns conclusion, What does the future hold? Will many of these deer populations be able to maintain their traditionally high recruitment rates, as well as well-balanced adult sex ratios, despite extremely heavy buck explotation rates? I doubt it.
I dont have the info here, but John retired from the Mi DNR with I want to say 43yrs of service. If he cannot answer this, Im not sure those still working can. What this article also doesnt include is the time at which the bucks are harvested. These studys are assuming completion of the rut. Increasing our archery harvest would have a direct result on the rut, but its dependent on how many bucks are there to breed. The number of bucks to breed during the second rut are very low, due to the high gun harvest.

Id like to believe theres plenty of bucks to go around, but our harvest data does not show that. Im not talking about the fact we arent taking a lot of bucks, but the fact the majority is 1.5yr olds. This tells the story, that there arent lots of bucks running around, or we would have MANY making it to next year, where by balancing our sex ratio faster. Remember when they say the sex ratio is 1:1 that doesnt mean antlered bucks only, that includes buck fawns. So when your thinking the ratio in your area is 1:3 at best, thats not one antlered buck you can shoot, it could be a buck fawn per 3 does. I will do more digging.

[Munsterlndr]

A couple of things, when you see sex ratios discussed by biologists they are comparing the ratios of adult deer, so buck fawns do not factor into BD ratios. Fawns are born at pretty close to a 1:1 ratio, that is how buck populations rebound so quickly.

Secondly, "Hence, unbalanced sex ratios were not readily corrected by merely increasing the female harvest in populations of relatively low density." In large parts of Michigan we are facing extremely high densities and increasing the antlerless harvest will have a substantive impact on improving sex ratios. But as I said, improving sex ratios and improved buck age structure, while laudable goals, are not the most important challenge that we are facing right now in Michigan. Job #1 as got to be to reduce the critical level of overpopulation in the SLP and this is only going to be accomplished by substantially increasing the anterless harvest.

"Keyser and his colleagues warned that reported adult sex ratios higher then 3.5 does per buck "should be viewed critically", but may indicate that relative herd densities are too high. " Once again, reducing the size of the herd (herd density) is what needs to be addressed the most and by doing so it becomes much easier to balance sex ratios.

"Reliance on increased harvest of adult females alone will bring about unsatisfactory results(unless relative density is quite high)." Since we have very high herd densities in much of the State, the results are likely to be very satisfactory.

Again, I think your getting way too hung up on sex ratios. It's my opinion that sex ratios in most parts of the state are a lot better than most hunters realize. Conduct a photo census of your property and you will be surprised how many bucks are out there that are never seen by hunters during daylight hours and thus are not taken into account in anecdotal compilations of sex ratios.

As long as the majority of does are being bred annually, there are enough bucks and I've seen no evidence of does going unbred in Michigan. I think much of your concern about there not being enough bucks has more to do with creating optimum buck hunting opportunities (not that there is anything wrong with that) instead of an actual threat to the health and well being of the herd. Creating more opportunities for hunters to shoot bucks, especially large ones is fine and dandy but it should not be a reason to preclude other hunters from pursuing increased opportunities to hunt during archery season.

[kenn1320]

One last thought for the night.


"Job #1 as got to be to reduce the critical level of overpopulation in the SLP and this is only going to be accomplished by substantially increasing the anterless harvest. "



Think this is the reason for the Proposal 3? Areas like Roscommon had no doe hunting during gun season. Putting more archery hunters in there, would have hurt the no doe season cause.

When buck to doe ratios are calculated, they count all the deer, and assume the fawns are 1:1. Again these studys do not include predation, and who hasnt heard yotes howling in Michigan? They continue to populate. If nature wants it 1:1, and that reduces the stress on the herd(breeding occurs in a timely manner, meaning fawns are born at optimal time, resulting in higher fawn recruitment), then why shouldnt we as hunters want the same thing? I would still like to get answers on how season dates are established. I would wager money if gun season were Oct 1, we could lower the herd BIG TIME. Theres a reason its where it is. It used to be November 1 many years ago. Wonder why they changed it?

[xtrema312]

The xbow will cause more buck kills in archery season no question. Most hunters in MI want to shoot any buck so they will see the xbow as a way to get more time to shoot one or better yet two. However, the bucks will not be around for gun season so who knows the end effect. Fewer bucks in the rut will make the survivors move more, and they will be more vulnerable early in gun season. However, the extra xbow hunting pressure will also drive the deer nocturnal faster. Too many factors to know the result on the buck kill. If I had to guess I would say it would be about the same. I think it is safe to say the xbow will not dramatically increase the doe harvest because of the mentality that is currently is not reducing the doe numbers.

IMO there are two few older bucks, and too many 1.5 yr old bucks get shot each year. If you want to have people shoot does then go to one buck. The people that get their buck will have to hunt does if they want to keep hunting. Those who don’t want to can get out of the woods and let the deer alone so those of us who will shot does can. One buck will cause many to hold out for at least a while and not shoot a small one; maybe not shoot one at all. I think some will shot a doe to make sure they have meat incase the buck doesn’t work out. We would loose the combo, but a combo archery with a buck/doe tag (buck or doe in archery and buck only in gun), and second doe only tag (archery only) could help with license sales revenue and more does taken.

[November Sunrise]

When buck to doe ratios are calculated, they count all the deer, and assume the fawns are 1:1. Again these studys do not include predation, and who hasnt heard yotes howling in Michigan? They continue to populate. If nature wants it 1:1, and that reduces the stress on the herd(breeding occurs in a timely manner, meaning fawns are born at optimal time, resulting in higher fawn recruitment), then why shouldnt we as hunters want the same thing? I would still like to get answers on how season dates are established. I would wager money if gun season were Oct 1, we could lower the herd BIG TIME. Theres a reason its where it is. It used to be November 1 many years ago. Wonder why they changed it?

Fawns are not included in sex ratio calculations. Sex ratio calculations are a mathematical assessment that occur immediately previous to the beginning of a hunting season.

Here's additional info from biologist Kip Adams:

http://ncpbqdma.org/_wsn/page3.html

[November Sunrise]

The xbow will cause more buck kills in archery season no question. Most hunters in MI want to shoot any buck so they will see the xbow as a way to get more time to shoot one or better yet two. However, the bucks will not be around for gun season so who knows the end effect. Fewer bucks in the rut will make the survivors move more, and they will be more vulnerable early in gun season. However, the extra xbow hunting pressure will also drive the deer nocturnal faster. Too many factors to know the result on the buck kill. If I had to guess I would say it would be about the same. I think it is safe to say the xbow will not dramatically increase the doe harvest because of the mentality that is currently is not reducing the doe numbers.

IMO there are two few older bucks, and too many 1.5 yr old bucks get shot each year. If you want to have people shoot does then go to one buck. The people that get their buck will have to hunt does if they want to keep hunting. Those who don’t want to can get out of the woods and let the deer alone so those of us who will shot does can. One buck will cause many to hold out for at least a while and not shoot a small one; maybe not shoot one at all. I think some will shot a doe to make sure they have meat incase the buck doesn’t work out. We would loose the combo, but a combo archery with a buck/doe tag (buck or doe in archery and buck only in gun), and second doe only tag (archery only) could help with license sales revenue and more does taken.

There's no reason to assume that archers using a crossbow would have a harvest mix of antlered bucks to does that is any different than that of vertical bow users.

Many of us would love to see a one buck limit, but it's not going to be a reality at any point in the near future.

[TrekJeff]

Earn a buck

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

[QUOTE=kenn1320;2502654]DMZ, have you ever heard you can get more fly's with honey then vinager? Munstrlndr has reached out to my concern by posting this thread, and you stick your fat mouth into it with more bashing. I can promise you the last thing the pro xbow guys need is a hot head like yourself with a sharp tongue. Do your cause a favor and well you know what to do. Look at your very example, 100 does and no bucks. Was that not a direct result of buck only hunting(over harvest of bucks)? Do you want those times back again, cause it can happen. Once your herd gets over 70% of the lands carrying capacity, fawn recruitment rates go WAY down. Arent you all saying our herd is too high?

first off the thread is open to the public on this site. if you and the munster wish to carry on a private conversation try this new thing called the telephone.
second thing i said 100 does and 1 buck in the 60's. its quite apparent you know about zero on michigans deer herd. in the 60's if you had 100 does on your land you had about 97 more does than anybody else as seeing how few there were.
then we come to the issue of doe tags being issued at that time in our michigan deer history very very few.
now we get into the deer carrying capacity of land which i think i have the upper hand in that subject. only due to the fact that the club i belong to just happens to have a retired MDNR BIOLOGIST HARRY (PETE) SQUIB working wih us on our land. oh yes, one major thing we do is shoot does to make our buck to doe ratio what it should be.(PER PETE) as of last year if i remember what PETE said it was at 2.1 and this is with a 3 point on 1 side legal buck take only (first buck) PLUS A MANDATED DOE QUOTA that would be QDM ON 14,000 ACRES.
NO FOR THE HONEY DIP STUFF. i could careless if people with a mental blockset ever hunt with a crossbow, because anyone with that mind set will never believe the FACTS NO MATTER WHATkinda like what goes on in this forum. the only people we reach are those with open logical minds that take facts over sci-fi and propaganda.
when undenyable facts smack you right in the face and you still don't accept them there's no sense in trying to convert that person they're lost in there own misconception. you just move on and show the facts to those who are in charge and THAT WOULD BE----- DNR--NRC--LEGISLATURE. RACK-EM.:D

[Greenbay]

I agree with some of you BUT......this problem is not going to be fixed for one reason........MONEY. The MDNR is not going to do what needs to be done about Michigan's very sub par deer hunting due to the fear that less people will buy licenses.

I have posted my opinions in the past and will do it again.

There are several things that can be done such as: 1 buck per hunter per year, limit all tags for bucks with at least 3 points per side, I really like the idea of an earn a buck system, and lastly a draw system for all deer hunters, (some midwest states do it) yes that means that just because you live here still means you have to draw a buck tag to be able to harvest one.

But I am wasting my time because the ONLY thing the MDNR cares about is selling licenses which is why I can only get serious about bow hunting when I am out of state.

[kenn1320]

DMZ, Oh a club hunter, that explains your arrogance. You have nothing in common with the rest of us. Don’t come on here telling me I don’t have a clue with comments like “there are plenty of bucks to go around”, then tell me You have a personal herd manager telling your club to limit shooting bucks with an antler restriction. Now who looks like the clown? Also my dad was around back in the 60’s hunting and said you couldn’t find a buck. He would scope deer after deer walking single file and count 30 does and be lucky to find a spike in the bunch. I guess it depends on what part of the state you were hunting back then. Also I am aware this is an open forum, my point was you do not have to insult ones intelligence to get your point across. Again though, I didn’t know you were a club hunter.

[Michihunter]

I think most people that have done some research on the subject knows that it is physically impossible to have some of the sex ratios that are being stated here. If not, it's certainly advised that you get a better understanding of it before spouting off some inconceivable numbers. ;)

[Zarathustra]

Let's not confuse distinctly separate issues:

The main Issue is that we have too many deer in Michigan. Killing does is the answer to that problem. And we can't kill enough deer unless we have adequate hunter numbers. And allowing crossbows has some potential to increase the number of hunters afield.

The secondary issues involve buck to doe ratios, average age of bucks, etc. Those issues are managed in other ways, not by limiting hunter numbers. The crossbow debate has no relevance in those discussions.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

DMZ, Oh a club hunter, that explains your arrogance. You have nothing in common with the rest of us. Don’t come on here telling me I don’t have a clue with comments like “there are plenty of bucks to go around”, then tell me You have a personal herd manager telling your club to limit shooting bucks with an antler restriction. Now who looks like the clown? Also my dad was around back in the 60’s hunting and said you couldn’t find a buck. He would scope deer after deer walking single file and count 30 does and be lucky to find a spike in the bunch. I guess it depends on what part of the state you were hunting back then. Also I am aware this is an open forum, my point was you do not have to insult ones intelligence to get your point across. Again though, I didn’t know you were a club hunter.

ONCE AGAIN YOU'RE WRONG, it was the members who voted to have this antler restiction way before we hired (PETE):D. pete was brought in to help manage the forestry on the property, as in subdividing and plotting a 20 year foestry program to help the herd we already had. now that we have a foestry program the herd is managed for the cuts and field openings we are creating and food plots.
i also hunt quite often on federal land and state land in michigan for deer and ducks, i don't just hunt on the club its a 50/50 split. once again i go where the game is and don't complain about not being enough game. i hunt where the game is, so in a nut shell you have to know how to hunt ( I JUST SO HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW TO HUNT). one of my favorite sayings applys here. YOU CAN'T DO MUCH IF YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH.
maybe if you put the same effort into learning how to hunt as you have in this baseless conversation about not enough bucks you would see the bucks that i and others have on private,state, and federal lands of michigan.
just this year i spent a great deal of time on the federal land which is just a mere 9 full sections in alcona county. i found and saw plenty of sign that bucks where all over that little area. not to mention i saw and shot them also on it. actually that federal land has larger bucks on it.

[ridgewalker]

Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Daniel. One of my hunting partners was bowhunting up near your camp and took a very nice doe (he saw many does and bucks, but wanted to help the herd); he also nailed the largest coyote I have ever seen. He wishes he could begin using a crossbow because it is getting increasingly difficult to use his compound.

[swoosh]

ONCE AGAIN YOU'RE WRONG, it was the members who voted to have this antler restiction way before we hired (PETE):D. pete was brought in to help manage the forestry on the property, as in subdividing and plotting a 20 year foestry program to help the herd we already had. now that we have a foestry program the herd is managed for the cuts and field openings we are creating and food plots.
i also hunt quite often on federal land and state land in michigan for deer and ducks, i don't just hunt on the club its a 50/50 split. once again i go where the game is and don't complain about not being enough game. i hunt where the game is, so in a nut shell you have to know how to hunt ( I JUST SO HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW TO HUNT). one of my favorite sayings applys here. YOU CAN'T DO MUCH IF YOU DON'T KNOW MUCH.
maybe if you put the same effort into learning how to hunt as you have in this baseless conversation about not enough bucks you would see the bucks that i and others have on private,state, and federal lands of michigan.
just this year i spent a great deal of time on the federal land which is just a mere 9 full sections in alcona county. i found and saw plenty of sign that bucks where all over that little area. not to mention i saw and shot them also on it. actually that federal land has larger bucks on it.

Example here is an Alcona buck shed. I search all over the county for a buck to hunt. I targeted this guy, but was not able to hunt in NLP do to family issues. I will return in April to search again. They are there, it just takes a lot of work.
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/swooshjr/sheds/IMG_7839.jpg

[Whit1]

Guys, since I've been posting in these crossbow forums I'm not doing any moderating that might bring down accusations of "bias" other than some minor stuff that is simple and straightforward. However, Kenn and DMZ, I will caution you to keep your back and forth retorts between each other civil. I'm not going to step in between you two, other than this post, but other mods will.

At times we all fall into the trap of "instant gratification" and in order to devour that treaty tidbit we sharpen our digs into each other. I've done it from time to time and so have many others on both sides of these issues.

Kenn, I would also like to say "thanks" for your efforts at putting in some data in defense of your ideas about this crossbow inclusion issue. While I find much of it inaccurate at least you are making an effort with something other than emotion and/or opinion.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Example here is an Alcona buck shed. I search all over the county for a buck to hunt. I targeted this guy, but was not able to hunt in NLP do to family issues. I will return in April to search again. They are there, it just takes a lot of work.
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/swooshjr/sheds/IMG_7839.jpg

excellent picture ! looks like we got a junior youth hunter in the making there. from the grin on his face you would think he just wacked him.:D

[old professor]

I have been following these several threads on crossbows and buck harvest and want to put my two cents worth in. I have hunted deer for 56 years. I am 68 years of age. I have never shot two bucks in one year!! I am one of these people who has trouble seeing bucks or anthlers anyway, even with binoculars. This year I saw only one buck and it was 290 yds away with a thirty mph cross wind. I would not attempt that shot!
I have taken far more does than bucks over the years because the herd is over populated/over carrying capacity.Besides, I am a meat hunter, not a trophy hunter.
What I would like to see here in Michigan is the Earn-a-Buck system like Wisconson uses and a one buck lmit. I am also for full inclusion of crossbows, even though I have a crossbow permit. I agree with the premise that full inclusion will help with the recruitment issue. I have taught Hunter Safety over the last fifty years and watched the numbers decline. Urbanization is the principal cause, IMHO! It is to hard for parents and children to spend time in rural enviroment like i did while growing up. How many people today have relatives that have farms, to spend time on?
I believe that the MBH are short sighted on the full inclusion issue and I will not be renewing my membership because of their stance.
I also would not care if the baiting ban is made statewide. I have successfully hunted deer most of my life where/when there was no baiting allowed.

[xtrema312]

The problem with recruitment of the youth is video games and soccer. We never had a problem before those. We get rid of xbox we don’t need the xbow.

Loss of hunting land is a problem for many of us. One of my concerns with the whole idea that we need way more hunters is that we have less hunting areas all the time. This is a real issue in the SLP. As this continues to happen I don’t think we will support the peak hunter numbers we once had. Now I know we have a lot of public land out there, but where are the deer? The big numbers are in areas where we have the most population density, private land, and development. The area of the state with a lot of public land to support hunters don’t have all the deer or the hunters. The xbow will not fix these issues. It will also not fix the DNR financing issues, state economy, or anything else of great importance.

[Terry Williams]

To the "old professor" I see that you indicated you would not be renewing because of our stance on full inclusion, while I'm truly sorry to hear that MBH was is and will always be against full inclusion.

We were against full inclusion on the day you joined. Our membership has indicated there resolve to reject the crossbow into the archery season.

Please feel free to call me if I can answer any questions for you

[kenn1320]

Heres an article written By: Dr. James C. Kroll. While this is not meant as evidence to not allow inclusion of the xbow, it does enlighten those who think 1 buck can breed a bunch of does.

“YOU ONLY NEED ONE BULL TO BREED YOUR COWS”
This is a particularly irritating comment to hear. For some strange reason, there are still people who think deer and cows are the same thing. “Whatever works for cows surely must work for deer,” they insist, not realizing that deer management and cattle management have two completely different goals.
The goal of a cattleman is to produce calves, the sex of which is usually unimportant. The goal of the deer manager is to produce bucks. Indeed, with deer, the sex of offspring is very important! Furthermore, although it’s true that it only takes one bull to breed a large number of cows, the breeding system and physiology of deer and cattle are very different. Cattle come from a species that characteristically exhibited a harem breeding system. Bulls fought for dominance and then herded as many cows as possible into their breeding harem.
Whitetails, on the other hand, fight for individual breeding rights. Since bucks do not have harems, while one buck is breeding one doe, another may be taking advantage of another nearby doe. Further, bucks are not sexually equipped to breed large numbers of does. The ratio of body size to scrotum size for bulls is much higher than with whitetail bucks.
For many years, we’ve been involved in whitetail semen collection research. Whereas you can routinely obtain 200 or more straws of semen from a single bull collection, our average semen straw production for whitetail bucks is only 38. Bucks simply cannot breed as many females as bulls. Pen studies clearly show that the breeding of more than 12 does in any one season by a single buck can seriously affect his antler size in subsequent years. And once the sex ratio (antlered bucks to does) falls below one buck per four does, we see a serious reduction in reproductive success.
Are You Managing For Cattle Or Deer?
http://www.miqdma.com/news_show.php?nID=92

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

thats just fine with me a 12:1 ratio and then the antler sise diminishes if he gets a little more A**. i don't eat the antlers and i don't care about my name being in any books either. so if we have a 6:1 ratio whats the problem? for that matter if we have a 8:1 ratio whats the problem other than him having a little more sex. actually i think its great, more sex more deer, more sex more deer. next issue i see is he's going to get whacked in 2-3 years anyhow so if he's 2 years old, he may have had sex 24 times, thats 24 more times than me at 2 i am jealous:lol::hide:
2 is a couple 3 is a few i think 12 is a bunch

[November Sunrise]

Heres an article written By: Dr. James C. Kroll. While this is not meant as evidence to not allow inclusion of the xbow, it does enlighten those who think 1 buck can breed a bunch of does.

“YOU ONLY NEED ONE BULL TO BREED YOUR COWS”
This is a particularly irritating comment to hear. For some strange reason, there are still people who think deer and cows are the same thing. “Whatever works for cows surely must work for deer,” they insist, not realizing that deer management and cattle management have two completely different goals.
The goal of a cattleman is to produce calves, the sex of which is usually unimportant. The goal of the deer manager is to produce bucks. Indeed, with deer, the sex of offspring is very important! Furthermore, although it’s true that it only takes one bull to breed a large number of cows, the breeding system and physiology of deer and cattle are very different. Cattle come from a species that characteristically exhibited a harem breeding system. Bulls fought for dominance and then herded as many cows as possible into their breeding harem.
Whitetails, on the other hand, fight for individual breeding rights. Since bucks do not have harems, while one buck is breeding one doe, another may be taking advantage of another nearby doe. Further, bucks are not sexually equipped to breed large numbers of does. The ratio of body size to scrotum size for bulls is much higher than with whitetail bucks.
For many years, we’ve been involved in whitetail semen collection research. Whereas you can routinely obtain 200 or more straws of semen from a single bull collection, our average semen straw production for whitetail bucks is only 38. Bucks simply cannot breed as many females as bulls. Pen studies clearly show that the breeding of more than 12 does in any one season by a single buck can seriously affect his antler size in subsequent years. And once the sex ratio (antlered bucks to does) falls below one buck per four does, we see a serious reduction in reproductive success.
Are You Managing For Cattle Or Deer?
http://www.miqdma.com/news_show.php?nID=92

I've yet to meet the first deer hunter who thinks that deer and cows are the same thing.

There isn't anywhere in this state where ratios are anywhere near 4:1. Read the link that I posted earlier so that you can develop an accurate understanding of how ratios are calculated and that they are self regulating in areas with even average fawn recruitment.

[Riva]

To the "old professor" I see that you indicated you would not be renewing because of our stance on full inclusion, while I'm truly sorry to hear that MBH was is and will always be against full inclusion.

We were against full inclusion on the day you joined. Our membership has indicated there resolve to reject the crossbow into the archery season.


Terry,

It appears that through this response, that you are speaking for, and/or in your capacity as an officer of, the Michigan Bowhunters Association (MBH). Perhaps, you're merely reciting the written/official MBH policy as a regional rep. (that's OK too).

Since the MBH position is, as stated "their resolve to reject the crossbow into the archery season", the following question simply screams for an answer. I sincerely hope that you respond to my forthright question with equally forthright answer. Here we go...

The Michigan Department of Resources, has established the Statewide Archery Season as the following:

- October 1 - November 14
- December 1 -January 1

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-29413--,00.html

Sir, does your statement imply that the Michigan Bowhunters Association rejects the full inclusion of the crossbow during:

1. The entire, 10/1 through 1/1 Michigan Archery Season?

2. The 10/1 through 11/14 portion of the Michigan Archery Season?

3. The 12-1 through 1/1 portion of the Michigan Archery Season?

Terry, please answer my question.

Thank you.

[kenn1320]

Got that cleared up in a hurry. I posted this wasnt info against inclusion, it was merely for those that think one buck can breed all the does. I find it somewhat disapointing that even given the clarification of why I was posting this, you guys ALWAYS find something to try to argue about.


Ed Spinazzola wrote "In the past we have heard statements by the DNR of a 1:3 buck-to-doe ratio. Lately, we hear claims of 1:2 or 1:2.5. In theory, and in some locations, these are correct. In high-hunter-density-areas, where up to 95% of all bucks are harvested, it’s not unusual to have a buck-to-doe ratio of 1:10. One offshoot of this is that it doesn’t get better. The excess number of adult does take charge of the area, disperse 90% of their male yearlings, and keep wandering young bucks from other areas from settling in. The only bucks allowed are the gigolos temporarily used for breeding."


Maybe you experts should share your info with everybody, not just the few that show up in this forum? You seem to have no trouble slamming any info as if these peons were your students and they obviously didnt pay attention in your class.

And yes people associate deer with cows all the time. How many guys against QDM say the farmer doesnt shoot his prize bull, why do you guys want to shoot the biggest buck that is responsible for doing the majority of breeding?

[November Sunrise]

Got that cleared up in a hurry. I posted this wasnt info against inclusion, it was merely for those that think one buck can breed all the does. I find it somewhat disapointing that even given the clarification of why I was posting this, you guys ALWAYS find something to try to argue about.



Maybe you experts should share your info with everybody, not just the few that show up in this forum? You seem to have no trouble slamming any info as if these peons were your students and they obviously didnt pay attention in your class.

And yes people associate deer with cows all the time. How many guys against QDM say the farmer doesnt shoot his prize bull, why do you guys want to shoot the biggest buck that is responsible for doing the majority of breeding?

Do you understand that sex ratios are calculated immediately previous to the beginning of hunting season and that only adult deer (1 year old or older) are included in the calculation?

In your hunting area right now, January 13th, what would you estimate the ratio of adult does to adult bucks as being?

In addition, how many fawns would you estimate are presently alive per adult doe? Are there .75 fawns per doe, 1 fawn per doe, 1.25 per doe?

[November Sunrise]

Got that cleared up in a hurry. I posted this wasnt info against inclusion, it was merely for those that think one buck can breed all the does. I find it somewhat disapointing that even given the clarification of why I was posting this, you guys ALWAYS find something to try to argue about.

Maybe you experts should share your info with everybody, not just the few that show up in this forum? You seem to have no trouble slamming any info as if these peons were your students and they obviously didnt pay attention in your class.

I'm going to pick up on Ed's silly claim of 10:1 sex ratios. I say it's a silly claim because there isn't any area of the state where antlered buck survival is only 5%. A ratio that high would also require an almost continual 100% survival of adult does but an almost non existent fawn recruitment level to even maintain a 5:1 ratio, let alone 10:1.

But I'll play along with a 10:1 ratio immediately previous to the season, which is when sex ratios are calculated. Fawns are not included in sex ratios, but let's assume that fawn recruitment was at 1 fawn/adult doe.

So, the season begins with 100 adult does, 10 antlered bucks, and 100 fawns (50 buck fawns, 50 doe fawns). Let's assume the worst possible scenario for next years sex ratio, which would be that all 10 antlered bucks die and that all of the previous falls antlerless deer survive until the beginning of next season.

In that case you'll begin next season with 150 does and 50 antlered bucks. In one year the ratio went from 10:1 to 3:1.

For the 2nd year lets again assume the same fawn recruitment of 1/adult doe and that the antlered bucks are all again wiped out and the other deer all surive. This means at the beginning of the next season you'll have 225 does and 75 antlered bucks. Your ratio is still 3:1.

In other words, even with an extreme example the ratios tighten right up and stay there.

Now this is obviously an extreme example, in that at least some antlered bucks are going to survive, and at least some does are going to die. Antlerless deer that are shot in MI typically run at a rate of around 80% does and 20% buck fawns. All of these things will contribute to even tighter ratios.

You can play with the variables all day long, but the net result is that sex ratios are much tighter than many hunters perceive them to be, and are much more self regulating than most hunters think.

[Terry Williams]

I was often told that a smart lawyer nevers asks a question he/she doesn't know the answer to. You know the answer don't you Riva. But my post was to our member directly. If you would like answers please join then you appropriate Governor will be obligated to give you your answers,

Which you know already as you frequent our site more than I do.

[November Sunrise]

I was often told that a smart lawyer nevers asks a question he/she doesn't know the answer to. You know the answer don't you Riva. But my post was to our member directly. If you would like answers please join then you appropriate Governor will be obligated to give you your answers,

Which you know already as you frequent our site more than I do.

That was very diplomatic Mr. GOW;).

Incidentally, I don't know what county you're in in Ohio, but late this afternoon I was traveling through Williams County and saw the largest flock of turkeys that I've ever observed. Had to have been at least 150 of them, may have been more than 200. It was really something.

[Terry Williams]

Fulton. The turkeys have fled Michigan as well. Plus they are aware that soon they may fall prey to the crossbow.

[November Sunrise]

Fulton

These were over where I hunt in NW Williams. Neighbor has the old fashioned corn cribs where the cobs are accessible to the wildlife - the deer and turkeys are absolutely ransacking his crib.

[Riva]

I was often told that a smart lawyer nevers asks a question he/she doesn't know the answer to. You know the answer don't you Riva. But my post was to our member directly. If you would like answers please join then you appropriate Governor will be obligated to give you your answers,

Which you know already as you frequent our site more than I do.


Mr. Williams,

If obtaining a truthful answer to my question requires that I join your organization, the Michigan Bowhunters Association, then, I am fully willing to become a member and pay your standard membership fee.

Similarly, I will pay this membership fee immediately and likewise, anticipate an immediate response from my "appropriate governor" in response to the interrogatories that I have listed (above) surrounding these matters, which, as you state, are written into the MBH (our) bylaws.

Please provide me with a URL and/or street address where I can complete and submit my enrollment document.

[Terry Williams]

IT's in my signature line....

however www.michiganbowhunters.com

[Riva]

IT's in my signature line....

however www.michiganbowhunters.com (http://www.michiganbowhunters.com)

Since this is all established policy within the Michigan Bowhunters Association, I can assume then, that I will receive a reply to my questions within a 24-hour time frame?
I ask this, because, as you know, there are some "pressing issues' in front of the NRC at the moment, which, your input could perhaps, determine the final disposition regarding these matters.

Thank you, again.

[Whit1]

The problem with recruitment of the youth is video games and soccer. We never had a problem before those. We get rid of xbox we don’t need the xbow.

Loss of hunting land is a problem for many of us. One of my concerns with the whole idea that we need way more hunters is that we have less hunting areas all the time. This is a real issue in the SLP. As this continues to happen I don’t think we will support the peak hunter numbers we once had. Now I know we have a lot of public land out there, but where are the deer? The big numbers are in areas where we have the most population density, private land, and development. The area of the state with a lot of public land to support hunters don’t have all the deer or the hunters. The xbow will not fix these issues. It will also not fix the DNR financing issues, state economy, or anything else of great importance.

X, I'd like to thank you for explaining why crossbow inclusion won't see the "hundreds of thousands of firearms hunters taking up the crossbow and ruining our bow season by adding so many new hunters to the fields and woods." (I'm paraphrasing of course). I agree with you that one of the limiting factors, along with others, could be a lack of space. Permission to hunt private land must be obtained and that can be difficult.

Before some of you jump on what I just said and say, "But I thought you pro-inclusion guys said that inclusion would bring in new hunters and solve the DNR's budget problems", let me say that we've said new bowhunters would be added and this would give some help. We've never said the crossbow is the Jewel of the Nile that will solve all problems. That particular hyperbolic rheatoric comes from elsewhere, for the most part.

Thanks again X.

[November Sunrise]

The problem with recruitment of the youth is video games and soccer. We never had a problem before those. We get rid of xbox we don’t need the xbow.

Loss of hunting land is a problem for many of us. One of my concerns with the whole idea that we need way more hunters is that we have less hunting areas all the time. This is a real issue in the SLP. As this continues to happen I don’t think we will support the peak hunter numbers we once had. Now I know we have a lot of public land out there, but where are the deer? The big numbers are in areas where we have the most population density, private land, and development. The area of the state with a lot of public land to support hunters don’t have all the deer or the hunters. The xbow will not fix these issues. It will also not fix the DNR financing issues, state economy, or anything else of great importance.

Video games and soccer and loss of hunting areas are a constant throughout the the country, but youth recruitment varies widely by state. The #1 variable in youth recruitment is the age that a child can begin hunting. The states with no minimum hunting have the best recruitment and retention, the states with high minimum hunting ages have the worst. With our previous structure of 12 years old for small game and archery and 14 for firearm deer, we had one of the highest minimum ages. Now that our minimum ages have been adjusted down we're a little more middle of the pack.

Hunters often speak about the importance of having children tag along with adults previous to the point where the child can begin hunting. This is a critical point and very important. However, once the child reaches the age where they can hunt, it's critical that they get the opportunity to do so, as the tagging along and watching dad program will no longer be as desirable at that point.

In other words, actual involvement creates the hook. We don't develop a child's interest in soccer by having them watch dad play for five years in the over 40 league. A child's musical interests aren't developed by holding them off until age 12 and making them spend the previous 5 years watching mom plunk away at the piano keys.

Small game hunting used to to be the point of entry into hunting for a youngster. In the vast majority of cases the point of entry is now deer hunting. We permit 10 year olds to archery hunt. At the NRC Committee meeting last week a representative from Safari Club International who is also a hunter's safety instructor spoke. He explained that he and his partners instruct over 500 students per year in their hunter's safety program in the Thumb area. The instructors estimate that over 75% of their hunter safety grads lack the physical maturity to begin archery hunting at the age of 10. While there are youth who are physically mature enough hunt with sufficient poundage at age 10 or 11 or 12, they are in a distinct minority. Permitting youngsters to begin archery hunting with a crossbow until they reach the point where they have the physical maturity to graduate to a vertical bow would be beneficial. It obviously would not fix all of of our youth recruitment challenges but it would be a positive step in the right direction.

[Terry Williams]

We can have them start plowing snow on an ATV until they have the physical maturity to use a shovel too.

[Michihunter]

We can have them start plowing snow on an ATV until they have the physical maturity to use a shovel too.Or get them a shovel they can handle properly.;)

[Terry Williams]

You kniow my point if you put the crossbow in the hands of a young hunter, the overwhelming majority will never go back. Just look to Ohio.

[wally-eye]

You kniow my point if you put the crossbow in the hands of a young hunter, the overwhelming majority will never go back. Just look to Ohio.


And that would be a bad thing? Oh wait it might be because they wouldn't join MBH then, is that the real reason? Maybe MBH would then have to change their opinion.

[Hawgleg]

You kniow my point if you put the crossbow in the hands of a young hunter, the overwhelming majority will never go back. Just look to Ohio.
The majority of our archery hunters in Ohio do not use crossbows.

[Whit1]

You kniow my point if you put the crossbow in the hands of a young hunter, the overwhelming majority will never go back. Just look to Ohio.


I've seen this said before, including, as I understand it, to the NRC or at least to some of the members and/or the DNR workgroup that made the recent proposals on crossbows.

What's the problem with a hunter starting out with a weapon and then choosing to use it for their entire life. That sounds like some of that freedom stuff that we talk about.

Just exactly what is the problem with a hunter, no matter at what age they start, choosing to stick with a weapon.

My first deer rifle was a .308, so was my second, and so was my third. Is it a problem that I, for my own hunting and of my own choice, choose to stick with the same caliber? Don't I have the right to do so?

I've owned one recurve bow, a Herter's, and two compound bows. Both compound bows were Dartons. Is there something wrong with the fact that I stuck with Darton?

I'm sure that a majority of MZL hunters now start out with an inline model. Many may stay with that. Is there a problem there?

What about the guys, like myself, who began with a compound bow and stay with it. They don't go to a recurve bow. Is there a problem with that? Does MTB castigate, wail, and gnash their teeth over this "tragedy?

Does this make me less of a person? Less of a man? Less of a sportsman? Less of a deer hunter?

I think not.

Terry, your line of reasoning can be applied to many sporting endeavors including fishing.

I began fishing with my father at a very young age. He used bait, mainly nightcrawlers and so did I. Over the years I have used bait, spinners, spoons, plugs, jigs, and flies. I rarely fly fish. Does that make me less of a person? Less of a sportsman? I'm sure some would say so, but I certainly don't and to attempt to regulate such a scenario is ludicrous.

[Michihunter]

The majority of our archery hunters in Ohio do not use crossbows.
According to data, they do Hawgleg. But it's a pretty close split. Regardless of that though, one has to wonder how many current archers began with a compound and later chose to go the traditional route? I personally know of quite a few that has made that change. Either way it's irrrelevant to the discussion because the success rates between the two(compound and crossbow) are the same.;)

[Terry Williams]

And that would be a bad thing? Oh wait it might be because they wouldn't join MBH then, is that the real reason? Maybe MBH would then have to change their opinion.


MBH promotes bow hunting, may be it would be good for the ACF. It certainly would be good for the crossbow manufactures, will it be good for bow hunting?

I doubt it.

[Terry Williams]

I've seen this said before, including, as I understand it, to the NRC or at least to some of the members and/or the DNR workgroup that made the recent proposals on crossbows.

What's the problem with a hunter starting out with a weapon and then choosing to use it for their entire life. That sounds like some of that freedom stuff that we talk about.

Just exactly what is the problem with a hunter, no matter at what age they start, choosing to stick with a weapon.

My first deer rifle was a .308, so was my second, and so was my third. Is it a problem that I, for my own hunting and of my own choice, choose to stick with the same caliber? Don't I have the right to do so?

I've owned one recurve bow, a Herter's, and two compound bows. Both compound bows were Dartons. Is there something wrong with the fact that I stuck with Darton?

I'm sure that a majority of MZL hunters now start out with an inline model. Many may stay with that. Is there a problem there?

What about the guys, like myself, who began with a compound bow and stay with it. They don't go to a recurve bow. Is there a problem with that? Does MTB castigate, wail, and gnash their teeth over this "tragedy?

Does this make me less of a person? Less of a man? Less of a sportsman? Less of a deer hunter?

I think not.

Terry, your line of reasoning can be applied to many sporting endeavors including fishing.

I began fishing with my father at a very young age. He used bait, mainly nightcrawlers and so did I. Over the years I have used bait, spinners, spoons, plugs, jigs, and flies. I rarely fly fish. Does that make me less of a person? Less of a sportsman? I'm sure some would say so, but I certainly don't and to attempt to regulate such a scenario is ludicrous.


Whit you attack me for saying it, I only responded to the post that intimated that if we allow young hunters to use the crossbow they will convert to vertical bow use. That is a ridiculous premise and you know it.

[Tom Morang]

I've seen this said before, including, as I understand it, to the NRC or at least to some of the members and/or the DNR workgroup that made the recent proposals on crossbows.

What's the problem with a hunter starting out with a weapon and then choosing to use it for their entire life. That sounds like some of that freedom stuff that we talk about.

Just exactly what is the problem with a hunter, no matter at what age they start, choosing to stick with a weapon.

My first deer rifle was a .308, so was my second, and so was my third. Is it a problem that I, for my own hunting and of my own choice, choose to stick with the same caliber? Don't I have the right to do so?

I've owned one recurve bow, a Herter's, and two compound bows. Both compound bows were Dartons. Is there something wrong with the fact that I stuck with Darton?

I'm sure that a majority of MZL hunters now start out with an inline model. Many may stay with that. Is there a problem there?

What about the guys, like myself, who began with a compound bow and stay with it. They don't go to a recurve bow. Is there a problem with that? Does MTB castigate, wail, and gnash their teeth over this "tragedy?

Does this make me less of a person? Less of a man? Less of a sportsman? Less of a deer hunter?

I think not.

Terry, your line of reasoning can be applied to many sporting endeavors including fishing.

I began fishing with my father at a very young age. He used bait, mainly nightcrawlers and so did I. Over the years I have used bait, spinners, spoons, plugs, jigs, and flies. I rarely fly fish. Does that make me less of a person? Less of a sportsman? I'm sure some would say so, but I certainly don't and to attempt to regulate such a scenario is ludicrous.

You shouldn't take things so personal Whit.:)

[Terry Williams]

Maybe the young kids can start out with these babies they claim 1" groups at 100 yds...


http://crossbownation.com/community/showthread.php?t=1781

[Tom Morang]

Maybe the young kids can start out with these babies they claim 1" groups at 100 yds...


http://crossbownation.com/community/showthread.php?t=1781

The link won't work but here is the picture that was taken at the PSE booth at the ATA show this year. One inch groups at 100 yards. No joke.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6623/img093hd8.jpg

[Michihunter]

Maybe the young kids can start out with these babies they claim 1" groups at 100 yds...


http://crossbownation.com/community/showthread.php?t=1781
Great suggestion Terry. Bet the wounding rate would drop dramatically.;)

[wally-eye]

The link won't work but here is the picture that was taken at the PSE booth at the ATA show this year. One inch groups at 100 yards. No joke.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6623/img093hd8.jpg




Does anybody in their right mind even for a second believe that any bowhunter in Michigan wanting to use a crossbow would buy one of these?

I think not..........nice try though........keep plugging away......

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

i think i'll photoshop my horton onto a tank and see if i can't get some buyers :lol::lol:
who in the world is going to buy one of those even if they could afford one? also who is going to even try and carry it little lone shoot it. this one beats the WMD that styker has.:lol:
that would be a great propaganda tool for the NRC/MBH (one in the same)

[Tom Morang]

Some crossbow manufacturers have stated they are afraid this crossbow will hurt the full inclusion agenda. No joke.:yikes:

[wally-eye]

Some crossbow manufacturers have stated they are afraid this crossbow will hurt the full inclusion agenda. No joke.:yikes:


Sure and the anti hunters show pictures of 50 caliber Barrett sniper rifles saying that hunters are using them hunting......get real........

[Radar420]

I only responded to the post that intimated that if we allow young hunters to use the crossbow they will convert to vertical bow use. That is a ridiculous premise and you know it.

Why is that a ridiculous premise? Don't most hunters in Michigan get experience using a gun first before picking up a bow?

I don't know any stats either way, so I'm just curious.

[Tom Morang]

http://www.crossbow-review.com/Slideshows/ATA2009/PSE/PSE.html

Just a preview of coming attractions.

[Tom Morang]

Sure and the anti hunters show pictures of 50 caliber Barrett sniper rifles saying that hunters are using them hunting......get real........


Are you saying this doesn't belong in the crossbow season?

If not, why not?

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

well i see it has a WHISKER on it that surely makes it a bow. bring that to the senate and you will be laughed out of the bldg.:dizzy:
not saying it doesn't belong at all if someone wants to buy it and lug it out into the woods. are you saying because it can shoot 1 inch groups that it shouldn't be allowed? if so you just damned every single compound to death. they to can shoot 1 inch groups at given distances WITH THE RIGHT PERSON SHOOTING IT. I HAVE A 300 WIN .MAG THAT CAN SHOOT AND KILL DEER OUT TO 800 YARDS that doesn't mean i'll do it. just more spin and propaganda. hows about some facts about that deer herd issue instead of this glorified nonsense. do you propose that this weapon along with the stryker will wipe out the north american deer herd ?

[Tom Morang]

well i see it has a WHISKER on it that surely makes it a bow. bring that to the senate and you will be laughed out of the bldg.:dizzy:

You won't answer the question?

Are you saying this doesn't belong in the crossbow season?

If not, why not?

[wally-eye]

Are you saying this doesn't belong in the crossbow season?

If not, why not?



You know exactly that is NOT what I was saying. I was attempting to explain the ridiculous comparison of the picture you posted and what the average crossbow hunter in Michigan would use, and how the arguement you are making is the same comparison anti's use for gun hunting.........

I just bet Fred Bear is rolling in his grave over the nonsensical arguement against crossbows........

[Tom Morang]

You know exactly that is NOT what I was saying. I was attempting to explain the ridiculous comparison of the picture you posted and what the average crossbow hunter in Michigan would use, and how the arguement you are making is the same comparison anti's use for gun hunting.........

I just bet Fred Bear is rolling in his grave over the nonsensical arguement against crossbows........

Are you saying this doesn't belong in the crossbow season?

If not, why not?

[wally-eye]

Are you saying this doesn't belong in the crossbow season?

If not, why not?



I never said it didn't belong and as I posted before to be so disengenious to believe that the average crossbow hunter in Michigan would use one is laughable.......

[Tom Morang]

I never said it didn't belong and as I posted before to be so disengenious to believe that the average crossbow hunter in Michigan would use one is laughable.......


Sure.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

maybe the delta force will be issued these if they can pass the vigors of the military:D

[Splitshot]

But my post was to our member directly. If you would like answers please join then you appropriate Governor will be obligated to give you your answers,


Terry,

That's a cop out. If you want to speak directly with someone, use the PM feature of this site.

Ken,

I'm sorry, but you quote an outdated article and then misrepresent the meaning of the article to fit your own beliefs. I just can't see how anyone can take what you say as credible especially when you attack those who ask tough questions or don't agree with you.

[swoosh]

The link won't work but here is the picture that was taken at the PSE booth at the ATA show this year. One inch groups at 100 yards. No joke.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6623/img093hd8.jpg

Perfect:lol:

Light - check
Easy to carry - check
Accurate - check
Fits in Tree stand - check

If crossbows are ever legal i am going to buy one of these, shoot a doe with it. Get a picture taken, sign it and send it to you Tom:lol:

Sorry but it would be cool as hell to plug one 100 yds with that beast. After my one kill, I would retire the weapon and return it;)

[Whit1]

You shouldn't take things so personal Whit.:)

Do you mean like this?????

Whit you attack me for saying it, I only responded to the post that intimated that if we allow young hunters to use the crossbow they will convert to vertical bow use. That is a ridiculous premise and you know it.


I'm not attacking anyone, but rather asking a question with some examples. and I'm certainly not taking any of this personally.
Of course it is MBH opinion that a crossbow is not a bow and therefore does nothing for bow hunting. However that is merely an opinion. Fish and game laws are supposed to be determined, among other things, according to Proposal G, by scientifically sound data not opinion.

So far there has not been one iota..........I love it when I can use that word :lol:........of data that shows crossbows having a negative impact on the resource/deer herd.

I'll say it again, show me the data and if it makes for a pointed demonstration I'll reverse my course and do all in my power to prevent crossbow inclusion.

[Tom Morang]

Perfect:lol:

Light - check
Easy to carry - check
Accurate - check
Fits in Tree stand - check

If crossbows are ever legal i am going to buy one of these, shoot a doe with it. Get a picture taken, sign it and send it to you Tom:lol:

Sorry but it would be cool as hell to plug one 100 yds with that beast. After my one kill, I would retire the weapon and return it;)

Thanks Swoosh :lol: At least there is one honest person willing to admit he would use one in crossbow season, or hey why not gun season?:evilsmile

[Tom Morang]

Do you mean like this?????




I'm not attacking anyone, but rather asking a question with some examples. and I'm certainly not taking any of this personally.
Of course it is MBH opinion that a crossbow is not a bow and therefore does nothing for bow hunting. However that is merely an opinion. Fish and game laws are supposed to be determined, among other things, according to Proposal G, by scientifically sound data not opinion.

So far there has not been one iota..........I love it when I can use that word :lol:........of data that shows crossbows having a negative impact on the resource/deer herd.

I'll say it again, show me the data and if it makes for a pointed demonstration I'll reverse my course and do all in my power to prevent crossbow inclusion.


among other things---------------don't forget--------social science Milt, which does include opinion:)

[Whit1]

Another Perfect!


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/photopost/data/500/medium/concept99atdraw.jpg

[Tom Morang]

Another Perfect!


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/photopost/data/500/medium/concept99atdraw.jpg


You have to get it to full draw first:lol:

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Thanks Swoosh :lol: At least there is one honest person willing to admit he would use one in crossbow season, or hey why not gun season?:evilsmile

hey tom, if you buy it i'll use it as i already have a permit. i could always be that stepchild you never wanted :lol: but i sure as hell won't buy one and you can take that to the bank !

[Tom Morang]

Milt, take it easy, you'll pop a gasket.

[Whit1]

You have to get it to full draw first:lol:

Which can be done LONG before the game gets into shooting position and yes, I've drawn that bow and held it at full draw.

As for social science that was not the understood intent of Proposal G, but has been used by the DNR to justify certain actions. Okay, give us the social science aspect of why crossbows shouldn't be included in the present archery season??

As for my gaskets they're doin' just fine, but thanks for asking........:lol:

[Tom Morang]

You have to excuse me now. I'm going to my local PSE dealer.:shhh:

[Riva]

You know, if you guys are so puckered up about extended range crossbows why don't you simply legislate it into the law. You guys are somewhat good at that, so I'm told;).

Currently, MI has minimum pound laws for crossbows. Simply legislate maximum pounds and be frick'n done with it! I would not be uncomfortable with that proviso whatsoever. Say, peg it at 225 pounds and see what impact it has on the resource. If it is negative, make adjustments. If it has no impact, well, it has no impact! Duh!

I, happen to hunt with a 18 year-old Horton Super Sport Crossbow. It is 150 pounds and shoots an arrow a whopping 250 fps. Prehistoric by modern compound standards. However, it kills deer just fine within its limits (25 yards or less). And, I'll go on record by saying that any person that attempts to shoot a deer with a with an arrow at 100 yards is a fool. While technology has changed, the target hasn't. Deer are still deer.

So, if you so darn paranoid about these long-range crossbows, just establish the maximum pounds as well as the minimum pounds and then, measure its impact upon the resource. Short of that, all this noise you're making is, IMHO, the same, shallow fear mongering as a means to support your policies of exclusion.

See, I've made it easy for you once again.;) What sayeth ye?

[skipper34]

Do you mean like this?????




I'm not attacking anyone, but rather asking a question with some examples. and I'm certainly not taking any of this personally.
Of course it is MBH opinion that a crossbow is not a bow and therefore does nothing for bow hunting. However that is merely an opinion. Fish and game laws are supposed to be determined, among other things, according to Proposal G, by scientifically sound data not opinion.

So far there has not been one iota..........I love it when I can use that word :lol:........of data that shows crossbows having a negative impact on the resource/deer herd.

I'll say it again, show me the data and if it makes for a pointed demonstration I'll reverse my course and do all in my power to prevent crossbow inclusion.

There have been many posts stating "opinions" about the use of crossbows. I will state one of mine, and remember, this is only an opinion. I am "on the fence" as far as crossbows are concerned, being as how I would never employ one for hunting. But consider this for a moment...........my "opinion" is that the only way that a crossbow user could possibly affect another bowhunter's hunting is to 1)sit with the bowhunter in the same treestand and shoot at the same animal2)walk directly beside the bowhunter while going to and from said stand3)sneak directly alongside the bowhunter while on a stalk and shoot at the same animal. Other than this, I cannot for the life of me see why it would make any difference whether I used a crossbow or a verticle bow. Could someone please enlighten me on this? Here is another "opinion". The fear of crossbow use stems from the fact that there would be another hunter in the woods hunting with what some deem to be a superior weapon, and there may be a chance, however slight, that the other hunter may have an advantage over the verticle bowhunter, and that the other hunter may shoot the verticle bowhunter's deer. It has nothing to do with herd management, but has everything to do with competition among hunters and personal greed. There, I have stated my opinion, so go ahead and flame away.

[Tom Morang]

Milty,

You should read up more on wildlife management. Social science has always played a key role in making management decisions.:)

I gotta go now, the truck is nice and toasty.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

You have to excuse me now. I'm going to my local PSE dealer.:shhh:

thanks dad, i just knew you'd get me one:D

[Whit1]

Milty,
You should read up more on wildlife management. Social science has always played a key role in making management decisions.


I think I just said that above............."....but has been used by the DNR to justify certain actions." Maybe ya missed that part of what I stated, but thanks anyway Tom

Then give us the "social science" although it may tend more towards science fiction like the other claims tendered by those opposed to inclusion that we've read on these boards over the past year.

[swoosh]

Thanks Swoosh :lol: At least there is one honest person willing to admit he would use one in crossbow season, or hey why not gun season?:evilsmile

Gun hunters scare me:lol:

[swoosh]

You have to excuse me now. I'm going to my local PSE dealer.:shhh:

Would that be 4 seasons archery:)

[Splitshot]

I think I just said that above............."....but has been used by the DNR to justify certain actions." Maybe ya missed that part of what I stated, but thanks anyway Tom

Then give us the "social science" although it may tend more towards science fiction like the other claims tendered by those opposed to inclusion that we've read on these boards over the past year.

Good point Milt, but you can't give an answer if you don't have one, thus the dodge.

[swampbuck]

That PSE is pretty mean looking, I bet every deer within 100 yds would fall over dead if you just waved it around:lol:

AR15's, HK's, AK's, Barret 50's etc, etc, etc. are legal in rifle season. How many of those do you see in the woods ??????

I wonder how many guys in ohio use the stryker or simular bows for hunting?

[November Sunrise]

We can have them start plowing snow on an ATV until they have the physical maturity to use a shovel too.

I understand that you're attempting to be humorous, but your post is a good one because this is where you and I have a philosophical schasm in perspectives.

I have always been of the perspective that taking children hunting is a good thing. Every time. Regardless of what weapon they're using. I have two children that are presently old enough to hunt with archery equipment in Mi and that are both physically incapable of drawing and holding a vertical bow with sufficient draw weight. One is my 10 year old daughter and the other is my 12 year old son. We solve the problem in a way that most hunters can't in that we drive into Ohio so that they can use a cross bow.

My daughter has a casual interest in hunting. It's a low priority in her life but she expressed an interest in early September and due to the apprentice hunting license and the ability to use a crossbow I've been able to take her out five times this season in Ohio. It's been an excellent experience for her and one that we've both enjoyed.

I can't relate to why anyone would think that there's a benefit to denying her the same opportunity in MI. Anyone with a trace of parenting experience knows that a childs interest in many things can and often will wane very quickly, and this is especially true as a child reaches 12 or 13 years old. I think it's a good thing that I was able to satisfy her interest level by taking her archery hunting rather now than telling her that she'll be able to go in another 3-4 years once she's strong enough.

The hatred for the weapon which creates the mentality that it's better for her to not be able to participate than to use a crossbow is a perspective that I'll never be able to relate to.

[Whit1]

Good point Milt, but you can't give an answer if you don't have one, thus the dodge.

Let's see, there's three questions that I and others have asked of those opposed to inclusion.

What scientific data do the opponents of inclusion have that points to inclusion being detrimental to the deer herd and deer hunting?
This one has been asked for over a year now not only in these forums, but also in emails to MBH, MTB as well as directly to MBH and MTB members by members of the MI House of Reps...June 10th, 2008.

What is wrong with youth hunters starting out with a crossbow and then not moving to a vertical bow in the following years?
In all honesty I and a couple of others just asked this question in this thread so to be fair there hasn't been much time for a response.

What is the social science that demonstrates that crossbow inclusion is not warrented?
Again, this is a recent question and a ready answer might be a tad too much to expect.

Actually this posting in the Crossbow Forum is far much more funner than moderating it.........:lol: I really mean that.....well, except for the grammar....and am not saying it as a form of sarcastic comment pointed at anyone in here.

[Munsterlndr]

As usual Tom & Terry are doing their best to take a thread off topic due to lack of having any substantive input to contribute to the topic at hand. Instead they prefer to rely on sarcasm & hyperbole to create the illusion that the sky is falling. The topic of this thread is the potential impact of full inclusion on the resource, specifically the over harvest of bucks. Waving a picture of a certain model of crossbow and shouting "look! look!" is hardly providing any evidence that full inclusion would negatively impact the resource. According to MBH's "expert" Mike Brust, even older crossbows are capable of the kind of accuracy that you attribute to these newer models of crossbows, so please show us the data from one of the full inclusion states that shows such accuracy has either increased crossbow harvest success rates dramatically or has had a negative impact on the resource. Unless you can provide us with some compelling evidence to that effect, your rhetoric rings somewhat hollow gentlemen. :rolleyes:

[wally-eye]

The bottom line is that it all comes down to somebody else shooting my buck.........and to say it isn't is just crap.........

I started hunting in the late 50s and back then 70% of the deer shot were 1.5 year old deer. That is the same percentage as the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and will continue. But to use that reason for not allowing full inclusion is also crap. When full inclusion is enacted the harvest total will still be 70% 1 1/2 year old deer. Crossbows won't change that percentage.

ANY change to that percentage can "only" be changed with other rules being enacted. It has nothing to do with crossbows.......and any arguement to the contrary is just using that as a crutch and a very weak crutch.....

I seen Fred Bear shooting a crossbow at my uncles house in 1960 and he was more proud of that bow than his longbow............and said that the crossbow should be the future of the sport.........

[xtrema312]

I never said it didn't belong and as I posted before to be so disengenious to believe that the average crossbow hunter in Michigan would use one is laughable.......


Maybe today your are correct in general, but not in 20 years. I guarantee you when they hit the shelves in MI there will be plenty of top end xbows in the field. They will not be able to keep the Striker and the PSE in stock.

Look at a compound bow that was made when we let those into the archery season. Now look at the average upper line compound bow. No comparison. You are being blind if you don't think what we are looking at her is the future of the xbow. It is and we need to decide if we all want archery season to be 100 yd. sport of a 25 yd sport. For me that goes for the compound also. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO DRAW THE LINE?

[swampbuck]

Tom and Terry,

You seem to have an interest in extreme crossbows, I will help you out.

The speed and kinetic energy on this one is out of this world:lol:

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman2/uploads/1/Bear-CH09-02.jpg

[wally-eye]

Maybe today your are correct in general, but not in 20 years. I guarantee you when they hit the shelves in MI there will be plenty of top end xbows in the field. They will not be able to keep the Striker and the PSE in stock.

Look at a compound bow that was made when we let those into the archery season. Now look at the average upper line compound bow. No comparison. You are being blind if you don't think what we are looking at her is the future of the xbow. It is and we need to decide if we all want archery season to be 100 yd. sport of a 25 yd sport. For me that goes for the compound also. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO DRAW THE LINE?


I know NO ONE that would even attempt to shoot a deer at 100 yards with any kind of bow, be it crossbow, compound, recurve or longbow but if that is your crutch so be it.

You are correct though that what we ARE seeing is the future of the crossbow in Michigan, the same that I seen happen in the early 70s with wheel bows. Everybody can complain and walk around with blinders on but sooner or later it will happen and again IT WILL NOT HURT the sport nor the resource. Back in the early 70s I was 100% against wheel bows just for the same reason but guess what it didn't harm the sport then and crossbows won't now.

For the life of me I can't understand that arguement.........maybe I'm just too old....

[Splitshot]

When someone espouses a principle, belief, or doctrine that the persons generally holds to be true but can find no proof to back up the assertion, the only choice is to use hyperbole, dance, dodge or find some emotional reason to divert the meaning of the thread.

Sometimes people some facts and draw conclusions which don’t reflect the total picture as a way to further their cause. It is called propaganda. Sometimes we just don’t have all the facts but still need to make a decision. In that case we try to use common sense.

I am not surprised that this goes on, but in the age of computers and a way to check out almost anything, it isn’t as easy to slide it past someone willing to take the time to look into it.

I must commend Munster for pointing out that information given 10 or so years ago by a respected person in the field might not be valid today because the circumstances have changed. Perhaps the author didn’t think of that in his eagerness to defend his position.

The problem with this thread is I have seen no information to support the claim that there has been an over harvest of bucks. That leads me to my last comment, that if you really feel something is harmful to deer hunting you owe it to yourself to search out honest data and if the facts support a position contrary to your original belief, have the courage to chance your position.

If you ignore the facts, more people will draw the conclusion that you might be doing it for self serving purposes.

[kenn1320]

Dam, now thats an F'N bolt gun! Hell I might have to get one for gun season! You guys acted like I was on crack, when I said wait till the other companys show their cards. Wait till Mathews shows up to the party. If these are short range weapons, why is the "new" breed of bolt gun using 100yds as its selling point? Show me again where ANY of the verticle bow manufacturers are toting accuracy at 100yds. Also keep in mind, that what limits the shots of many compound guys, is their experiences on the practicing range. We each make our own personal limit to our shooting capabilitys, theres a direct correlation. The average guy gets one of these and can hit a golf ball at 75yds, do you honestly think he will limit his range to 30yds cause a bunch of old farts on this forum said to?

Anyway your right, just because we arent even in the top 10 for P&Y or B&C doesnt mean we are overharvesting our bucks. Look Swoosh found the shed of a big one. This has to prove we just either suck at hunting, or dont put the time into it, to shoot bucks like our surrounding neighboring states.

DZM says he doesnt care about antler size, yet belongs to a club with antler restrictions. Are you a
Hypocrite , or just buying some friends?

[wally-eye]

Dam, now thats an F'N bolt gun! Hell I might have to get one for gun season! You guys acted like I was on crack, when I said wait till the other companys show their cards. Wait till Mathews shows up to the party. If these are short range weapons, why is the "new" breed of bolt gun using 100yds as its selling point? Show me again where ANY of the verticle bow manufacturers are toting accuracy at 100yds. Also keep in mind, that what limits the shots of many compound guys, is their experiences on the practicing range. We each make our own personal limit to our shooting capabilitys, theres a direct correlation. The average guy gets one of these and can hit a golf ball at 75yds, do you honestly think he will limit his range to 30yds cause a bunch of old farts on this forum said to?

Anyway your right, just because we arent even in the top 10 for P&Y or B&C doesnt mean we are overharvesting our bucks. Look Swoosh found the shed of a big one. This has to prove we just either suck at hunting, or dont put the time into it, to shoot bucks like our surrounding neighboring states.

DZM says he doesnt care about antler size, yet belongs to a club with antler restrictions. Are you a
Hypocrite , or just buying some friends?


This post is almost laughable. I'll say it again I know no one that would attempt to shoot an arrow at a deer at 100 yards........thats from "this old fart" that has a lot of life experience and knowledge to know what is right and what is wrong......

Heck I've heard of guys trying to shoot at deer at 200 yards with a 30-30.......whats the point.........EVERY sport will have idiots.......just like the posts about the guys chasing and running over deer on snowmachines. Do you lump all sled riders into the same group? NO.

Damn 50% of this state is laid off and the other 50% are on welfare do you honestly believe that these people are going to plop down $2k for a crossbow that shoots 100 yards? I think not.......another weak ass crutch...

[Terry Williams]

Munster

Is your point you don't know anyone or that no one would do that? I don't know anyone that would make thier children walk 10 miles in the snow either.

[kenn1320]

Damn 50% of this state is laid off and the other 50% are on welfare do you honestly believe that these people are going to plop down $2k for a crossbow that shoots 100 yards? I think not.......another weak ass crutch...


Yeah they arent still selling full size trucks, suv's, high end sports cars either. People with money, will have money for things they consider frivelous. Dont let the economy fool you, and dont use the crutch that just cause its expensive, nobody will buy one. Thats more laughable then anything I can think of at the moment.

[wally-eye]

Yeah they arent still selling full size trucks, suv's, high end sports cars either. People with money, will have money for things they consider frivelous. Dont let the economy fool you, and dont use the crutch that just cause its expensive, nobody will buy one. Thats more laughable then anything I can think of at the moment.


Again with that crutch......... Show me the actual facts that shows people are buying these types of bows in any quantity from any state that allows crossbows? I'm more than man enough to apologize if I'm wrong.....but I believe in facts not make believe......

[kenn1320]

High end compounds can set you back $1k by the time you get a rest and sights and stuff. Lots of those in the woods. What makes you think the serious xbow guys wont spend any money? I dont have production numbers on the stryker, will look into that for you. Im sure they invested all that R & D money to sell 3 a year. :lol: Hell you guys are "Pro" xbow, and you hadnt even heard of the stryker. Of course maybe you did, just didnt want it to hurt your agenda? Buckeye Dan saw this info, didnt share it with you all(he posted on this thread on another site).

this shows you how easy it is to hit targets at 100yds with these things. I would darn near stand at 100yds and let somebody who has never shot a compound, shoot at me.:lol: Yet somehow again, I shouldnt say that, as compounds and bolt guns are apples to apples. Also note, Bowtech states this bolt gun is good for 60yds. Why would buyers not take their word for it?

Quote:
A dealer from Ohio told me he sets his Stryker up with a scope setting of 40,60,70 yards for deer hunting and that shots to that range are "Easy". In fact he flat out said to me and I quote "If it's standing still, in an opening and my rangefinder says 75 yards or less.......it's dead."

Quote:
I asked one of our product specialists who helped with the production of the Stryker and flat out asked him about the "60 yard effective range" listed on the Stryker webpage and he LAUGHED and gave me this example:
Bowtech holds a "Dealer School" where dealers go to learn how to work on the newest equipment, build bows and learn business information. While they were there for one of the dealer schools they decided to have a little fun competition for all teh dealers at the Stryker facility.
Stryker crossbows were lined up and clay birds were set out as targets at 100 yards. Most of the dealers had never shot a crossbow before and he told me the average was 2 or 3 out of every 5 people were breaking the clay birds at 100 yards ON THEIR FIRST TRY. HE also said if they missed it was just barely within an inch or so.

[xtrema312]

I have always been of the perspective that taking children hunting is a good thing. Every time. Regardless of what weapon they're using. I have two children that are presently old enough to hunt with archery equipment in Mi and that are both physically incapable of drawing and holding a vertical bow with sufficient draw weight. One is my 10 year old daughter and the other is my 12 year old son.

Most kids start about 6-7 with kid bows and move up over the years. Just curious how many years your kids have been shooting a bow and what poundage they are currently at with a compound?


My daughter has a casual interest in hunting. It's a low priority in her life but she expressed an interest in early September and due to the apprentice hunting license and the ability to use a crossbow I've been able to take her out five times this season in Ohio. It's been an excellent experience for her and one that we've both enjoyed. .

Just curious how many trips hunting she has been on in say the last 5-years before she was interested enough to be the shooter of a deer? Most little girls jump at the chance for daddy time. My 6 year old daughter wants to hunt this year. She wants to go along. She wants to start to shoot a bow this summer. .[/quote]

I can't relate to why anyone would think that there's a benefit to denying her the same opportunity in MI. Anyone with a trace of parenting experience knows that a childs interest in many things can and often will wane very quickly, and this is especially true as a child reaches 12 or 13 years old. I think it's a good thing that I was able to satisfy her interest level by taking her archery hunting rather now than telling her that she'll be able to go in another 3-4 years once she's strong enough. .

I can't relate to anyone who thinks a kid has to shoot a deer at a young age to get them hooked on hunting and being in the outdoors. Very few here started out shooting a deer at 10. Most of us went along on hunts to be with dad or mom for that matter. Most of us got hooked hunting small game and progressed in the sport.
quote]

[Munsterlndr]

Munster

Is your point you don't know anyone or that no one would do that? I don't know anyone that would make thier children walk 10 miles in the snow either.


I was actually making two points, first that your posts are usually off topic and designed to get threads closed due to your chronic inability to provide any supporting evidence for the statements you throw out there;

and secondly, crossbow opponents have been claiming that crossbows are just like guns and are "hundred yard" weapons for years. Either they were lying and only these new crossbows recently pictured are capable of such accuracy or else the extended range of crossbows would have had a demonstrable impact on crossbow success rates or a negative impact on the herd in one of the 13 other states that allow crossbows.

Since I find it hard to accept that the anti-crossbow forces would actually lie or engage in hyperbolic rhetoric just to thwart crossbow inclusion, I'll accept their contention that for years crossbows have been capable of 100 yard accuracy. That being said, I simply asked you or Tom for proof that such accuracy at long range has either boosted crossbow hunter success rates or had a negative impact on the resource in another state, like maybe your home state of Ohio, for instance. Put up or shut up, Terry, and provide some evidence for a change instead of the sarcastic wisecracks. ;)

[xtrema312]

[quote=wally-eye;2506114]I know NO ONE that would even attempt to shoot a deer at 100 yards with any kind of bow, be it crossbow, compound, recurve or longbow but if that is your crutch so be it.
quote]

You hunt in good company with good neighbors then. Where I hunt they don't think anything of flinging arrows 50 yd. and missing or wounding deer. They didn't think anything of shooting slugs in smooth bore barrels over a hundred yards back in the day or taking well over 100 yd shots with slug guns on running deer now. That is what they make 5-shot autos for after all isn't it?

[swoosh]

Munster

Is your point you don't know anyone or that no one would do that? I don't know anyone that would make thier children walk 10 miles in the snow either.


Terry I am doing it:lol: and I make my kids walk 20 miles in the snow:p For those who are fearful of "Over harvesting" bucks what else have you done? We are over harvesting now

[Michihunter]

Munster brings up a great point. The current and past offerings of crossbows could certainly hit out to 100 yards with nary a problem and with enough KE to kill any whitetail deer. Yet, the success rate has remained equal to the compound bow since forever. Can anyone explain why a faster crossbow would make any difference to that fact? Are they somehow more accurate with faster speeds? And before you answer that, you may want to consider the bow of choice by most target shooters and the speeds they prefer.;)

[wally-eye]

[quote=wally-eye;2506114]I know NO ONE that would even attempt to shoot a deer at 100 yards with any kind of bow, be it crossbow, compound, recurve or longbow but if that is your crutch so be it.
quote]

You hunt in good company with good neighbors then. Where I hunt they don't think anything of flinging arrows 50 yd. and missing or wounding deer. They didn't think anything of shooting slugs in smooth bore barrels over a hundred yards back in the day or taking well over 100 yd shots with slug guns on running deer now. That is what they make 5-shot autos for after all isn't it?




Sounds like you need new hunting partners then............gosh how many posts have I said the same thing, by the way your post made my point AGAIN........there are idiots in EVERY sport. But to use this as a reason to be against the crossbow, well if thats what you got I guess you have to roll with it then.........:dizzy:

[swoosh]

[quote=xtrema312;2506358]

Sounds like you need new hunting partners then............gosh how many posts have I said the same thing, by the way your post made my point AGAIN........there are idiots in EVERY sport. But to use this as a reason to be against the crossbow, well if thats what you got I guess you have to roll with it then.........:dizzy:

Regardless it does not matter, if we are going to have "I shoot what I want and to hell with the rest of you" Fine

Then
"I shoot what I want with what legal weapon I want" also applies. We can add "How far I want to shoot also"
We're either free or not;)

If there is a legal crossbow season I am going to kill one at 50yds plus with they above PSE xbow. I find it a challenge, I want to do it at least once, i have a good setup for it. I don't really give a rats ass if you or anyone else does not like it. It's my hunting experiance, NOT YOURS or anybody elses.

I do not have to justify it with anybody, so na na poo poo stick your head in doo doo if you don't like it!

I ask again what have any of you done to help reduce buckharvest in MI? Me I just don't kill them anymore, LOL

[willy05]

How about you go back to some old rules pre 91, I think that is when they started selling 2 buck tags that could be used together in one season. one buck with a bow and one with a gun. Then you would prob only have 2 percent or less tagging 2 bucks. Or you would have alot of new archery hunters.

[wally-eye]

How about you go back to some old rules pre 92 one buck with a bow and one with a gun. Then you would prob only have 2 percent or less tagging 2 bucks. Or you would have alot of new archery hunters.


How about we go back to the 60s when you got just one buck per year, period....... Just one, pick your weapon... I hunted under those rules for more years than I care to think about.........

[kenn1320]

tiger woods can almost hit a hole in one at over 100yds, doesnt mean it will kill a deer if it hits it. Im sure xbows have been accurate enough, but lobbing light weight bolts would not be very effective at killing. The new machines clearly demonstrate their super power, while maintaining their accuracy.

Swoosh, you showed the big shed antler, and said we are not over harvesting bucks, there are plenty to go around. DZM said the same thing. Dont go telling us now, that we have been over harvesting for years. What do I do to help the cause, havent shot a buck with my gun in 20yrs(not from the lack of trying, but lack of seeing something decent). Havent shot a buck with my bow since 2000. I pass scrappers up regularly with my bow, dont see but 1 or 2 that I pass up with my gun.

walleye, this mentality is everywhere. Ive heard guys say qoutes like. "the first 4 shots are to slow them down, the last one is to kill it". Isnt this why waterfowl have a 3 shot rule, so guys dont just keep shooting as long as they can see the birds? Having a weapon that extends the range, has an impact on the animal. Out west you can shoot turkeys with rifles, why doesnt a group of you bitch about not being able to do that here? Think of all the kids who are afraid of a shot gun kick, but could be turkey hunting with a .22. Think the NWTF would bitch about it?

[Liv4Huntin']

Maybe today your are correct in general, but not in 20 years. I guarantee you when they hit the shelves in MI there will be plenty of top end xbows in the field. They will not be able to keep the Striker and the PSE in stock.

Look at a compound bow that was made when we let those into the archery season. Now look at the average upper line compound bow. No comparison. You are being blind if you don't think what we are looking at her is the future of the xbow. It is and we need to decide if we all want archery season to be 100 yd. sport of a 25 yd sport. For me that goes for the compound also. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO DRAW THE LINE?

What a WONDERFUL GIFT : to be able to foretell the future !!! Do you have any stock tips for us??? Or how about some lottery numbers...... !!!
:lol:
~m~

[willy05]

Yeah I would like to go back to even the 70s when you shot one deer and had to draw for the few doe permits that were allowed. Between the doe permits and all the doe harvest in my area, they pretty much cut the herd in more than half. Seems the carry capacity the land has gotten far less than it was thirty years ago.

[wally-eye]

What a WONDERFUL GIFT : to be able to foretell the future !!! Do you have any stock tips for us??? Or how about some lottery numbers...... !!!
:lol:
~m~



Hey I can tell you whats going to happen tomorrow, just ask me around midnight tomorrow night...:lol:

[Michihunter]

tiger woods can almost hit a hole in one at over 100yds, doesnt mean it will kill a deer if it hits it. Im sure xbows have been accurate enough, but lobbing light weight bolts would not be very effective at killing. The new machines clearly demonstrate their super power, while maintaining their accuracy.

So now you're saying that low poundage and speed isn't effective at killing?:confused: Yet earlier you said a 30# bow was more than enough?:confused: Which is it Ken?

[kenn1320]

When you have a light weight projectile, and you throw it a long way, it looses most of its energy. Example, the golf ball. Did I say I was recommending a 30lb bow for 100yd shots?

By the way, can you shoot 1" groups at 100yds Mr long shot?

[Liv4Huntin']

When someone espouses a principle, belief, or doctrine that the persons generally holds to be true but can find no proof to back up the assertion, the only choice is to use hyperbole, dance, dodge or find some emotional reason to divert the meaning of the thread.

Sometimes people some facts and draw conclusions which don’t reflect the total picture as a way to further their cause. It is called propaganda. Sometimes we just don’t have all the facts but still need to make a decision. In that case we try to use common sense.

I am not surprised that this goes on, but in the age of computers and a way to check out almost anything, it isn’t as easy to slide it past someone willing to take the time to look into it.

I must commend Munster for pointing out that information given 10 or so years ago by a respected person in the field might not be valid today because the circumstances have changed. Perhaps the author didn’t think of that in his eagerness to defend his position.

The problem with this thread is I have seen no information to support the claim that there has been an over harvest of bucks. That leads me to my last comment, that if you really feel something is harmful to deer hunting you owe it to yourself to search out honest data and if the facts support a position contrary to your original belief, have the courage to chance your position.

If you ignore the facts, more people will draw the conclusion that you might be doing it for self serving purposes.

Great points, Splitshot ! One M A Y also have the 'opinion' that there could even be MORE bucks around, what with all this QDM going on !!
~m~

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

What a WONDERFUL GIFT : to be able to foretell the future !!! Do you have any stock tips for us??? Or how about some lottery numbers...... !!!
:lol:
~m~

YOU FORGOT THE PSYHIC HOTLINE phone number for the nrc :lol:

[Michihunter]

When you have a light weight projectile, and you throw it a long way, it looses most of its energy. Example, the golf ball. Did I say I was recommending a 30lb bow for 100yd shots?

By the way, can you shoot 1" groups at 100yds Mr long shot?OK here we go Ken. A little clarification is apparently needed. An average 150# crossbow with a speed of say 280 fps out to a 100 yards the performance would certainly be better than a 30# bow at 20 yards. Comprende'? So I ask you, will a 280 fps crossbow effectively kill a deer at 100 yards the same way a 30# bow would effectively kill a deer at 20 yards? And if so, why hasn't that been reflected in the success rate?

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

OK here we go Ken. A little clarification is apparently needed. An average 150# crossbow with a speed of say 280 fps out to a 100 yards the performance would certainly be better than a 30# bow at 20 yards. Comprende'? So I ask you, will a 280 fps crossbow effectively kill a deer at 100 yards the same way a 30# bow would effectively kill a deer at 20 yards? And if so, why hasn't that been reflected in the success rate?

this sounds like a test i better take notes for the final exam i feel coming up:lol: will this be an open book final:lol:

[swoosh]

Swoosh, you showed the big shed antler, and said we are not over harvesting bucks, there are plenty to go around. DZM said the same thing. Dont go telling us now, that we have been over harvesting for years. What do I do to help the cause, havent shot a buck with my gun in 20yrs(not from the lack of trying, but lack of seeing something decent). Havent shot a buck with my bow since 2000. I pass scrappers up regularly with my bow, dont see but 1 or 2 that I pass up with my gun.


I am not the one complaining;)

[kenn1320]

Tell me your KE, and I will tell you mine. Oh theres that KE thing again, irrelavent in your world. :lol: Before you run off to get a chrono graph and try to throw an arrow thru it at 100yds, consider this. You all agree 40yds should be the max shot taken for a compound or your xbows. Well if I split the 60lb compound weight in half, I get 30lbs, and Im saying 30lbs is enough for 20yd max shots. Seems logical. Now your saying your same xbow you claim is limited to 40yds, now can kill as good at 100yds, as my 30lb bow at 20yds? Hear that ringing, phone call for Mr Common sense. If the shot had to be taken by all on this site, do you think they would shoot the 30lb bow at 20yds, or your xbow at 100yds? Now can you see why there are more deer taken at 20yds with 30lb bows, then 100yds with your Kmart xbow? Dont go getting pissed, now that REAL xbows are available.:lol:

[Michihunter]

Tell me your KE, and I will tell you mine. Oh theres that KE thing again, irrelavent in your world. :lol: Before you run off to get a chrono graph and try to throw an arrow thru it at 100yds, consider this. You all agree 40yds should be the max shot taken for a compound or your xbows. Well if I split the 60lb compound weight in half, I get 30lbs, and Im saying 30lbs is enough for 20yd max shots. Seems logical. Now your saying your same xbow you claim is limited to 40yds, now can kill as good at 100yds, as my 30lb bow at 20yds? Hear that ringing, phone call for Mr Common sense. If the shot had to be taken by all on this site, do you think they would shoot the 30lb bow at 20yds, or your xbow at 100yds? Now can you see why there are more deer taken at 20yds with 30lb bows, then 100yds with your Kmart xbow? Dont go getting pissed, now that REAL xbows are available.:lol:
Your logic is illogical. By your assumption, KE is halved when you double the distance. C'mon bud, I gave you more credit than what you're posting here.

BTW- I NEVER gave a max distance for an effective kill regardless of what bow, poundage, or KE you care to use. That was you my friend.;)

[Liv4Huntin']

[QUOTE=kenn1320;2506472] Im sure xbows have been accurate enough, but lobbing light weight bolts would not be very effective at killing. The new machines clearly demonstrate their super power, while maintaining their accuracy.{QUOTE]

"lobbing light weight bolts" as you so colorfully note, will do damage to a crossbow. Why would any smart person/hunter want to do that? This shows your lack of knowledge of the tool.
~m~

[kenn1320]

Then post your KE and I will give you the KE of my 36lb bow. Do you even have a 150lb xbow? What model is it? I get the feeling you just threw out a test, but dont have the equipment to back it up? Remember I have killed a deer with this bow, so I KNOW it has enough. Whats your story? And I wont give you credit, as you lost that with your comments about KE not meaning anything......:D Thats exactly why you wont be looking into your KE, cause you dont know, and could care less. You dont have to know anything about stuff like that, to just fling arrows.

[kenn1320]

Live4hunting, whats the weight of your bolts?

[Michihunter]

Then post your KE and I will give you the KE of my 36lb bow. Do you even have a 150lb xbow? What model is it? I get the feeling you just threw out a test, but dont have the equipment to back it up? Remember I have killed a deer with this bow, so I KNOW it has enough. Whats your story? And I wont give you credit, as you lost that with your comments about KE not meaning anything......:D Thats exactly why you wont be looking into your KE, cause you dont know, and could care less. You dont have to know anything about stuff like that, to just fling arrows.Deflection isn't helping your case any Ken. The fact is, KE does not diminish in the manner you have used in your example. No one has said anything about a 40 yard maximum shot until your last post. The fact is, the KE of a 280 fps bolt of 350 gr will have an intial KE of 61 ft-lbs. At 100 yards and depending on a few factors such as vane size and such, that same bolt will have approx 49 ft-lbs of KE(as you can plainly see, the rate of diminishing returns is no where close to your example). Would you not agree that 49 ft-lbs of KE is more than enough for an effective kill on a white tailed deer?

[kenn1320]

I would agree 49lbs is enough, but this is an assumption on your part. So again, what model is your 150lb xbow, and what is its speed at 100yds? Also are you sure your bolts are 350grs?

[Michihunter]

I would agree 49lbs is enough, but this is an assumption on your part. So again, what model is your 150lb xbow, and what is its speed at 100yds? Also are you sure your bolts are 350grs?Are you disputing the numbers? Or are you just trying to deflect attention away from your assumption regarding the superior killing ability of your Stryker? The fact is, those are real world numbers that were calculated using ballistics formulas to come to a conclusive answer. In other words FACTS and DATA.;)

[kenn1320]

Silence is golden. Are you on a potty break, or googling cabelas?:lol:

[Michihunter]

Silence is golden. Are you on a potty break, or googling cabelas?:lol:??? You talking to me?:confused::confused: What more wouyld you like Ken? Want the numbers with a lighter bolt? Heavier? Faster speed? Slower? How much fact does it take to convince you?

[kenn1320]

give me your personal experiences with shooting "your" 150lb xbow at 100yds? You made the statement, just give me the answers. Looks like we might have somebody with no xbow, hence no experience, hence, just somebody jumping on the band wagon.:tsk:

[kenn1320]

The fact is, those are real world numbers that were calculated using ballistics formulas to come to a conclusive answer. In other words FACTS and DATA.


Whats the ballistic coefficient of "your" bolts Michihunter? Thats the main value in your formulas. I would not call looking in a book, getting the weight of a projectile(350grs in this case) and getting the speed from another post, and plugging in numbers to your formula FACTS! Shoot your xbow thru a chrono at 100yds, and use that number in the KE formula. If your not willing to do this, or havent done it already, then dont go spouting out statements about effective killing power at 100yds with your 150lb xbow.

[Whit1]

Tell me your KE, and I will tell you mine.

Now, now, this is a family site.............:lol:

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

??? You talking to me?:confused::confused: What more wouyld you like Ken? Want the numbers with a lighter bolt? Heavier? Faster speed? Slower? How much fact does it take to convince you?

class dismissed:lol:
i have a horton legend 175 lb c.b. that kills deer at 35 yards and i use the bolts that came with it when my now belated dad bought it in 2003. i also use a bear razor with insert (original) also a 100 grain mechanical.

[Michihunter]

give me your personal experiences with shooting "your" 150lb xbow at 100yds? You made the statement, just give me the answers. Looks like we might have somebody with no xbow, hence no experience, hence, just somebody jumping on the band wagon.:tsk:I don't own a crossbow Ken. Does that also mean I have no experience with one? I also don't own a 10 ton bucket truck. But guess what, I have plenty of experience with that too.;)

You're really stretching here Ken and it's becoming apparent that you have no legitimate issue to debate. I posted the FACTS and you try to deflect away from them by questioning my ownership of a bow? Typical for most that have been on the other side of this debate, yet something I was unprepared for from you. Get back to me when you have some type of foundation to base your claims upon. Have a nice day.;)

[kenn1320]

Well theres one truth so far. So you dont have any personal experience with one of these weapons, yet your going to tell us all about them.:sad:

I didnt want to push that topic, but YOU keep bringing up the 30lb bow issue and throwing it in my face every chance you get. It works, sorry but it does. Modern day compounds, even the little tikes models are very impressive. If you havent personally looked at them, dont keep spreading rumors to people with kids, that they arent enough for deer hunting. Same goes for the rest of you that are shooting 15yr old bows at 60lbs or better, and have not looked into the new stuff. As I said before, the last 10yrs have really changed the compound.

[Michihunter]

Well theres one truth so far. So you dont have any personal experience with one of these weapons, yet your going to tell us all about them.:sad:

I didnt want to push that topic, but YOU keep bringing up the 30lb bow issue and throwing it in my face every chance you get. It works, sorry but it does. Modern day compounds, even the little tikes models are very impressive. If you havent personally looked at them, dont keep spreading rumors to people with kids, that they arent enough for deer hunting. Same goes for the rest of you that are shooting 15yr old bows at 60lbs or better, and have not looked into the new stuff. As I said before, the last 10yrs have really changed the compound.Whoa there buckaroo. Who said I didn't have experience with the crossbow?:confused::confused: I said I didn't own one which is far different than not having experience with one. Might want to read a bit slower so you can get the FACTS straight.;):D

BTW- I have two sons age 14 and 18. You have another misunderstanding of FACTS regarding my experience with light weight compound bows my friend.

[November Sunrise]

Just curious how many trips hunting she has been on in say the last 5-years before she was interested enough to be the shooter of a deer? Most little girls jump at the chance for daddy time. My 6 year old daughter wants to hunt this year. She wants to go along. She wants to start to shoot a bow this summer. .




All of my children tag along with me for the 2-3 seasons previous to the point where I permit them to begin hunting. She's probably been on roughly a dozen duck, turkey, and deer hunts over the past 3 years. After the watching years I'm of the opinion that actual involvement becomes very important.

I agree completely with your point that a kid doesn't have to shoot a deer to get hooked. My point was simply that letting them hunt once they're old enough to do so is very important to cultivating their interest. I'm of the opinion that children hunting is a good thing, regardless of which weapon they use. I'm in favor of children hunting with firearms, crossbows, and vertical bows, and my point about crossbows is that it permits the average child to get started a few years earlier than they can with a vertical bow.

[dsgt1]

well lets get down to it everybody knows that hunting is called that because not everybody get one otherwise it would be called deer killing. it hard enough to harvest a nice deer, so who cares what you use. I thought it was about being outdoors and enjoying the hunt not the kill.

[kenn1320]

Michihunter: R we 2 assume your kids didnt bow hunt when they were 12? What bows did they have then, and what poundage?

November Sunrise: Xtrema12 asked Most kids start about 6-7 with kid bows and move up over the years. Just curious how many years your kids have been shooting a bow and what poundage they are currently at with a compound?

Im curious about this also? What model bow(s) are they using also?

[Michihunter]

Michihunter: R we 2 assume your kids didnt bow hunt when they were 12? What bows did they have then, and what poundage?

November Sunrise: Xtrema12 asked

Im curious about this also? What model bow(s) are they using also?Although I see no relevancy to the question, I'll answer just because you asked. One did, one didn't. Both started out with Browning Micro Midas's for there first "real" compound bow. But both also had Lil Braves before the MM. My oldest had no trouble drawing 40#'s at 12 yrs old and hunted with that weight. My youngest was not as physically developed at that age and struggled with 30#'s at 12 and was not allowed to hunt with a bow until this year as per my rules. It hurt him pretty bad emotionally that he was unable to begin hunting at the same age as his brother. But I'm sure you see nothing wrong with that, right?

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn -

I have to say that despite how fascinating you may find the arcane technical details of what equipment everyone and their kids may use, it really has nothing to do with your original contention, that full inclusion will result in an over harvest of bucks, which is after all, the topic of this thread. Why don't we all just stipulate that almost all of the different types of crossbows, long bows, recurves and compounds that are available are probably sufficient to harvest a deer if the hunter has a skill level appropriate for the weapon. As I mentioned earlier, according to the DNR annual harvest survey, bow hunters in the SLP had a higher success rate than firearms hunters, in harvesting bucks. So even if your contention that a few of the upper end crossbows were as effective as some firearms was true, the point is moot, since bow hunters hunting with vertical bows already have achieved a higher success rate than firearms hunters hunting with firearms. Apparently the weapon is not the relevant factor when it comes to hunting success.

I'm still looking for some evidence supporting the idea that crossbows will result in over harvest of bucks. I'm also interested in knowing, if you truly think that we are at the point where any additional buck harvest will be a problem, if you are opposed to the recruiting and education programs that MBH and other bow hunting organizations engage in? Since there is an identical success rate between crossbow users and vertical bow users, it would seem that the new vertical bow users that are recruited would constitute just as much of a threat as the new crossbow hunters resulting from full inclusion.

[skipper34]

Kenn -

I have to say that despite how fascinating you may find the arcane technical details of what equipment everyone and their kids may use, it really has nothing to do with your original contention, that full inclusion will result in an over harvest of bucks, which is after all, the topic of this thread. Why don't we all just stipulate that almost all of the different types of crossbows, long bows, recurves and compounds that are available are probably sufficient to harvest a deer if the hunter has a skill level appropriate for the weapon. As I mentioned earlier, according to the DNR annual harvest survey, bow hunters in the SLP had a higher success rate than firearms hunters, in harvesting bucks. So even if your contention that a few of the upper end crossbows were as effective as some firearms was true, the point is moot, since bow hunters hunting with vertical bows already have achieved a higher success rate than firearms hunters hunting with firearms. Apparently the weapon is not the relevant factor when it comes to hunting success.

I'm still looking for some evidence supporting the idea that crossbows will result in over harvest of bucks. I'm also interested in knowing, if you truly think that we are at the point where any additional buck harvest will be a problem, if you are opposed to the recruiting and education programs that MBH and other bow hunting organizations engage in? Since there is an identical success rate between crossbow users and vertical bow users, it would seem that the new vertical bow users that are recruited would constitute just as much of a threat as the new crossbow hunters resulting from full inclusion.

Munster, you will never get any evidence because there isn't any. All you will get from the original poster or any other anti is strawman rhetoric.

[kenn1320]

Thanks for moving back to the topic Munstrlndr. That other stuff should be in the xbow true distance thread, or whatever its titled.
We are already overharvesting bucks, or there wouldnt be so many 1.5yr olds. However my issue is harvesting too many prior to the rut. Im still working on that, sorry I didnt have months of bashing from you guys to hone my skills. Read my posts, I said even if our current archery numbers go up, it will contribute to an already bad situation of over harvesting. I cannot qauntify how many more bucks killed pre rut to show you anything, at this time. I can look at Ohio and say they are not over harvesting their herd, based on the age structure of their kill. If we had a OBR(assuming people grasped they only get one, so is the one in front of them really the one they want to take), and our gun season was pushed back, I wouldnt care what weapon was being used, short of land mines(hate to step on one of them). You guys cannot quantify how many people will entertain using a xbow, so its tough to quantify the impact. Back when we had lottery doe permits, the DNR knew how many they were issuing, so it was easy to quantify the harvest. There are just too many variables, and it would be nice to know some of them, prior to opening the flood gates. Our DNR's current management strategy seems to be on par, but we dont have any protection for 1.5yr old bucks. As I also said, I dont feel it would be right to tell xbow guys they can hunt, but for does only. If they are allowed to hunt, then let them hunt. Pa implemented an antler restriction, and they went from one of the worst 1.5yr old harvesting, to now having a more balanced age structure. Hell they are in the top 10 now for P&Y and B&C. No you cannot eat the antlers, but its a decent way to judge age of the herd, to an extent. Also as I have stated, in my opinion there are advantages the xbow has over the verticle bow, but your numbers show it isnt much. There is an advantage, or the ones who chose it wouldnt have given it a second look. Granted most in Ohio grew up with it, thats mainly what they know. These 2 bolt guns however, wow. To say you couldnt harvest more deer with one of those, well your not being honest with yourself. Killing more deer is not a bad thing, I shoot does every year. However we know more does need killing, and we know less bucks need killing. As pointed out, both will get killed, but that doesnt fix the problem, just keeps it the same. Why dont you guys throw some pork into your xbow proposal and add a OBR or something similar to gain more support?

[Michihunter]

The problem with adding pork is that the OBR can't even pass on it's own merits. Adding it to another issue would only threaten the potential for that issue passing just that much more. Trust me on this, the majority of people supporting the crossbow on this partiular board would welcome an OBR in a heartbeat.

You may be surprised to find out that there is much more support for the crossbow than you are giving credit to. What you see here is actually a small microcosm of the general hunting population of MI and even here the crossbow has won out in several polls at a 2:1 rate.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Thanks for moving back to the topic Munstrlndr. That other stuff should be in the xbow true distance thread, or whatever its titled.
We are already overharvesting bucks, or there wouldnt be so many 1.5yr olds. However my issue is harvesting too many prior to the rut.

well here we go again with this baseless overharvesting issue. maybe just maybe the reason there's so many 1.5 year olds getting harvested is all the does or most of them get bred every year and have a good 1:1 fawn ratio. i understand you have a problem seeing this for what it is but, this has been happening since the 80's . you should be glad that we have so many 1.5 year old to harvest, just think about how many don't get whacked. the woods on the private property i hunt on has plenty of 4.5 and older bucks on it ( i know i shouldn't bring this up but the hell with it). you want to know why?
i'll tell you why anyhow, because the majority of the hunting members SUCK AT HUNTING i can only manage to get 1 every3-5 years and there are reasons for that, but that deals with our hunting rules. older bucks get that way by luck the first 1-2 years after that its a learned thing.
then another reason is, as stated by many others, is a time allotment for hunting. also knowing the body structure of deer to be able to field age is another. slp bucks have a better food source and grow much bigger racks at age 1.5 than those in the nlp this also is another issue. did you know that in germany it takes about 3-5 years of learning in classes before you even get a hunting license to hunt deer? (maybe we need something along this line)
rest assured if there's to many getting culled the MDNR will step in one way or another. hasn't happened, hence, no over kill of bucks, period. but you have and are entitled to your OPINION.

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn -

I be happy to quantify my estimate of how many might pick up a crossbow and have done so a number of time in this forum. I would anticipate between 35,000-50,000 crossbow hunters within the first 3 years. I just don't see many more hunters willing to shell out $1K or so to be able to get into the woods in October and early November. Of those 50,000 or so, I'd say about 15,000 would be current bow hunters who would make the switch for a variety of reasons, about 20,000 would be current firearms only hunters who would become two-season hunters and 15,000 would be youth and people who have never hunted previously (I can see lot's of wives & girlfriends picking up a crossbow).

The impact on the resource from 50,000 new crossbow hunters would be negligible. The increase in the harvest would be around 17,000 deer, about 10,000 of them being antlered bucks. If you look at the archery buck harvest from year to year it can vary by more than that amount just due to weather, so it's a huge stretch to think that killing 10,000 or even 20 or 30,000 more bucks a year will have any substantive negative impact on the resource. Btw, something like 85% of those extra deer would be harvested on private land, so the impact to public land hunters would be negligible, as well.

There, I quantified my estimates, which are based on what has occurred in other states and also from studying the demographic changes among Michigan hunters over the last 20 years or so. Now let's hear your numbers, just how many more crossbow hunters would result from full inclusion and where are they coming from? Details please. ;)

[Terry Williams]

Munster while I appreciate your attention to details your price point on a crossbow is high....http://www.thefind.com/sports/browse-barnett-revolution-crossbow-package

[Munsterlndr]

Munster while I appreciate your attention to details your price point on a crossbow is high....http://www.thefind.com/sports/browse-barnett-revolution-crossbow-package

Yeah, that's like saying I'm buying a rifle for $500 to go deer hunting and that is the only expense.:lol:

By the time you pay for the crossbow, bolts, broadheads, more bolts after you bent the first ones practicing, targets, range time, a case, a new treestand, safety harness, license, etc. you will be dropping close to $1K, bet on it. ;)

Some guys will spend the minimum and others will spend considerably more but if you look at an average, I'd say my estimate is pretty close.

Now how about a substantive response that will contribute to the discussion, how many additional crossbow hunters do you think would result from full inclusion, Terry?

[Terry Williams]

While I don't have anymore of an idea than you do, I still think crossbows shouldn't be used by the able bodied hunter in the archery season.

Also other than bolts, wouldn't most of those cross over hunters have the things they need.

[Terry Williams]

Bolts included...http://shop.nationalshootingsports.com/product.sc?categoryId=14&productId=480

[Munsterlndr]

While I don't have anymore of an idea than you do, I still think crossbows shouldn't be used by the able bodied hunter in the archery season.

Also other than bolts, wouldn't most of those cross over hunters have the things they need.

Actually, I do have an idea and it's based on more than just a guess. I shared my estimate why don't you do the same?

Feel free to entertain yourself quibbling over how much hunters would spend, as with most of your posts, it's not Jermain to the topic at hand. You do have a penchant for avoiding answering serious questions and dwelling on the irrelevant, don't you Terry?

[Terry Williams]

Huh?

[Munsterlndr]

Come on Terry, you can do better than that. Your posting in a thread concerning the potential for an over harvest of bucks resulting from full inclusion. You seem to be avoiding making any substantive posts contributing to that discussion, instead kibbitzing about minutia. If you don't want to engage in a serious discussion of the topic of the thread, why waste the bandwidth? It does not make much sense, unless of course your intent is merely to disrupt the thread and throw it off topic.

[kenn1320]

It is my opinion that the reason the dnr doesnt step in and fix our over harvest, is cutting $15 of license money from however many people buy 2 licenses. Money is the driving factor here, nothing else!

How many xbow hunters will we get? I dont think anybody can honestly predict that. However looking at Ohio, they have more archery then gun, so flip our numbers to favor archery over gun and there you go. Am I understanding the numbers right, in that we have 300k bow hunters and 600k gun hunters. Thats not 600k gun only hunters right? Many hunters participate in both seasons already. So IF all bow hunters gun hunted as well, that leaves 300k gun hunters that dont bow hunt. Split that in half and its feasible we could see 150k gun only guys converting to archery. As for new people to the sport, I dont know what that potential is......

[Munsterlndr]

Split that in half and its feasible we could see 150k gun only guys converting to archery. As for new people to the sport, I dont know what that potential is......

Ok, I think your overly optimistic as to how many crossbow hunters full inclusion would generate but lets take a look at what the outcome would be if your guess was accurate.

150,000 hunters would harvest around 35,000 bucks and around 22,500 does. Since I don't think anyone is too concerned with over harvest of does lets concentrate on the bucks. Based on the demographic information that we see in crossbow users in other states, it's a pretty safe assumption that the majority of those 150,000 crossbow hunters will either be coming from the ranks of vertical bow hunters or from firearms deer hunters. So many of those 35,000 bucks would have been harvested anyway, either during archery season or firearms season. Realistically, let's say that 150,000 new crossbow hunters resulted in 30,000 additional bucks being harvested in Michigan. This would represent an 11% increase in buck harvest. This is well within the normal swing of antlered harvest that occurs from year to year. Just two years ago we harvested 18% fewer bucks than we did last year and in other years past we harvested more bucks than we did last year, so the idea that a 10-11% increase in the buck harvest is going to be the end of hunting as we know it, just does not hold up under scrutiny, when you actually examine the numbers.

[pescadero]

Dam, now thats an F'N bolt gun! Hell I might have to get one for gun season! You guys acted like I was on crack, when I said wait till the other companys show their cards. Wait till Mathews shows up to the party. If these are short range weapons, why is the "new" breed of bolt gun using 100yds as its selling point? Show me again where ANY of the verticle bow manufacturers are toting accuracy at 100yds.

Please, just think of the physics.

Look at the trajectory. Put the numbers in a ballistics calculator and look at it.

http://home.att.net/~sajackson/ballistics.html

--
lp

[Skinner 2]

Please, just think of the physics.

Look at the trajectory. Put the numbers in a ballistics calculator and look at it.

http://home.att.net/~sajackson/ballistics.html

--
lp


Why would he do that since is is based on facts!

Skinner

[Spartan88]

Over harvest of bucks, I dont buy that argument. We are only allowed two buck tags per hunter per year. I didnt see one shooter buck within bow/crossbow range all season. And range to me means less than 40 yards.

[kenn1320]

good one sparta88.


info from michigan sportsman mag.
Archers who hunted the south-central counties of Lenawee, Hillsdale, Washtenaw, Jackson, Livingston, Ingham, Eaton, Shiawassee, Clinton, Ionia, Gratiot and Montcalm experienced the highest success rate in the state during the 2007 bow season at 36.5 percent. The success rate on bucks was also the highest in the state at 25.3 percent. The number of deer bagged by bowhunters in that district declined by 4 percent last fall (29,081 and 30,280). The buck kill was down by 8.5 percent (17,420 versus 19,030), but the antlerless harvest during bow season was up by 3.6 percent (11,661 and 11,251).


Shows the buck kill was down in 08, yet the doe harvest was up. If there are plenty of bucks and does(high population) and the main target is bucks, wonder why their harvest fell, while the doe increased? Maybe due to lack of sightings/opportunities? Now throw in a bolt gun with double the effective range and that 25.3% success ratio goes up considerably.

[kenn1320]

Gee where have we heard this before?

I'd appreciate any feedback on the accuracy, the numbers at least out to 30 yards seem about right for my bow/arrow combo. Just need to get someone to let me shoot thru their chrono at 100yds ;^)


Well I know I mentioned this to Michihunter to actually shoot his xbow thru a chrono at 100yds, to provide FACTS. this statement comes right off the link you provided to the ballistic charts. Note how he doesnt have a clue if its right past 30yds. Turns out michihunter doesnt actually have a xbow, so maybe one of you guys with one could shoot yours thru a chrono. Oh wait, who cares about your Kmart models, were only interested in bolt guns like the Stryker or the PSE Tac-15 model.

[Michihunter]

Gee where have we heard this before?


Well I know I mentioned this to Michihunter to actually shoot his xbow thru a chrono at 100yds, to provide FACTS. this statement comes right off the link you provided to the ballistic charts. Note how he doesnt have a clue if its right past 30yds. Turns out michihunter doesnt actually have a xbow, so maybe one of you guys with one could shoot yours thru a chrono. Oh wait, who cares about your Kmart models, were only interested in bolt guns like the Stryker or the PSE Tac-15 model.Ken- Lets use your own reasoning just for a second and ask this question- Have YOU shot the Stryker or the newest PSE offering so that you could offer FACTS? Or are you just using hearsay as your basis for your contentions?

[kenn1320]

I have a friend that owns the Stryker. Bring your long distance bow, a chrono and your wallet, we can settle this pretty easily!

As for my logic, I am qouting numbers for reps from both companys, and Im not the only one typing that info on these forums. The difference is your making claims on Kmart junk from threads you have read info on, and spuing that info out like its facts written in stone. I asked you what model you had for those numbers, turns out you didnt even have an xbow, and couldnt tell me what model those numbers came from. Whats the term you gnats use, sounds like propaganda or strawman tactics. Or how about if I sound confident and throw crap at the wall, maybe it will stick.:lol:

[Michihunter]

I have a friend that owns the Stryker. Bring your long distance bow, a chrono and your wallet, we can settle this pretty easily!

As for my logic, I am qouting numbers for reps from both companys, and Im not the only one typing that info on these forums. The difference is your making claims on Kmart junk from threads you have read info on, and spuing that info out like its facts written in stone. I asked you what model you had for those numbers, turns out you didnt even have an xbow, and couldnt tell me what model those numbers came from. Whats the term you gnats use, sounds like propaganda or strawman tactics. Or how about if I sound confident and throw crap at the wall, maybe it will stick.:lol:
So your numbers are correct because you got them from an internet posting but mine are crap because I used an everyday example of a crossbow speed and a bolt weight? You're getting funnier by the moment.:lol::lol::lol:

[Spartan88]

good one sparta88.



Shows the buck kill was down in 08, yet the doe harvest was up. If there are plenty of bucks and does(high population) and the main target is bucks, wonder why their harvest fell, while the doe increased? Maybe due to lack of sightings/opportunities? Now throw in a bolt gun with double the effective range and that 25.3% success ratio goes up considerably.

I saw plenty of bucks last deer season, many of them were 1 1/2 and 2 1/2. I wont shoot a buck unless its 3 1/2. And I live and hunt in the north, your numbers on flatland counties mean nothing to me.

[Liv4Huntin']

Live4hunting, whats the weight of your bolts?

Currently, around 435gr...... why?
~m~

[Munsterlndr]

Quote:
info from michigan sportsman mag.
Archers who hunted the south-central counties of Lenawee, Hillsdale, Washtenaw, Jackson, Livingston, Ingham, Eaton, Shiawassee, Clinton, Ionia, Gratiot and Montcalm experienced the highest success rate in the state during the 2007 bow season at 36.5 percent. The success rate on bucks was also the highest in the state at 25.3 percent. The number of deer bagged by bowhunters in that district declined by 4 percent last fall (29,081 and 30,280). The buck kill was down by 8.5 percent (17,420 versus 19,030), but the antlerless harvest during bow season was up by 3.6 percent (11,661 and 11,251).
Shows the buck kill was down in 08, yet the doe harvest was up. If there are plenty of bucks and does(high population) and the main target is bucks, wonder why their harvest fell, while the doe increased? Maybe due to lack of sightings/opportunities? Now throw in a bolt gun with double the effective range and that 25.3% success ratio goes up considerably.

Kenn -
I hate to burst your bubble but you are drawing unfounded conclusions based on limited data. You do realize that the above quote is just concerning a portion of the SLP, right? Yes, the archery buck harvest in SC-SLP was down slightly in 2007. In the SW-SLP it was up 4.6% over the previous year. It was also up in the SE-SLP, as well. So based on your conclusion that the buck harvest in the SC-SLP was down because of lack of sightings/opportunity, then it would also hold true that the buck harvest in the other parts of the SLP was up because of increased sightings/opportunities, leading one to believe that we are under harvesting bucks in those areas (based on your,..ah, em...logic).

Increases or decreases in both antlered and antlerless harvests fluctuate annually for a variety of reasons, often by 10% or more. Your idea that you can support the contention that we are over harvesting bucks because of minor changes in the harvest rate is simply wrong.

Using your example of the SC-SLP, the firearms buck harvest was also down slightly (5%) but the muzzleloader antlered harvest was up 27% in that portion of the SLP last year. When looking at statistics, it's a mistake to jump on one isolated number. You have to look at the overall picture if you want to find valid statistical trends that you can draw any meaningful conclusions from.

[kenn1320]

Our buck harvest is made up mainly of 1.5yr old bucks. If this isnt a sign of over harvest, tell me what its a sign of? What nobody in this state wants to shoot the old tough meat "older" bucks, so they pass on them?
What we are basically seeing across the entire state is overharvesting of bucks. You do realise that the bucks that make up our annual kill are only there because there were enough does bred to produce them right? So now were on a mission to lower the overall deer population, specifically really targeting the does. So when the number of does falls to within the carrying capacity of the land, how many bucks will be produced the next year? Remember there are barely enough does bred currently, or we would have a lot more bucks making it to older age groups. That is not happening currently, and will not if things dont change to protect young bucks. Adding more hunters with better weapons will be a negative for increasing age structure, not a positive.

[Michihunter]

Our buck harvest is made up mainly of 1.5yr old bucks. If this isnt a sign of over harvest, tell me what its a sign of? What nobody in this state wants to shoot the old tough meat "older" bucks, so they pass on them?
What we are basically seeing across the entire state is overharvesting of bucks. You do realise that the bucks that make up our annual kill are only there because there were enough does bred to produce them right? So now were on a mission to lower the overall deer population, specifically really targeting the does. So when the number of does falls to within the carrying capacity of the land, how many bucks will be produced the next year? Remember there are barely enough does bred currently, or we would have a lot more bucks making it to older age groups. That is not happening currently, and will not if things dont change to protect young bucks. Adding more hunters with better weapons will be a negative for increasing age structure, not a positive.If there was any indication that there would be the mass infiltration to the archery season by additional bowhunters, then I'd agree with you Ken. But it just hasn't been witnessed ANYWHERE that it has been implemented

If you'd do me the courtesy, I'd like an honest answer to an honest question- Are you against the addition of more hunters regardless of the weapon used? Afterall, any additional hunter poses just as much threat to the buck harvest as one that uses a crossbow as seen by the comparative success rates.

[kenn1320]

If there was any indication that there would be the mass infiltration to the archery season by additional bowhunters, then I'd agree with you Ken. But it just hasn't been witnessed ANYWHERE that it has been implemented


Other states dont have the same number of hunters Mi does. Well Pa does, lets see what happens there..........I also havent read threads in other states where the gun hunters complain about the archery and youth hunters shooting all the nice bucks. When you cant beat em, you join them. The xbow allows them to join the party. With approx 300k gun only hunters in this state, dont think we dont have the potential for "mass infiltration" as you put it.

Kansas has 17k resident archery hunters, and I dont have the number of gun hunters they have in front of me. Go to their websites and they are complaining about over harvest of mature deer in the last few years and want to start restricting NR hunters because of it. They are complaining about lack of area to hunt, saying most of the ground is being leased up. 17k bow hunters and we have 300k of them. To think these guys are seeing an impact to their herds age structure, what a joke! Over crowding, what a joke. Dont they want to share? I guess they are being selfish........:lol:

[Michihunter]

Your lack of an answer to my question speaks volumes. Thanks.

[kenn1320]

Think I made it pretty clear, Mi already ranks among the top states, in terms of number of hunters. If our DNR is hurting for money, more hunters is not what we need. Raise the license fee's already! I do introduce new kids every year to hunting, as we need to replace those that leave the sport. Sounds contradictory, but it is what it is........

[Michihunter]

Think I made it pretty clear, Mi already ranks among the top states, in terms of number of hunters. If our DNR is hurting for money, more hunters is not what we need. Raise the license fee's already! I do introduce new kids every year to hunting, as we need to replace those that leave the sport. Sounds contradictory, but it is what it is........So it is true, you are against any additional hunters regardless of weaponry? Thank you for your honesty.;)

[Munsterlndr]

Our buck harvest is made up mainly of 1.5yr old bucks. If this isnt a sign of over harvest, tell me what its a sign of?

It's due to a couple of things but primarily that we have a two buck tag structure which contributes to most hunters from shooting the first legal buck that walks by. It's also due in part to the high number of hunters in Michigan that use bait. Those are the main two reasons that an inordinate number of yearling's make up the majority of our harvest. You have provided no evidence yet to support your theory that bucks are being over harvested. You keep throwing things out hoping they will stick and they keep getting shot down like so many clay pigeons. Just your saying so does not make it a fact. Once again, our primary problem is chronic over-population and not harvesting enough does. Take care of those two problems with an OBR and the sex ratios and buck age structure will take care of themselves. Restricting hunter opportunity during archery season is not the way to reduce the buck harvest in Michigan.

[kenn1320]

You have provided no evidence yet to support your theory that bucks are being over harvested.

Really, then why did you provide the answers of 2 buck tag limits and baiting, if in fact there is no problem of over harvest? Why did you say OBR and doe harvesting will take care of our age structure, if there is no problem? I cannot deny you xbow guys are good at double talk, most of your post show that. Oh and all the studys you all believe so much in(other states), baiting has shown to reduce harvest. Did you just read that right, yep, REDUCE harvest. You cant take facts as they pertain to your side of the topic, then disregard others. Hmmm, sounds like something you have said to me in the past. NOW that we have eliminated baiting, our harvest should go up(according to studys in other states). But we are not over harvesting bucks now, so why worry.:lol:

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn -

I'm coming to the conclusion that you would not know a fact if you stepped on it. You asked why there was such a high level of yearling's in our harvest and I answered you. I did not say that those reasons had anything to do with over harvesting bucks, just that they are the reasons why so many yearling's are harvested. If you really want to discuss the baiting issue I'd be happy to but it's off topic for this thread. Suffice it to say that as usual you are wrong about your assessment of what out of state "studies" have shown regarding the impact of baiting on hunter success rates and I would also bet that I'm a lot more familiar with said "studies" than you are. ;)

Oh, and by the way, I think it's accurate to say that Michigan is no where close to "eliminating" baiting. :lol:

[kenn1320]

Munstrlndr show me the data that says baiting increases the harvest? I will get my data and post it, as this topic was very hot this year. I cant argue your knowledge of studies, but I know what I read. Once again you likely read something, but it didnt say Pro Xbow, so you breezed over it. Sorry but in terms of baiting, you are wrong yet again.
Your point that a 2 buck tag causes hunters to shoot the first buck they see. Good point, but if there were more 2.5+yr old bucks, wouldnt that increase their kill in our harvest? After all, what makes you think 1.5yr old bucks are the first bucks to walk past hunters? If we had 50% bucks 1.5yr olds and 50% 2.5yr olds, the harvest data would likely show 1.5yr old bucks werent 70% of the harvest.


Oh, and by the way, I think it's accurate to say that Michigan is no where close to "eliminating" baiting.


Wishful thinking on your part. Kinda like your wishing for full inclusion. I hope these arent your only 2 dreams, you could be truly let down in the end.:lol:

[Michihunter]

This oughta be a hoot.:D:D

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn -

Like I said, the baiting issue is off topic for this forum. If you want to start a thread in the disease forum we can address it there.

Good luck with your research. You won't find any baiting "studies" out there. There are 7 surveys that have been conducted over the years by MDNR & WDNR employee's. The majority of those surveys show that baiting increases success rates among archery hunters almost all the time and that about half the time it has a minor benefit to firearms hunters. Two surveys, 1 WDNR & 1 MDNR , showed that among certain groups of firearms hunters (in Wisconsin it was in the Northern part of the state and in Michigan it was in area 452, hunters who did not use bait had very slightly higher success rates. Those are the two surveys that the MDNR has been holding up as "evidence" that baiting does not increase hunter success rates, while at the same time failing to mention the other 5 studies that show the opposite.

There is also a paper written by the big game specialist in South Carolina that tries to make the case that hunter success rates in parts of SC where baiting is prohibited are higher than in those parts where it's allowed but all he does is look at some harvest numbers and draw some very vague conclusions. It is not a study more of an editorial and it is not coincidental that the SC fish and game department is currently engaged in a conflict with the SC legislature in trying to get baiting outlawed, so I would take that paper with a major grain of salt. If you want to debate the issue fine but take it to another thread.

If you think that baiting has been eliminated in Michigan, your delusional. It's been banned in the LP but it has by no means been eliminated. ;)

[kenn1320]

Sorry but your wrong again. And when the study(sc) shows evidence that baiting doesnt help, you be little it(same with every other post that isnt pro xbow).

Before Michi repsonds with a high five for you, heres a link. Im not starting a debate on this in another thread, as I know baiting hurts the harvest. Just think it was a google search away. www.mucc.org/cwd/baitingeffects.pdf (http://www.mucc.org/cwd/baitingeffects.pdf)

Your wrong again, but I can see how you want to drop this issue, as it shows your lack of knowledge, and shows we are on the brink of harvest numbers going up. I say brink, cause theres still plenty of baiting going on.

[Munsterlndr]

Kenn -

Quit while your ahead. Mark Toso is an avowed anti-baiter and this "report" was discussed at length on MS. He selectively quotes or misquotes from the studies mentioned and ignores others. If that's your supporting evidence it's pretty weak. Would you like me to demonstrate how Toso basically fudges his data? I have copies of the original surveys that he misquotes. :lol:

But again, it's not on topic for the crossbow forum.

[Michihunter]

Ken- The only reason I KNOW that this issue would be a hoot is because there are a limited few people around these parts that have as much info on the effects of baiting as Munster and I highly doubt there are many that have more. If you did open yourself up to debate, be prepared.:lol::lol:

[kenn1320]

Munstrlndr is right when he says its off topic. I think if your stand is the data is fudge, then we can say any and all data is fudged.

So back on topic. Take the bait out of the equation. Herds that arent overharvested on their bucks, show all ages in the harvest. Older deer show up less, cause they are fewer in numbers. In our state our harvest is mainly 1.5yr old bucks. Why is this, if its not from over harvesting? Again as I asked, why dont a lot of 2.5yr old bucks walk in front of the guy who shoots the first buck he see's. Think all the older bucks taken in other states couldnt have been the first buck they saw?

Im off to watch the Tac-15 video again, wow......

[Munsterlndr]

Here is a quick sample of how Toso is deceptive in his "report".

Compare this statement he makes concerning baiting;

"It is widely assumed that baiting increases a hunter’s chance of seeing and harvesting deer. In fact 92% of Wisconsin hunters surveyed believe baiting increases a hunter’s chance of harvesting a deer (Petchenik 1993). Remarkably the percentage is the same for baiters and non-baiters. However studies conducted in the Midwest do not support this perception. The 1993 WDNR survey found that 50% of hunters were successful withbait, while 54% were successful without bait. Michigan DNR surveys also repeatedly bear this out. A 1984 survey found that hunters who used bait were no more effective than those who did not (2.4 vs. 2.2 deer harvested per 100 hunting days, respectively), and a 1992 survey had similar results (3.8 vs. 3.1 deer harvested per 100 hunting days). A more recent 1999 Michigan DNR survey found that 44% were successful using bait, while 52% were successful without bait (Mich. DNR 1999). Clearly there is little distinction between baiting and non-baiting success rates when hunting in areas where baiting is practiced."

Now compare that to the actual report that he is selectively quoting from. Notice which statistics he quotes and which he ignores and how that changes the conclusions that can be drawn from this report.


A survey of hunters conducted in Wisconsin in 1993 found that the use of bait did not increase gun hunter's success rates, 50% of bait users bagged a deer compared to 54% of hunters who did not use bait. This pattern was consistent between north and south regions (Figure 2). However, success in bagging a deer during the gun season was affected by the duration of baiting. Hunters who used bait during both the gun and bow season had somewhat higher success during the gun season (61%) than hunters who did not use bait (55%), or hunters who used bait only during the gun season (43%).These results were consistent with the finding of a second survey done in 1994 again in Wisconsin when 7,676 sportspersons were surveyed at the Spring Fish and Wildlife Hearings. Success in harvesting a deer during the gun season was affected by when hunters used bait, earlier and longer baiting improved the hunter's chance of success. Non-bait users had higher success rates (44%) than bait users who baited only during the gun season (35%). However, 52% of hunters who used bait only during the bow season were successful and 47% of hunters who used bait in both the bow and gun seasons were successful.

"Surveys during 1998-2001 mailed to 50,000 Wisconsin gun hunters found that use of bait had little effect on success in harvesting bucks or antlerless deer (Table 1). Twenty-nine percent of hunters using bait harvested a buck compared to 26% of hunters who did not use bait. Antlerless harvest success was the same for hunters using bait (33%) as for hunters who did not use bait (33%). In contrast, bait usage appeared to effect success of Wisconsin bow hunters. Of the more than 4,700 bow hunters who responded to the 2001 bow hunter survey, 45% of bait users reported killing at least 1 deer compared to 31% of hunters who did not use bait. Michigan studies conducted over the past 20 years did not show a consistent effect of bait on hunter success. In a 1984 survey, Langenau et al. discovered that hunters who used bait were only slightly more efficient in harvesting deer (2.4 deer per 100 days) than those who did not use bait (2.2 deer per 100 hunter days). In 1992, Winterstein reported that hunters using bait were 20 percent more effective in harvesting deer (3.8 deer harvested per 100 days of hunting) than those who did not use bait (3.1 deer per 100 days of hunting). In contrast, a 1999 phone survey conducted by the Michigan DNR reported that in a specific deer management area in northeast Michigan 44 percent were successful using bait, while 52 percent were successful without bait. In the most recent Michigan study, archers who baited were more efficient in harvesting deer (4.9 deer/100 days) than non baiting archers (1.8 deer/100 days), but little difference was seen between baiting (8.3 deer/100 days) and non-baiting (7.4 deer/100
days) firearm hunters."

You will notice that Toso leaves out any statistics that show that baiting during archery season or extended baiting during firearms season has a positive increase on harvest rates. One of the conclusions drawn in this WDNR report is that baiting clearly increases archery success rates but Toso fails to mention that completely. The only conclusion that you can draw from reading his selective quotations is that he has an agenda and that he molds his "facts" to support that agenda.

But like i said, this debate should go in another thread. ;)

[kenn1320]

I will read it later, why dont you post it in the appropriate thread.:D

Maybe your next post will be "on topic" and answer my question????

[Whit1]

If you really want to discuss the baiting issue I'd be happy to but it's off topic for this thread.


Munster is correct. Take that baiting debate.......pun intended.......to another thread in the Whitetail Management Forum. One hot button topic is quite enough for any one thread. If it continues this thread will be closed.

[kenn1320]

Yeah no kidding Whit1, hence my last 2 posts.

So back on topic. Take the bait out of the equation.



Maybe your next post will be "on topic" and answer my question????


Munstr is a long standing MS guy, and pro xbow, so I can see where you would say he is right.:lol::lol:

[Munsterlndr]

Question? which one, you throw out a seemingly endless number of questions that have little or no substance or are unrelated to the topic at hand. Why don't you answer the question that is Jermain to this thread, provide any evidence that full inclusion would lead to an over harvest of bucks. That is the topic, remember?

[kenn1320]

Here I will repeat myself, seems short term memory is the first to go.


Herds that arent overharvested on their bucks, show all ages in the harvest. Older deer show up less, cause they are fewer in numbers. In our state our harvest is mainly 1.5yr old bucks. Why is this, if its not from over harvesting? Again as I asked, why dont a lot of 2.5yr old bucks walk in front of the guy who shoots the first buck he see's. Think all the older bucks taken in other states couldnt have been the first buck they saw?



So I say we are already over harvesting bucks, and when I show the examples, you jump into your dodge mode. This means ANY more bucks taken is only making the situation worse. Once our herd is down to the target levels the DNR is pushing for, there will be less does, which means less bucks, even 1.5yr old ones so many rely on.

[Michihunter]

Can anyone provide some data shown the amount of does bred each year as a percentage? I think that would be a better indicator of whether or not there was too many bucks being killed don't you Ken?

[Munsterlndr]

I've told you why there are large numbers of yearling bucks in the harvest, you must not have been listening. Let me repeat it. I) Because our two buck tag structure allows hunters to shoot pretty much the first buck that walks by and two, because yearling bucks are pretty much the dumbest critter in the woods and anyone sitting over a bait pile has a pretty good chance of whacking one.

The older a buck gets, the harder they are to harvest. 2.5 year old bucks typically won't be the first deer to walk in front of a hunter (you did say you have gone hunting before, right?) so they are much less likely to get whacked except during the peak of the rut. 2.5 year olds still make up something like 25% of the buck harvest in Michigan, so it's not like they are non-existent, they are just smarter than sparky is and a lot harder to kill.

Again, your contention that because yearling's make up the bulk of are harvest that it's evidence of over harvest of bucks is unproven. Yearling bucks make up the majority of the harvest in just about every state, we just harvest a higher percentage than most.

And yes, there will be fewer bucks if the DNR ever gets around to meeting the population goals. Thats what happens when you have herd reduction. That is not a reason to limit opportunity, as is being evidenced in PA where they reduced the herd by about 40% over the last 6 years and are now likely to have full inclusion next year. They have already given out 60,000 crossbow permits for some DMU's in the last few years with no detrimental impact.

[kenn1320]

I think the harvest data of bucks speaks volumes on the subject Michi. We are barely breeding enough does to keep enough bucks to hunt. Say that statement is bogus, but until theres a more diverse age structure in our harvest, there are not many bucks left after season to see the next age level. Munstr knows this, or he wouldnt be talking OBR. He is merely trying to keep pushing this topic off to the side, cause he knows it has merit. I have already stated you guys showed up at a bad time. If archery guys somehow got better and the harvest went up, there would be bigger issues. Seems what the bow hunters dont get, the gun hunters are taking care of. Would OBR fix the problem, I dont think so. I think many are lucky to get a buck, cause you should see the looks I get when I mention how many I pass up. I also think we are starting to see some diversity in the age, but only in certain areas. These are suburban areas, where a buck can hide out and get some age. Theres also an older one taken in the big woods up north now and again, but nothing with any regularity. Ohio has hills, lots of them on the east/se portion of the state. Hills allow deer to escape hunters, primarily gun hunters. You jump a deer, he runs over the hill. You get to the top, he is gone and you have no clue where he went. In most of the LP here in Mi, its basically flat. Some areas like the thumb are big open fields, tiny woodlots. You can push a deer and know right where he went. Pa has turned its herd around. It will be interesting if they get full inclusion, cause they most resemble us in terms of hunter numbers.

[Munsterlndr]

Again, Kenn, all your doing is guessing, you have no idea whether Michigan bucks are being over harvested. I'm for OBR primarily because it will increase the antlerless harvest. That is the only way we are going to reduce populations in this State and that is the primary interest that I care about. Balanced sex ratios and advanced buck age structure are nice but they are waaaay down the list compared to reducing the population. As long as you have a two buck tag in any season tag structure, you are going to see a significant number of the yearling age class harvested. You want to improve the age structure, that is a licensure issue, you don't do it by restricting hunter opportunity.

[kenn1320]

You want to improve the age structure, that is a licensure issue, you don't do it by restricting hunter opportunity.


Ah, how is going to OBR not restricting hunter opportunity? If you can sell that one, Im glad your on my side.:D

Bringing in another weapon is only going to bring bucks down as well as does. The DNR are already implementing different antlerless only seasons using firearms, that will take care of the does. If the state truly was worried about the size of our herd, why did they put a 5 tag limit on does per hunter? Used to be unlimited, one a day till they were sold out.


you have no idea whether Michigan bucks are being over harvested.


You have no idea they arent being overharvested, other then the harvest data showing the proof. Do you understand if we killed no bucks this year, we would have lots of 2.5yr olds in the herd next year. You get that right? Well when we dont get many, that tells me were shooting too many bucks. Until theres restriction via other methods, we do not need any more bucks being shot then we are shooting now. Take off your xbow hat and think about it for a minute.

[Munsterlndr]

:lol: You obviously know nothing of what is behind the different regulation changes that have occurred in the past in Michigan. Did you just move here from another state? Trust me, the 5 antlerless tag limit was not the result of the DNR deciding that we were harvesting enough does. It was due to political pressure from the legislature on the NRC.

As Michi mentioned, the fact that most does are being bred is proof that we are not over harvesting bucks. You will not increase the buck age structure substantially until you limit the number of bucks an individual can harvest. This is not a guess or conjecture, Kenn, it's born out by what has happened in states that have gone from a multiple buck to an OBR tag structure. I suggest that you go back and do a lot of reading about deer management and the differing impacts of different management styles in different states. The you will be a little better equipped to have a reasonable discussion with. As it is right now, you jump around from topic to topic and come up with completely unsupported theories that are just simply wrong. It's late and reading your posts gives me a headache. I suggest you hit the books and maybe we can resume this discussion when you have a clue. ;)

[kenn1320]

It was due to political pressure from the legislature on the NRC.
What political pressure? I keep hearing pressure to kill more deer, now your telling me there is political pressure to not kill deer? Maybe thats why they arent letting your clan full intrusion?:lol:


Michi wrote: Can anyone provide some data shown the amount of does bred each year as a percentage?



Munstr wrote: As Michi mentioned, the fact that most does are being bred is proof that we are not over harvesting bucks.

Yep, I can see where you would think Michi wrote a fact that most does are being bred. Seriously, do you just make this stuff up or what?

How many does have you shot during archery that had milk in them still? Well this is a great indicator that they have reared fawns. I got to tell you, I would say my experience is about 50/50 milk versus no milk.

You will not increase the buck age structure substantially until you limit the number of bucks an individual can harvest.

No kidding Matlock, thats why we dont need any more bucks being shot. I know your theory of you only get one buck, make it a good one. That dont fly in Mi, as we hear so many say you cant eat the antlers, or brown is down, or if its got a 3" spike, its dead. Your OBR idea is great, but not for MI. If I recall correctly, Pa OBR didnt do much for age structure, cause they were still shooting to many bucks. They had to implement point restrictions to finally see an impact.

Like I said, were used to having 1.8 million deer and getting enough does bred to satisfy our current hunter harvest(which is low). When the deer herd drops to where the DNR wants it, so does the number of does, resulting in less bucks to harvest.

Ya know your right Munstr. I cannot get it thru your head.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

kenn why don't you go preach this hyperbole at the next mbh meeting and see if you can't get something done with all your buddies. as i am sure they would hang on each and every word you speak. they to love to speak in riddles and baseless mind boggeling thoughts of doom and gloom.:dizzy: you could copy and paste all these new revelations of the century you've posted and inform them what they've missed so they can present it at the next nrc meeting.:lol:
just face it there's no over harvest of bucks, NOT ONE MDNR CO WHO WATCHES THIS SITE HAS SPOKEN ONE WORD ABOUT YOUR MYTH. don't believe me, but just about every single MDNR CO is on this site watching and listening to all this at any given time not to mention the mdnr/nrc. this site is a wealth of information for them.(just like this buck over harvesting):lol::lol:

[Thunderhead]

kenn why don't you go preach this hyperbole at the next mbh meeting and see if you can't get something done with all your buddies. as i am sure they would hang on each and every word you speak. they to love to speak in riddles and baseless mind boggeling thoughts of doom and gloom.:dizzy: you could copy and paste all these new revelations of the century you've posted and inform them what they've missed so they can present it at the next nrc meeting.:lol:


Talk about not contributing anything.
Every one of your posts is nothing but flaming and slamming.

I believe this anomosity goes much deeper than the cb issue. It might help if you talked to someone. I'm not being sarcastic here Dan, you appear to be a very angry man with alot of unresolved issues.

[Tom (mich)]

:lol: You obviously know nothing

maybe we can resume this discussion when you have a clue. ;)
Would it be possible to continue this entertaining discussion without the condescending attitudes and personal attacks? You are not doing yourself, nor your position, any favors.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

Talk about not contributing anything.
Every one of your posts is nothing but flaming and slamming.

I believe this anomosity goes much deeper than the cb issue. It might help if you talked to someone. I'm not being sarcastic here Dan, you appear to be like a very angry man with alot of unresolved issues.

thanks shrink thunderhead your words have so much meaning and wisdom. i take it you lay on your back in someone elses office :lol::lol:
as stated many times where are your facts? still waiting.

[Thunderhead]

wow.

[cadillacjethro]

wow.


Are you still working on your "reasons" presentation? I would like to see your perspective on this matter as well.

[Munsterlndr]

Would it be possible to continue this entertaining discussion without the condescending attitudes and personal attacks? You are not doing yourself, nor your position, any favors.

With all due respect, if your going to quote me, do it in context, I said he obviously knew nothing about what was behind various regulation changes that have occurred in the past and both by his earlier statement and his follow up he confirmed that. That is not insulting or abusive or a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. It's also no secret why the 5 antlerless permit limit was put into effect. Ask most of the informed posters in these forums and they will be able to tell you that it was the result of pressure put on the NRC by the head of the house Natural Resources committee, who was reacting to complaints voiced by some of his constituents. It's clear that while this is widely known, that the poster I was referring to did not know that, which is why I made the comment.

My second comment was made after a long back and forth where he demonstrated a decided lack of understanding of some pretty well accepted fundamentals relating to licensure and deer management in Michigan. I suggested that he do some more study and research on these topics and then he would be in a better position to logically debate the issues with some of us who have spent a great deal of time looking at these issues. He would then "have a clue", regarding those topics. You'll also note that using an emoticon after that kind of statement indicates that it's intent is somewhat humorous, a fact that seems to be lost on some people. If you want to single that out as a personal attack, so be it. Compared to much of what gets posted in these threads it's pretty mild. We'll expect equal diligence from you in the future chastising others for such behavior. ;)

[plugger]

The deer might be the only ones that wont survive without an early thaw.

[Tom (mich)]

With all due respect, if your going to quote me, do it in context, I said he obviously knew nothing about what was behind various regulation changes that have occurred in the past and both by his earlier statement and his follow up he confirmed that. That is not insulting or abusive or a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. It's also no secret why the 5 antlerless permit limit was put into effect. Ask most of the informed posters in these forums and they will be able to tell you that it was the result of pressure put on the NRC by the head of the house Natural Resources committee, who was reacting to complaints voiced by some of his constituents. It's clear that while this is widely known, that the poster I was referring to did not know that, which is why I made the comment.

My second comment was made after a long back and forth where he demonstrated a decided lack of understanding of some pretty well accepted fundamentals relating to licensure and deer management in Michigan. I suggested that he do some more study and research on these topics and then he would be in a better position to logically debate the issues with some of us who have spent a great deal of time looking at these issues. He would then "have a clue", regarding those topics. You'll also note that using an emoticon after that kind of statement indicates that it's intent is somewhat humorous, a fact that seems to be lost on some people. If you want to single that out as a personal attack, so be it. Compared to much of what gets posted in these threads it's pretty mild. We'll expect equal diligence from you in the future chastising others for such behavior. ;)
Your response disappoints me.

What you and your crossbow supporter peers need to understand is that there are many fence-sitters on the issue of full inclusion, myself included. It is our support that will be necessary if you're going to be successful. I've been reading these debates for the past year, and trying to understand contrasting viewpoints on the issue. Unfortunately, the very clear theme that has developed recently is that the 4 most vocal full-inclusion supporters have consistently sought to discredit and demean those who dare oppose you. These debates can continue in a civil manner without the use of antagonistic terminology like "get a clue", "stupid" (not used by you), and my all time favorite "with all due respect........"

[Michihunter]

Your response disappoints me.

What you and your crossbow supporter peers need to understand is that there are many fence-sitters on the issue of full inclusion, myself included. It is our support that will be necessary if you're going to be successful. I've been reading these debates for the past year, and trying to understand contrasting viewpoints on the issue. Unfortunately, the very clear theme that has developed recently is that the 4 most vocal full-inclusion supporters have consistently sought to discredit and demean those who dare oppose you. These debates can continue in a civil manner without the use of antagonistic terminology like "get a clue", "stupid" (not used by you), and my all time favorite "with all due respect........"With alll due respect:D I believe there is equal blame on both sides of the coin. I think what you may be missing is that this debate has an emotional aspect to it for some contributors and unfortunately those posters seem to wear it on their sleeve. When data and facts have been used, it's only been used by one side to defend this issue. Countless times it's been asked of the opposing side to present something, anything, that would support their contentions and it's been side stepped or ignored time after time in favor of hyperbole and baseless assumptions. That's extremely frustrating when there is a debate of this magnitude. I would hope instead of worrying about the emotional nature of some of these posts that you comprehend the message itself. In my opinion, that's the important part if you are attempting to make a decision.

Your opinion is duly noted though and I personally will certainly make an attempt to stick to the facts.;)

[Munsterlndr]

Whatever, Tom. I explained why I posted what I did, if it does not meet your standard of acceptable posting then I'd suggest that you put me on your ignore list, it's what that function is available for. Your somewhat one-sided assessment of who engages in verbal jousting leaves me to believe that you are not quite as "on-the-fence" as you would have us believe, but whatever. Instead of sitting on the fence for over a year, why don't you join the discussion and make a substantive contribution to the debate. Politely, of course. ;)

[Splitshot]

Your response disappoints me. What you and your crossbow supporter peers need to understand is that there are many fence-sitters on the issue of full inclusion, myself included. It is our support that will be necessary if you're going to be successful. I've been reading these debates for the past year, and trying to understand contrasting viewpoints on the issue. Unfortunately, the very clear theme that has developed recently is that the 4 most vocal full-inclusion supporters have consistently sought to discredit and demean those who dare oppose you. These debates can continue in a civil manner without the use of antagonistic terminology like "get a clue", "stupid" (not used by you), and my all time favorite "with all due respect........"

Tom, If we want to sway any of those sitting on the fence and have a civil debate then both sides must state the reasons they believe crossbows should or should not be included. Otherwise what is there to debate about.

It is amazing that the members who say crossbows are bad and allude that they might be unethical never provide the reasons how they would negatively affect deer hunting. Some of them talk in circles and then accuse others for being condescending when they show their frustration because they can’t get a straight answer. I find it rude and disrespectful if I ask someone a question and they refuse to answer it or worse avoid the question and answer some other question and when anyone does that it is stupid if they think I missed what they were trying to do.

Then of course we also have the ethics police or those who claim to be on a higher moral plain and insist on being our spiritual and moral guides. They tell us that people who are for full inclusion of crossbows are in a minority but when asked to support those contentions delve into a sea of rhetoric in order to avoid answering making it clear to everyone not caught up in the fog of their beliefs they have no answers.

I even started a rational unbiased thread asking for the reasons the inclusion of crossbows would be a good or bad thing. That thread is surprisingly quiet while this thread and a couple of others flames on. Yes I am somewhat frustrated, not because people are not posting on my thread, but because of the lack of internal fortitude. I know some people take a position without giving it much thought and then find it difficult to admit they were wrong. We all understand that, but if you don’t have any rational defense of your position, why do you continue to try to defend that position?

It is not unlike some other discussions relating to fly fishing, QDMA, buckshot and now crossbows. The philosophy of the topic overrides fairness, good sense and civility and is replaced with self righteousness, intolerance and rudeness. All the scientific evidence, the studies and facts will never overcome an argument encumbered with emotion or philosophy.

And before you start using cliches like “calling the kettle black” I have been a member for over 8 years and have never backed away from any discussion or not admitted I was wrong when shown evidence contrary to my position.

If you don’t like crossbows, why don’t you just say I don’t want them used in the archery season because personally I don’t think they are an ethical weapon or I don’t want the added competition. I think the honesty would be refreshing.

I think the DNR would have been much further ahead if they would have said we are outlawing chumming for trout and salmon and we are against baiting deer because we feel those practices are unethical instead of trying to find some phony excuse like VHS or CWD to force their ethics on us. It is not that VHS or CWD are not serious issues, but using them as an excuse to ban these practices is just absurd.

[Tom (mich)]

Your somewhat one-sided assessment of who engages in verbal jousting leaves me to believe that you are not quite as "on-the-fence" as you would have us believe, but whatever.
Actually, you'd be wrong. I tend to favor full inclusion - not because of free choice, not because of declining hunter numbers - but rather because I utilize high-tech compound equipment and all the gadgetry that goes along with it. It's apparent to me that my choice in equipment is closer to crossbow technology than a long bow. As such, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to not support the introduction of the crossbow into archery season.

My point is this - similar to the debate of hunting vs anti-hunting, there are ardent supporters on each side, but "the middle" is the key constituency. While I recognize that both sides have become more nasty lately, it is my unbiased OPINION that one side had become decidedly more condescending lately. Absolutely nothing positive can come out of that situation, given that pro-crossbow supporters must sway the middle to be successful.