I would have agreed with you a few months back but as the bill is currently written, that is not an option. The main sticking point for me is that they want to use a % to determine a disability. To me that just plain stinks considering that they are trying to distinguish between someone with x amount of disability compared to another that might have x-1% or more of a disability. To discriminate against someone due to a disability or lack of physical stature is completely wrong when you take into account the true effects the addition of an archery weapon would have on the overall hunting experience for others. Which more than likely be VERY minimal if at all.

 

The only FAIR way to show if/how well both sides of the 'argument / discussion' would prove to be shown as an actual outcome, is to have a 'test', if you will, by allowing crossbows during all archery seasons in Michigan on a temporary basis -- say a period of five years. Then, with comparisons from that period, make a determination to continue with full inclusion or not. All else would be mere conjecture.
~m~

 

The only FAIR way to show if/how well both sides of the 'argument / discussion' would prove to be shown as an actual outcome, is to have a 'test', if you will, by allowing crossbows during all archery seasons in Michigan on a temporary basis -- say a period of five years. Then, with comparisons from that period, make a determination to continue with full inclusion or not. All else would be mere conjecture.
~m~

A valid suggestion, although 5 years seems like a long period of time.

What about allowing crossbows during ALL gun seasons, including muzzleloader and late antlerless, and giving that a whirl to test the waters and get ideas on participation? It'd give a lot more time to hunt with them as opposed to only 15 days in November...

Just a thought. Again, I'm not for or against crossbows. I'll support any decision laid down, as long as its considered a living document, and can be adapted as deemed necessary.

 

A valid suggestion, although 5 years seems like a long period of time.

What about allowing crossbows during ALL gun seasons, including muzzleloader and late antlerless, and giving that a whirl to test the waters and get ideas on participation? It'd give a lot more time to hunt with them as opposed to only 15 days in November...

Just a thought. Again, I'm not for or against crossbows. I'll support any decision laid down, as long as its considered a living document, and can be adapted as deemed necessary.

Very simply: the crossbow is a BOW not a GUN.
~m~

 

A valid suggestion, although 5 years seems like a long period of time.

What about allowing crossbows during ALL gun seasons, including muzzleloader and late antlerless, and giving that a whirl to test the waters and get ideas on participation? It'd give a lot more time to hunt with them as opposed to only 15 days in November...

Just a thought. Again, I'm not for or against crossbows. I'll support any decision laid down, as long as its considered a living document, and can be adapted as deemed necessary.

OK... in the meantime in order to get a real fair comparison to compound/recurves then we would have the DNR do the same for the compounders and recurve shooter/hunters.

No archery season - just ALL bows (compounds, recurve, longbows and crossbws) "during ALL gun seasons, including muzzleloader and late antlerless."

Fair, eh?

heh, heh, heh... I didn't think so..

 

The only FAIR way to show if/how well both sides of the 'argument / discussion' would prove to be shown as an actual outcome, is to have a 'test', if you will, by allowing crossbows during all archery seasons in Michigan on a temporary basis -- say a period of five years. Then, with comparisons from that period, make a determination to continue with full inclusion or not. All else would be mere conjecture.
~m~

A five (5) year trial would be long enough to tell if there were any negative social or resource impact.

 

All things evolve. Some of us have seen these arguments before regarding compound bows and to a lesser extent sights vs instinctive shooting. The sky didn't fall then and I don't believe it will fall with full inclusion if adopted.

 

Don't chew my head off, as I've been sitting on the fence a long long ways away from the crossbow "discussions".

That being said, I feel it's a shame the proponents and opponents of crossbow use are fighting so ferociously amongst themselves. We are all Michigan sportsmen, and we've got far greater battles to wage against orginizations such as PETA, HSUS, etc.

Continuing with my question, or observation if you will...

It seems both sides have valid points regarding crossbow use, after all, if good things weren't apperant on both sides of the issue, there wouldn't be an issue.

I liken this arguement to a hard fought 15 round heavyweight title bout, with both sides putting forth a hellish effort towards a knockout. Well, Ding! The doctors should put a stop to this fight. Both fighters are too beat up to continue... A No Decision should be declared, and a comprimise reached. Both sides will be angry, but not as mad as if they'd lost the fight outright.

We are all relatively smart human beings and too many of these discussions turn to nothing but emotionally charged arguements, with just enough logic thrown in to keep it somewhat on task.

Finally, my question....Why can't a compromise be reached? Give a little to get a little, or give it all and get nothing?

Just some thoughts....

I Look forward to hearing the success stories of Autumn, regardless of what weapon was taken afield.

-Jason

Here's the topic of this thread. Either keep on the topic or don't post. Threads from both sides of this argument have been deleted.

If you are going to post then read Jason's initial post and comment on that.

 

of the post. No room for anything but full inclusion for the disabled IMO as you run the risk of leaving someone out who could participate if you put any percentage of disability association with it. Split the bow season? That would be a dog fight. After all is said and done, maybe full inclusion is the compromise.

 

Here is a simple compromise that should be acceptable to both sides if the concerns voiced by the anti's are really what they say they are. It seems that the biggest concern that I have heard from them is that they are afraid of the woods being over-run by hundreds of thousands of former firearms hunters and public land bowhunters being crowded out of their spots.

Easy solution.

Allow full inclusion of crossbows in any season where bows are currently allowed but restrict the use of crossbows to private land only.

No crossbow hunters crowding public lands.

No hordes of crossbow hunters tromping through state land to disturb your hunt.

Since 85% of deer in Michigan are harvested on private land, this would give the pro-crossbow side 85% of what they want yet it would also address what seems to be the anti's biggest concern, the impact on the public land hunter, as well. Couple this with the anticipated changes to the disabled permit (which in my scenario would still be required if you wanted to use a crossbow on public land) and it seems like it should accommodate the desires of the majority of individuals.

The only ones it seems who would not be satisfied are those who feel that it is somehow "unfair" that crossbow hunters would not have to draw the bow string. To those, I would say, get over it. It will not impact you in the least if the hunter on the adjacent private land decides to use a crossbow instead of a compound. You won't see him, hear him or even know what weapon he is using, so quit worrying about it. Your argument carries about as much water as the flintlock shooter who whines that it's "unfair" that his neighbor is using an in-line muzzleloader.

So does anybody else like my compromise?

Let's see a show of hands for "The Munsterlandr plan"! :lol:

 

Here is a simple compromise that should be acceptable to both sides if the concerns voiced by the anti's are really what they say they are. It seems that the biggest concern that I have heard from them is that they are afraid of the woods being over-run by hundreds of thousands of former firearms hunters and public land bowhunters being crowded out of their spots.

Easy solution.

Allow full inclusion of crossbows in any season where bows are currently allowed but restrict the use of crossbows to private land only.

No crossbow hunters crowding public lands.

No hordes of crossbow hunters tromping through state land to disturb your hunt.

Since 85% of deer in Michigan are harvested on private land, this would give the pro-crossbow side 85% of what they want yet it would also address what seems to be the anti's biggest concern, the impact on the public land hunter, as well. Couple this with the anticipated changes to the disabled permit (which in my scenario would still be required if you wanted to use a crossbow on public land) and it seems like it should accommodate the desires of the majority of individuals.

The only ones it seems who would not be satisfied are those who feel that it is somehow "unfair" that crossbow hunters would not have to draw the bow string. To those, I would say, get over it. It will not impact you in the least if the hunter on the adjacent private land decides to use a crossbow instead of a compound. You won't see him, hear him or even know what weapon he is using, so quit worrying about it. Your argument carries about as much water as the flintlock shooter who whines that it's "unfair" that his neighbor is using an in-line muzzleloader.

So does anybody else like my compromise?

Let's see a show of hands for "The Munsterlandr plan"! :lol:

That sounds very logical and reasonable to me at least.

 

I'll buy into The Munsterlandr plan.

If a present bowhunter owns/leases his own land there is no way that crossbows will be forced on them..

They would have no gripe coming...

 

i would agree with that

 

Although I would agree to such a Munsterlander plan, I would do so hestitantly. I still feel it poses restrictions that disclude people from the pursuit of bowhunting by limiting them to private land. Full inclusion is the only thing that would NOT restrict a single person.

 

although i would agree to such a munsterlander plan, i would do so hestitantly. I still feel it poses restrictions that disclude people from the pursuit of bowhunting by limiting them to private land. Full inclusion is the only thing that would not restrict a single person.

i have a small problem with the munsterlander's compromise.i don't own nor do i have the monies to lease land!
Why not have full inclusion on public land and give the private land owners the choice to use there land as thay see fit,after all they own it!!!!!

 

I like the walrus plan, the hunters on stateland should not be excluded. the bill is doing fine, there is no reason to compromise. We should follow the mbh method,,,,no compromise ever and make it harder for them to use a compound.

 

Sorry Munster but I don't like it.It excludes those that are'nt fortunate enough to own or can not afford to lease private land.Starting to exclude certain groups this early in the proccess will only further bolster the anti cross bow militias stance on the issue.I say make it full inclusion and let the individual decide.

 

Compromise: Crossbow inclusion w/OBR for all weapons.

 

Guy's, don't get me wrong, I am one of the strongest advocates for full unrestricted inclusion that you will find. The topic of this thread, however, is about hypothetical compromises that could defuse this issue and stop all of the in-fighting that is occurring over it within the hunting ranks. I don't like the in-fighting any more than anyone else.

Since the topic is compromise, I offered what I see as a reasonable compromise and one that I could live with. Nobody ever likes compromise, it's very nature means that you are not getting everything you want, but this is one that I could live with. It also would seem to satisfy one of the major concerns of the opposition and throwing a bone to the other side is an important part of any compromise. Trust me, I negotiate contracts on a daily basis for a living, all negotiation involves compromise. MBH has been unwilling to compromise in the past and has held out for getting things 100% their way and look where it has got them. I think that it would be a reasonable exercise to at least examine compromises that might be acceptable to the majority of individuals on both sides of the table. Hence the Munsterlndr plan.

 

14 days either in October or the first half of November.

 

Hence the Munsterlndr plan.

Add OBR to it and you'd have the MunnWhit Plan! :lol:

 

I am against crossbow useage unless you are disabled. But that being said I see no compromise between private/public land. Its going to have to be all or nothing IMO. Otherwise you are moving closer to the havs and the hav nots and I don't think we want to move in that direction either. Its going to be statewide full inclusion or its going to be similar to what we have now. I really don't think you can get a compromise where both parties are somewhat satisfied unless maybe you have a "crossbow season".

Ganzer

 

Make it a crossbow season concurrent wth the present vertical archery season.

 

Sorry, I disagree with the "haves" & "have nots" concerns. We already have ample precedents for rules based on land ownership. The new September firearms antlerless season is an example, it's only for private land hunters. You can target shoot on private land during the pre-firearms seasons quiet period but not on public land. There are lots of instances where we differentiate between private land and public land hunters. This is simply a compromise to alleviate one of the concerns voiced by anti-crossbow folks. I believe that being over-run by converted firearms hunters was one of your concerns, Adam, was it not? Just trying to come up with a solution to deal with that objection. Again, we are talking compromise and you "all or nothing" guys are not making any concessions here.

 

Compromise: Crossbow inclusion w/OBR for all weapons.

Sounds good to me. Maybe we can throw in mandatory check stations.