# Reaction to Michigans Crossbow Decision



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

mlive.com

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/08/reaction_to_michigans_decision.html

Reaction to Michigan's decision to ditch study and relax crossbow use rules a mixed bag


Published: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 7:20 AM Updated: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 8:43 PM


Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
Grayson Wilson cros

sbowGrand Rapids Press File PhotoGrayson Wilson, owner of Outdoorsmen Pro Shop in Jenison, cheers the changes to the state's crossbow use rules.
A recent state decision to relax crossbow use rules and forgo a three-year study about the impact of their use has hunters either angry or elated.

Critics say the state's Natural Resources Commission let politics get in the way of good science.

"We are very disappointed they didn't finish the study," said Bruce Levey, president of the Michigan Bowhunters Association. "They made a commitment to doing one so they could make an informed and intelligent decision. Their credibility was on the line and they just didn't care."

State officials say change was pushed by the crossbow industry and Safari Club International. A legislative change also was being threatened. Advocates claim that relaxing the rules will benefit hunter recruitment.

The Natural Resources Commission approved new rules at its August meeting. The rules:

* Lower the legal age to use crossbows from 12 to 10.

* Allow crossbows to be used by any legal hunter during all archery and firearm seasons except during the late archery and muzzleloading seasons in the Upper Peninsula.

* Allow modified bows where crossbows are legal.

* Eliminate the 340-foot per second velocity cap.

* Eliminate the three-year sunset.

* Allow for a temporary crossbow permit for hunters with temporary disabilities.

The commission approved the state's first limited crossbow season in 2009 despite concerns raised by MBHA. Its members feared that the archery season would be overrun by gun hunters.

Levey and others claimed that the crossbow's short learning curve and higher kill rate (than other bows) could skew the deer kill and result in a shorter archery season. The NRC approved the limited season last year and a three-year study to examine crossbow hunting success rates and kill statistics.

Crossbow users were required to get a free crossbow stamp when they purchased their hunting license. That registration would provide researchers with people that could be surveyed for the study.

"We wanted the crossbow stamp to track participation and harvest," said Brent Rudolph, the state's deer program manger with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. "Although everyone was supposed to have the stamp, we found that only 60 percent of the people who hunted with crossbows had it."

Rudolph said an estimated 56,916 hunters used crossbows during the 2009 season. They harvested 24,882 deer. Their success rate with crossbows was 36 percent, considerably higher than the regular archer's average of 25 percent, according to Levey.

"We did see an increase in archery participation, and the crossbow probably had something to do with it," Rudolph said. "We had about 20,000 more than the year before, which might have been because of crossbows, but we don't know.

"We see bumps from year to year, and the long-term trend has been one decline. But 20,000 is probably larger than we've seen."

Rudolph said the higher success and participation rate does nothing to jeopardize the herd or the season given the long-term decline in archery hunting. There were nearly 400,000 archers in the mid-1990s. The number dropped to 285,508 in 2008 and climbed back to 305,332 in 2009.

Grayson Wilson, owner of Outdoorsmen Pro Shop in Jenison, is glad about the rule change.

"I think its a great idea. It encourages participation. I thought the original ruling was a little silly," said Wilson, a board member for the West Michigan bowhunters chapter of Safari Club International.

Dave Nyberg, legislative staffer for Michigan United Conservation Clubs, said his membership was split, but MUCC had issued a resolution urging the NRC to "stick to its guns" and complete the three-year study.

twitter-MLive2.png
Follow Howard Meyerson at twitter.com/HMeyerson
"Crossbows has always been a contentious issue," Nyberg said. "Our members said the NRC should collect data for three years, and when they turned around after one year, that had some folks concerned.

"We can still collect data and see if there is an adverse impact. No one knows at this point and we have no conclusions.

"But we are moving on and putting the issue behind us.

E-mail Howard Meyerson: [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/HMeyerson

© 2010 MLive.com. All rights reserved.


----------



## PWood (Aug 6, 2004)

Crossbow hunters still have to get a crossbow stamp so the MDNRE can continue it's study.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Meyerson should name his source or not make a blank statement that has no evidence. The change was pushed by a concerted effort of crossbow hunters and sportspersons for a variety of logical and legitimate reasons. Without the efforts of this group of people the change would not have happened regardless of the feelings of the trade organizations. 

The present study is over and there is no sunset date. However there are reasons for the stamp such as documenting the number of crossbow hunters and their percentage among all archers. I do believe that the NRC has the authority to look at or adjust hunting and fishing regulations. Please correct me if I am wrong on that count.

Not everyone was required to have a stamp last season. Hunters with a permanent lifetime crossbow disability permit did not have to get the stamp to legally hunt with a crossbow. I am not sure about that exclusion for this coming season. I do not believe that Rudolph made the comment concerning only 60% as that was contradicted later in this article when he said, "we don't know." How would anyone know if 40% did not use permits when the permits were the only means of identifying, by documented data, the number of crossbow hunters excluding approved disabled hunters. Mr. Levey is hardly a disinterested unbiased critic of crossbow use. He has made this a personal point of attack for years as well as being seated on two boards, one of which he chairs. IMO he would have challenged a study's results if it were 20 yrs. long but then that is only my view after listening to and watching his rants for so long.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Don't even respond to this trolling attempt insult members and diminish the efforts put forth by so many here. Some people just can't accept that not only did they lose battle after battle, the entire war is a lost cause on a national basis. Mr Levy, Tom Moran et al will assure the continued minimization of the relevancy of the MBH. 
MUCC, no matter how they try to sugar coat their actions has been nothing less than obstructionist in their actions, costing them present and even more future support.



> but MUCC had issued a resolution urging the NRC to "stick to its guns" and complete the three-year study.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

ESOX said:


> Don't even respond to this trolling attempt insult members and diminish the efforts put forth by so many here. Some people just can't accept that not only did they lose battle after battle, the entire war is a lost cause on a national basis. Mr Levy, Tom Moran et al will assure the continued minimization of the relevancy of the MBH.
> MUCC, no matter how they try to sugar coat their actions has been nothing less than obstructionist in their actions, costing them present and even more future support.


With all due respect mr esox or whatever your name is if I was trolling I would post this in the crossbow section. 

Now, why don't you loose that chip on your shoulder and grow up.


----------



## beervo2 (May 7, 2006)

Tom Morang said:


> With all due respect mr esox or whatever your name is if I was trolling I would post this in the crossbow section.
> 
> Now, why don't you loose that chip on your shoulder and grow up.


:lol::lol: With all due respect mr morang the same could be said for you..
The crossbow fight is over, you guys lost, lose that chip on your shoulder, grow up and deal with it.....

Mike


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> mlive.com
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/08/reaction_to_michigans_decision.html
> 
> ...







I just love the last sentence:

*But we are moving on and putting the issue behind us.....*


I would hope so, it's the law now........duh....


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

beervo2 said:


> :lol::lol: With all due respect mr morang the same could be said for you..
> The crossbow fight is over, you guys lost, lose that chip on your shoulder, grow up and deal with it.....
> 
> Mike



I am over it, apparently you are not.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I hear from a long time/ respected member of MBHA that things arent going very well for them.........Levy is going to run that club into the ground, All we have to do is sit back and watch.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I hear from a long time/ respected member of MBHA that things arent going very well for them.........Levy is going to run that club into the ground, All we have to do is sit back and watch.


He's not alone in their downfall. Just keep in mind all those choice comments we've gotten from other members of the hierarchy here on this board. And then add Howie to the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster. It truly pains me to watch fools drive such a respected group into the ground without any thought regarding the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Sour grapes, Meyerson has long been an opponent of full inclusion. His quote from "state officials" smacks of being made up out of thin air. His article is a mish-mash of incorrect information and innuendo, why anyone still views Meyerson as a credible journalist is hard to understand. 

Brent Rudolph is incorrect in his statement that everybody hunting with a crossbow was required to obtain a crossbow stamp. Those with crossbow disability permits were exempted from obtaining a stamp and could legally hunt with a crossbow without a stamp last year. Michigan has issued over 30,000 disability permits in the past and holders of those permits make up the vast majority of the approx. 40% of Michigan crossbow hunters who hunted last year without a crossbow stamp. 

Bruce Leavey was also wrong in his estimate of the "regular" archers success rate, it was not 24% as he alleged, it was 31.6% last year (per the DNR annual deer harvest survey report, Pg. 38) and the "regular" archery success rate was actually higher then the firearms success rate, which was 31.5%. 

If Meyerson wants to attain any level of credibility, he might want to consider getting some sources who actually know what they are talking about, instead of ones who simply make stuff up to serve a particular agenda.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Munster said:

"Bruce Leavey was also wrong in his estimate of the "regular" archers success rate, it was not 24% as he alleged, it was 31.6% last year (per the DNR annual deer harvest survey report, Pg. 38) and the "regular" archery success rate was actually higher then the firearms success rate, which was 31.5%."



Not necessarily.

It appears to me there are no accurate numbers for the "regular" archery season success rates for 2009. The numbers from the table you quoted include kills during archery season for bows and crossbows. 

But one can conclude that crossbow inclusion did help increase the success rate of the "archery hunters" above that of the firearm hunters success rate.:shhh:

Looks like you are wrong as well.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

What will eventually kill the MBH is their refusal to lower their standards along with what is probably a large portion of Michigan Bow Hunters.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Just like the figures for Firearms season include harvests made with bows and crossbows, too. The totals are for seasons not weapons. The fact remains that Mr. Leavey pulled a number out of thin air and has no idea what the success rate for "regular" archery is and Meyerson obviously made no attempt to verify a statistic that he quoted in an article. That's pretty pathetic journalism, if you ask me. 

Here are the archery season success rates for the past 10 years; 2009 looks pretty typical to me, despite an increased level of crossbow use. 

2009 - 31.6%
2008 - 30.8%
2007 - 34.6%
2006 - 33.7%
2005 - 29.6%
2004 - 31.3%
2003 - 32.7%
2002 - 29.7%
2001 - 30.3%
2000 - 31.6%

Average for decade - 31.58%


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

LOL!

Skinner


----------

