# Crossbow Update



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

A hearty thanks to everyone who has commented on crossbows over the past two weeks on this forum and the several dozen people who have e-mailed Rep. Sheltrown and I on this issue. We are learning a lot from the various perspectives and are in the process of sorting through and analyzing the data from other states and provinces who have made changes to their crossbow laws in recent years.


Thanks as well to NRC Commissioner Madigan for his work to examine the problems with the disability portion of current crossbow rules. Commissioner Madigan and the NRC Crossbow Disability Workgroup will continue that effort to address the disability issue (which can be changed by the NRC) while Rep. Sheltrown leads the effort to examine the broader issue of whether to restrict crossbow use to the disabled and/or hunters of certain age groups (statutory law which can only be altered by the Legislature).


Next month, the House Natural Resource Committee will take action on the crossbow issue. Members of the committee will consider whether to restrict crossbow use only to the disabled per current law, whether to simply treat crossbows as other bows or whether to eliminate the need for crossbow permits for seniors and/or youth hunters. In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities. I think I can safely say that contrary to some of the rumors floating around, we are not considering a distinct crossbow season. We are solely looking at whether to expand crossbow use during the existing archery season.


I recognize that emotions run high on this issue. Please keep in mind that you are all hunters and have a shared interest in supporting each other. Rather than worrying about another hunter taking your deer or having to share your preferred hunting location, be thankful for the competition. Unless we work together to reverse the decline in the number of people hunting in Michigan and get more people in the field in October and November, HSUS and PETA may make any discussion regarding who gets to hunt with what bow or firearm irrelevant.


Also, on an unrelated firearms note, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to take the CPL pistol safety training course this past week from an NRA instructor through MCRGO. Even if you've never considered owning a handgun or getting a CPL, I would strongly suggest taking the course. It will give you a whole new perspective as a gun owner.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Thats great news! Once again thanks to You and Rep. Sheltrown for all the hard work! I hope crossbows become legal for everyone, at least now we know that its on the table.


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

Thank You for addressing this issue......


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Thanks to you and Rep Sheltrown for your support om this matter


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

thank you bradymsu and representative sheltrown for your interest in seeing that this VERY IMPORTANT issue gets addressed correctly for all of us crossbow hunters and those who wish to hunt with crossbows.:help:
will you keep us informed as to what comes out of the nrc meeting when it is over next month?
THANKS IN ADVANCE DMZ


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't think the NRC will be done with the disability portion by next month. They are making some progress on the technical issues of how to determine disability in a manner that is more fair, but they have yet to really address the disability threshold level. Rep. Sheltrown has suggested lowering the threshold from 80% to 60% and no longer requiring an annual re-examinaiton for a person with progressive neuromuscular disease. Why these folks were ever singled out is beyond me; the current rules are almost cruel. While I'm not yet sold on full legalization, a key benefit is that it's a lot simpler than having to codify disability testing.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

nice to see the issue being looked at. but i still believe lowering the percent from 80 to 60% is still wrong. to due this properly we as sportsman and as a state need to open our arms and allow the person to choose the weapon they hunt with. let everyone hunt unrestricted this one act will bring more does home to the freezer than an early gun doe season in the long run. as you see from other post on this site the majority of us support unrestricted use of the crossbow and as the facts show it will not hurt the current archery season, but an early doe season will hurt the archery season and this may be my opinion and that of many others, but ask those in the tb zone and most will tell ya it hurt the archery season in november and it did put a hurt on the heard. plus with 80% of hunting done on private land after a few years of this early season they will quit shooting does. it has happen in the tb zone and it has shown up in a raise of tb cases in the area and a slow spread southward. so in conclusion the best thing i see for us is to allow crossbows for all and increase our numbers


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

bradymsu said:


> In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities.


Brady, thanks for not only the work you and Rep. Sheltrown are doing, but also effort to keep us informed.

I sincerely hope the NRC, as well as the legislature if they do take any action, focus, as you say on "the management impact" of any changes in the crossbow regulations. There are a lot of "facts" tossed out by those opposed to any changes including a dubious "talking points" paper put out by the North American Bowhunting Coalition. There are a lot of opinions foisted upon the unknowing that have no basis in reality as demonstrated by the experiences of state's that have eased their crossbow regulations. 

One member of MBH (a former member of their board) stated to me in an email that, "I_ also do believe that adding hundreds of thousands of gun hunters in the bow season using crossbows will hurt the resource. A lot of breeding bucks would be harvested before the rut, but that is of little concern to the crossbow manufacturers_." Not only is his number of "hundreds of thousands of gun hunters" ludicrous (no state that liberalized crossbow regs has seen anything remotely close to that number). As for the issue of taking "breeding bucks" I have to particularly laugh at that comment. In the SLP bowhunters, who can automatically take a doe with the purchase of a bow license have been shown (DNR harvest stats) to be a major taker of antlered bucks over does.

I have sent emails, through the "contact us" feature found on their sites, mesages to both MBH and MTB as to why they oppose changes to crossbow regulations here in Michigan. The message was a bit complicated as I also included a number of talking points for them to use in answering my basic question. It may take some time for a response.

Thanks again for all the work you've done.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

bradymsu said:


> In making this decision, the committee will focus on the management impact such as any adverse impact on the archery season and firearms season balanced against the benefits of offering new hunting opportunities..


I don't believe anyone could ask for anything more. 
Thanks for all your efforts. 
<----<<<


----------



## beervo2 (May 7, 2006)

Thanks Brady & Rep. Sheltrown for taking on such a touchy issue...


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks for your help with the crossbow issue. Your quote pretty well sums up how I feel.


> Rather than worrying about another hunter taking your deer or having to share your preferred hunting location, be thankful for the competition. Unless we work together to reverse the decline in the number of people hunting in Michigan and get more people in the field in October and November, HSUS and PETA may make any discussion regarding who gets to hunt with what bow or firearm irrelevant.


----------



## fisher210 (Aug 20, 2006)

Thanks for taking this on and I hope it becomes legal for everyone that wants to hunt with one.


Howard


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

I have no problem with making it easier for "disabled" hunters to get a crossbow as long as Mr. Sheltrown doesn't forget his "other" bill to make it easier to get a modified bow permit. Rather than pandering to the special interests that are giving him money, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about the disabled hunter and making it easier for them to modify their current equipment at a much lower expense. Funny how this seems to be forgotten in these crossbow "discussions", isn't it?

I am opposed to legalization of crossbows in the general ARCHERY season (what is left of it) for reasons I have stated many times on this forum.

Allowing a huge influx of hunters with an easier weapon in the early season will definitely have negative impact on the resource, especially in the UP and the NLP. Unless of course your desire is to further restrict opportunity by taking the next step and pushing OBR. Ever wonder why firearm season is only 16 days long?

It really saddens me how some have "devalued" a great game animal such as the whitetail doe and view them as a pest.
Dan


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

One Eye said:


> I have no problem with making it easier for "disabled" hunters to get a crossbow as long as Mr. Sheltrown doesn't forget his "other" bill to make it easier to get a modified bow permit. Rather than pandering to the special interests that are giving him money, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about the disabled hunter and making it easier for them to modify their current equipment at a much lower expense. Funny how this seems to be forgotten in these crossbow "discussions", isn't it?
> 
> I am opposed to legalization of crossbows in the general ARCHERY season (what is left of it) for reasons I have stated many times on this forum.
> 
> ...


As Ronald Reagan once stated during a presdential debate, this immortal phrase: "There you go again!" Well, Dan, there you go again!

The very fact that you have placed the word "disabled" in parenthesis, to me, indicates a bias on your part that only the most severely disabled person should be allowed to use a crossbow during the archery season. Am I reading you wrong or, do you agree that if a person simply has a disability that render him/her unable to pull and or hold a long-, or compound bow, shouldn't that person have the opportunity to be an equal participant during the archery season? 

If we quantify disabilities, as the current and even the proposed criteria now reads, does that not leave the possibility of a person not meeting that criteria yet, still being unable to pull and or hold a long-, or compound-bow, aka ... &#8220;falling through the cracks?&#8221; To me, that constitutes discrimination. And, we all know that the LAW states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability. The last time I looked, that law didn't say which specific disability, nor did it say the _degree_ of severity of the disability, it merely stated the word--_disability_!

To your second point regarding &#8220;what is left of the archery season&#8221;, I'm interpreting your drift as that the archery season has somehow denigrated from what is once was to something less desirable today. To this writer, the only logical factors that one could formulate an opinion surrounding this purported denigration could be fewer deer, more hunters using compound-bows and/or more disabled hunters during the archery season. I for one do not see the latter two factors as denigrating anything.

As to your point for allowing a huge influx of hunters with an easier weapon into the archery season strikes me as strange. I think it's a little too late for that argument, as it should have been brought up, along with the introduction of the very first compound bow, decades ago. That is, if you feel that participants in Michigan's archery season be relegated solely to using long-bow weaponry. That would truly make it:"your" archery season and exclude those who choose to use a compound bow and/or the disabled.

And, finally, we simply have to move off this "ABC" mentality, specifically: "Anything But a Crossbow" in defining what is and what is not, a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability to have the opportunity to participate equally in Michigan&#8217;s archery season. We have already established the fact that a crossbow is a reasonable accommodation in this regard. It's no longer debatable; if you meet the criteria, you can use a crossbow. Furthermore, I, for one, believe the current, and even the proposed criteria, to be overly restrictive and thus, discriminatory within the context of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, I will work vigilantly to bring this fact to the attention to all those currently reviewing these matters in order to make 100% sure that Michigan is in 100% compliance with a the ADA.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

Why the big push for this "modified bow" permit? Since those in support of crossbow expansion often get accused of having ties to crossbow manufacturers. Is there somebody in these anti-crossbow special interest groups with ties to "draw loc" company?


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

NoWake said:


> Why the big push for this "modified bow" permit? Since those in support of crossbow expansion often get accused of having ties to crossbow manufacturers. Is there somebody in these anti-crossbow special interest groups with ties to "draw loc" company?


i don't know if they have any ties to the draw lock, but thats their way of trying to stop crossbows. JUST MORE SPIN!


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

It deeply saddens and troubles me that there are people out there and groups that are opposed to the crossbow. A bow that has far far far more history than any recurve or compound bow. And those people and groups against crossbows do a disservice to all sportsmen in this state and devalue the whitetail deer with their self serving uninformed unscientific reasons.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Just to put this on the record, Rep. Sheltrown hasn't taken any money from crossbow manufacturers or retailers. In fact, he hasn't had any personal contact with the crossbow industry and I didn't until this past Friday at the NRC meeting when a Michigan based distributor spoke to me about the issue. Neither Rep. Sheltrow or I own crossbows, plan to own a crossbow or have a financial connection to anyone making a living off crossbows. The people Joel Sheltrown are pandering to are the hunters of Michigan, originally three older bowhunters in his Baptist church at West Branch who can't use their compound bows anymore.

Joel Sheltrown has been a far bigger advocate for ORVs than he has for crossbows. Yet, like with crossbows, he hasn't taken any money from ORV manufacturers and neither he, nor I, or any members of our immediate families own ORVs (not that I wouldn't like to in the future provided I can drive it legally in the Higgins Lake area).

I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities. It's good for the state's economy, it's good for the DNR and their conservation programs, it's good for our district in northern Michigan, and it's good in the general sense for public health and welfare. It would be far easier for Joel Sheltrown as a legislator to bury his head in the sand and not invite personal attacks on his ethics by bascially doing nothing productive on natural resource issues. Plenty of other elected officals and bureaucrats are doing that already. That's not what he's about.

We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*"Just to put this on the record, Rep. Sheltrown hasn't taken any money from crossbow manufacturers or retailers. In fact, he hasn't had any personal contact with the crossbow industry and I didn't until this past Friday at the NRC meeting when a Michigan based distributor spoke to me about the issue."* 

That is part of the shellgame that is used by those who oppose crossbows. I've been accused on these boards of being a rep and/or having financial interest in a crossbow commercial enterprise and I have none.

*"Neither Rep. Sheltrow or I own crossbows, plan to own a crossbow or have a financial connection to anyone making a living off crossbows."*
*_______________*
That's were I'm at also. I have no plans at all to purchase a crossbow let alone get into using one for hunting. I used to hunt with a compound bow, but no longer do so.

*"I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities. It's good for the state's economy, it's good for the DNR and their conservation programs, it's good for our district in northern Michigan, and it's good in the general sense for public health and welfare. It would be far easier for Joel Sheltrown as a legislator to bury his head in the sand and not invite personal attacks on his ethics by bascially doing nothing productive on natural resource issues. Plenty of other elected officals and bureaucrats are doing that already. That's not what he's about."*
*_______________*
That about sums up my interest in seeing meaningful changes in the regulations for disabled and also hunters who have put some years under their belts eased. This includes not only the process by which a permit may be obtained, but also the lowering of the threshold of 80% disability which, in effect, eliminates at least 90% of those who are disabled.

I would also add that crossbows would be another tool to use for managing our deer herd and there are certainly areas, especially in the SLP, where herd reduction is getting to the point of being a major priority.
*_______________*
*"We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up*."

Don't hold your breath while waiting for "solid data showing how it would create negative management impact." A question asking for any such data has been posted many times on these boards and has yet to be answered. I've gone out on the 'net looking and asking for it, but other than wild, unsubstantiated claims it isn't there. If it was I'd oppose crossbows with the vigor that is shown by those who already do so.

One of the claims made by those who are against having crossbows in the archery season (this is distinct from the issue of easing crossbow regs for the disabled as it should be) is that it will add too many deer hunters to the archery season. The claim that crossbows would add "....hundreds of thousands of hunters...." (the guy was referring to firearms hunters) to the archery season was made to me in an email to me by a former board member of MBH. I would add that he said his thoughts did *NOT* necessarily reflect those of MBH.

This claim of adding too many new bow hunters and how it would harm the bowhunting experience and/or the resource is bogus. No state that has, either by easing restrictions for disabled hunters, putting in an age requirement (55, 60, 65 years old) for using a crossbow during the archery season or allow crossbows during their archery season, has experienced this huge influx of new archery hunters.

In the past ten years or so MI has lost at least 50,000 archery hunters. Munster would have the exact data on this. That is significant. If crossbows can get some of those hunters back or add new ones to the fold that is a positive for Michigan and its deer herd. With the way things go, both economically and in regard to the influence that anti-hunting groups have (do we remember the Dove Bill?) we need an increase in hunter numbers rather than a decrease.


----------



## WHITE CLOUD (Mar 8, 2008)

is it legal to use a crossbow during gun season


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

WHITE CLOUD said:


> is it legal to use a crossbow during gun season



Yes, anyone can use a crossbow during the firearm season. But you must wear the same amount of hunter's orange as anyone else.


----------



## WHITE CLOUD (Mar 8, 2008)

huntingfool43 said:


> Yes, anyone can use a crossbow during the firearm season. But you must wear the same amount of hunter's orange as anyone else.


thank's for the info happy hunting


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

The application for a crossbow or draw lock is not that easy. Click on the link.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PR9134E_149461_7.pdf

Believe it or not there are people in the legislature that actually are working to put more hunters in the field when hunter numbers are declining. Everyone in Lansing is not lining their pockets as someone elses expense. 

Thanks for clearing things up Brady. I wasn't at the March NRC meeting but I did read the minutes and it appears that the crossbow issue is moving forward. They are now posted on the DNR's website for those who are interested.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I wasn't at the March NRC meeting but I did read the minutes and it appears that the crossbow issue is moving forward. They are now posted on the DNR's website for those who are interested.


Link to the minutes and the page where it is posted on the DNR's website please!


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Whit1 said:


> Link to the minutes and the page where it is posted on the DNR's website please!


The agenda is posted but can't find the minutes. From past experience, the minutes are usually not posted for a couple of weeks _after_ the meeting.

Here was the agenda: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/agnAPR07_228811_7.pdf


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

How does one provide "hard data" proving selfishness and greed? This is the opposition to crossbows proponents' true driving force. There are, sadly, some who view deer hunting as a competition. Hunter against hunter.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

bradymsu said:


> I'll be very open and honest with everyone here. Our bottom line is to increase public participation in outdoor activities.


From the DNR's annual Michigan Deer Harvest Reports:

1998: 380,583 archery hunters
2006: 309,140 archery hunters

Opening crossbow use to all hunters will not even come close to permitting us to regain the 70,000 archery hunters that we've lost, but there's a solid likelihood that it will at least slow down the decline in numbers. It's even possible that it will lead to a mild increase of 20,000 to 30,000 more hunters in the short term.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

bradymsu said:


> We have no problem with anyone opposing expanded crossbow use provided they have solid data showing how it would create negetive management impact. But that data has been absent from the objections to crossbow liberalization so far. Instead all we've seen are false personal attacks and exaggerated warnings with no solid data to back them up.


I'm reasonably well versed in survey methodology and research, so I recognize that polls on this web forum are not exactly candidates for research publications in the world of academia.

Nonetheless, as you're aware, there have been numerous polls on this forum that have gauged the support of hunters in respect to making crossbows legal for everyone. They may not meet textbook requirements of survey methodology but they do mean something, and the level of support you see on here is real. Everything that I've seen on this forum and in conversations with many hunters indicates that a strong support level of crossbow use for all hunters is very real. 

Keep that in mind as you go through this process because you're going to be submitted to an organized campaign of emails and phone calls that could give the impression that archers as a whole are against this. Now, I recognize that mini campaigns by organized opposition groups is something you've undoubtedly experienced many times in the political process, but since I've observed these schemes have an impact on crossbow legislation in other states, I thought that it would make sense just to provide you with a forewarning, even at the risk of stating the obvious.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

November Sunrise said:


> I'm reasonably well versed in survey methodology and research, so I recognize that polls on this web forum are not exactly candidates for research publications in the world of academia.
> 
> Nonetheless, as you're aware, there have been numerous polls on this forum that have gauged the support of hunters in respect to making crossbows legal for everyone. They may not meet textbook requirements of survey methodology but they do mean something, and the level of support you see on here is real. Everything that I've seen on this forum and in conversations with many hunters indicates that a strong support level of crossbow use for all hunters is very real.
> 
> Keep that in mind as you go through this process because you're going to be submitted to an organized campaign of emails and phone calls that could give the impression that archers as a whole are against this. Now, I recognize that mini campaigns by organized opposition groups is something you've undoubtedly experienced many times in the political process, but since I've observed these schemes have an impact on crossbow legislation in other states, I thought that it would make sense just to provide you with a forewarning, even at the risk of stating the obvious.


Great response NS.

They have already put all their cards on the table for everybody to see. In fact, here's a link to it: http://www.nabowhuntingcoalition.com/BowhuntingIssues.html. >>.Clink on link to: "Crossbow Talking Points"

Still, to your point, it's good to be prepared for the inevitable, that is, if the discussion ever gets around to allowing unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season. 

Frankly, I don't think that the Anti Crossbow Society (ASC) desires to debate the merits of unrestricted crossbow use whatsoever. The reason for that is they know that they can, and probably will, lose that battle. So, rather than expose themselves to that possibility, they avoid the "big battle" and aggressively try to retard any smaller discussion toward expansion of crossbow use whenever and wherever it may emerge. Case in point; the current process surrounding expansion of the criteria that will allow a person with a disability to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. They know that if they can stunt that effort, the less likely it will be to create a dialogue regarding unrestricted use of crossbows overall. As I stated before, it's actually some pretty smart thinking the ACS's part, that is, if it wasn't so egregiously immoral.

Think about it...The ABS has gone on record stating that they oppose expanding the criteria that will allow a disabled person to hunt with a crossbow. By its own definition, this means that some may meet the narrowly defined criteria but most will not. Yet, there is a 100% certainty that there will be some within the latter category (not meeting the criteria), that are still unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound bow. They know this, endorse this, and, accept it simply as the price somebody must pay in order to keep crossbows out of the archery season. Is "egregious" too much of a word to describe this type of immoral behavior? I think not.

I don't have a dog in the fight regarding the effort to allow unrestricted use of crossbows during the archery season. I do however; have a dog in the fight regarding this expansion of the criteria for persons with a disability to have the opportunity to be an equal participant in Michigan&#8217;s archery season. And, the answer is to have NO criteria other than requiring an individual obtain and produce a letter from one's personal physician (NOT a physical therapist) stating that in his/her profession opinion, the individual has a temporary or permanent disability that is of a degree of severity that render the person unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound bow! 

This gets the government out of the "criteria" business and keeps these highly personal and private matters where they belong, specifically: between the individual and your personal physician. 

That's it. It's that simple. Plus, it's the right thing to do!

And let me resond to the ABS even before they pose their inevitable, predictable diatribibe: This isn't about me wanting to hunt with a crossbow. The fact is, I already hunt with a crossbow because I meet the current medical criteria and have an 80% permanent disabity (and, it's none of your frick'n business what it is). So, that dog wont hunt.

And, for the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with a crossbow manufacturer nor any other industry that could benefit from an expansion in crossow use. Again look elsewhere because that dog too, wont hunt!

I'm doing this, because, at the end of the day, it's the right thing to do!


----------



## awshucks (Feb 7, 2006)

RE: NABC "Talking Points"

Think they got Arkansas wrong. The 06-07 deer harvest was up 25% over previous year, 4 deer limit, not counting extra does or urban permits, I was able to hunt from 10/01 to 02/28. The vert crowd took 10,614 deer while xbows got 4,608 out of a total kill of 165,663 deer.

edited to add link: http://www.agfc.com/!userfiles/pdfs/reports/deer_report_2006-07.pdf page 10


----------



## awshucks (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's two links on what's going on in Va. with xbows. They went full inclusion a few years ago and are doing well.

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife...estsummary.asp
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...ex_html?page=1


----------



## hda31 (Nov 21, 2006)

great work guys, just wonderin if theres somewhere we can look up more information on this issue???


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Here's a report about a survey done in New Jersey concerning crossbows.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2008/xbowsurvey07.pdf

As for there being other sources of information, as asked above the answer is "Yes". There's a ton of it out there.

Three years ago the only way the issue of crossbows crossed my mind is as a moderator. When I'd see (most of the other mods feel the same way) a crossbow thread my first reaction was "Oh no!" Any crossbow thread was a sure sign of trouble brewing.

After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.

I was particularly curious about the claim by anti-crossbow guys and gals that if crossbows were legalized for MI's bow season we would see an influx of thousands (the phrase "hundreds of thousands" was used recently) and the deer herd would be wiped out (as posted by someone from the Thumb area last December).

"Did these claims have any basis in facts?", I asked myself. It didn't take long for me to discover that the answer to that question was a resounding "No". Those claims were........and still are......all smokescreen.

Through a couple of members on the site Wall-eye, Munster, Riva, as well as a few others I learned. Those guys caused me to sit back and take stock of what was going on here in Michigan. I was especially concerned over the 80% disability requirement and how it excluded over 90% of all those who are disabled in one way or another.

Recently I was accused of, to paraphrase, picking on bowhunters. That is not what I'm doing at all. Maybe it's a penchant that I have for cheering for the underdog, maybe it stems from guilt feelings over the many years I spent being so unaware or lacking of caring. I don't know.

What I do know is that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and right.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

*Georgia Study Link* 
Georgia Crossbow Study

Georgia Crossbow Study Dispels Many Myths

By Bob McNitt

Following its decision to legalize hunting with crossbows, starting with the 2002 archery season, the State of Georgia's DNR has kept accurate records to reflect the impact the decision would have, on both the deer and the hunting community. Following the two-year study, the data collected dispelled several myths regarding the horizontal bow's impact on the resource and the hunting force.

In a report prepared by Nick Nicholson, Senior Wildlife Biologist for the DNR, the number of archery deer hunters and archery deer harvest increased significantly by 11.6-percent and 44.3-percent, respectively, during the 2003-04 season. Statewide, 36.7-percent of all deer hunters hunted with archery equipment during the 2003-04 season.

In 2003-04 there were about 9,300 additional archers, the majority of that increase being attributed to crossbow legalization. However, the data indicated that any additional deer harvest attributed to the legalization of crossbows was not significant at a statewide level. Nicholson notes, "If we assume all additional archers hunted with crossbows and the 0.49 deer per hunter harvest rate for crossbows is additive, then about 4,550 additional deer would be attributed to these new archery (crossbow) hunters."

The success rate for crossbows (0.49 deer/hunter) proved to be comparable to that of compound bows (0.51 deer/hunter). The survey indicates that 78.5-percent of archers use compounds. "It is less likely that a traditional archer would switch to a crossbow," Nicholson wrote. "Even if they did, the traditional archer success rate (0.46 deer/hunter) is only slightly lower than that of crossbow hunters. The data showed that older archers are more likely to report hunting with a crossbow. Archers over 50 years old were significantly more likely to report using a crossbow than archers under 50 years old."

Nicholson also notes that "The debate among hunters about legalization of crossbows is reminiscent of a similar debate on the 1977-78 legalization of compound bows. The technological leap from recurve bows to compound bows was much greater than the current move to crossbows. (Crossbows actually are more "primitive" than compound bows, having been around since the fourth century BC.) *Crossbows provide the opportunity for older archers to participate in archery deer hunting longer. They also introduce additional hunters into the sport of archery.* It is likely that many of them will seek increased archery hunting challenges and change to compound or recurve bows. *Recruiting new archers and retaining older ones is a positive event for all hunters."*

For more information visit the Georgia DNR website.
http://www.gadnr.org/index.html

http://www.realtree.com/community/n...tail.tpl?ID=709


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

Whit1 said:


> Here's a report about a survey done in New Jersey concerning crossbows.
> 
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2008/xbowsurvey07.pdf
> 
> ...


EXCELLENT, Whit1 !! I applaud you heartily !!
~ m ~


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

The Kentucky dept. of fish and wildlife hired Cornell University to do a study on crossbow expansion. As a result the 2006 hunting season was the first year for a broad expansion. 

Here is a link for the final report: Epansion Study

Here is a link for harvest reports for Kentucky's 2006 deer season: Harvest Report


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

hda31 said:


> great work guys, just wonderin if theres somewhere we can look up more information on this issue???


This organization spearheaded the efforts to change the laws in many states regarding persons with disabilities using crossbows. Their "hammer" if you will, to bring focus on these issues was principally rooted in and with The American with Disabilities Act (ADA). While this organization is not as active as before, as you can see by some of the outdated material on their website, their approach to these matters, then and now, is 100% spot on! http://www.disabledrights.org/

And, by the way, Whit1, you are also 100% spot on with your comments about "that it is time for crossbow regs to be brought into line with what is logical, decent, and _right_." 

That said, allow me to apply a homphone to the last word in your sentence:

*Rite:* The form for conducting a ceremony, i.e. "The annual rite of Michigan's archery season."

*Right:* An entitlement; a direction; accurate or correct, i.e. " You have a right to participate as an equal in the annual rite of Michigan's archery season."

*Write:* to enscribe; form letters; compose text, i.e. "You need to write the NRC to ensure your right to participate equally in the annual rite of Michigan's archery season." 

Am I right?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> From the DNR's annual Michigan Deer Harvest Reports:
> 
> 1998: 380,583 archery hunters
> 2006: 309,140 archery hunters
> ...


Lets keep in mind that during that same time period that we lost 71,000 archery hunters we also lost 155,000 firearms hunters. That means that 226,000 more hunters participated in deer season just ten short years ago, roughly a 25% reduction in deer hunter numbers. 

And vertical bow hunters think that crossbows bringing some of those 226,000 Michigan hunters back into deer hunting would be a bad thing? :coco:


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Whit1 said:


> After awhile and after reading the claims and counter claims I began to look into crossbows from a tech standpoint as well as statistics regarding their use as a hunting (deer) weapon. I went into it with an open mind. What I found out was truly eye opening for me. The more I researched the more I became convinced that crossbows were indeed bows and they had a legitimate place in bow season.


I've hunted for about a decade with a compound, I've went out a handful of times in Ohio with a crossbow, and I've taken my oldest children out extensively (25+ times) on hunts in Ohio where they've been using a crossbow.

The clear benefit of hunting with a crossbow as compared to a long bow is not having to draw and hold back while a deer is nearby. This becomes an increasingly significant benefit once all of the foliage is down late in the fall. Also, without extensive practice, a crossbow is easier for the average person to be accurate with at short distances (under 25 yards). 

The primary drawback to hunting with a crossbow as compared to a longbow is that crossbows are a major pain in the rear to handle in a tree stand - big, bulky, and awkward are the nicest words I'd use to describe them. In addition, they're also much louder than a longbow and don't offer a reasonable ability for a second shot. While second shots are admittedly not common with a longbow, most longbow users (including myself) have on occasion been able to get second shots, but there's almost no likelihood of that occurring with a crossbow. 

Those are the primary differences that I've experienced.


----------



## awshucks (Feb 7, 2006)

A little more info:

Here's a compilation of harvest data for those interested:
condensed from "The Crossbow is Here to Stay by C.J. Winard
The states of Arkansas (1973) and Ohio (1976) have one of the longest running crossbow seasons. Both states allow vertical bow and crossbows within the same archery season. In 1989, the crossbow deer harvest in Ohio exceeded the vertical bow harvest for the first time. This same trend has continued. In 2004, crossbow hunters took about 29,000 deer (58 percent) and vertical bowhunters took 21,000 (42 percent). Additionally, both crossbow and vertical bow hunters enjoy about 1.8 millions recreational days each.
In 1994, Ohio established urban deer units. Deer in these urban areas were prone to under-harvest and overabundance. Typically, these areas account for five percent of the total deer harvest. Once established, crossbows accounted for about 35 percent of all deer harvested in these urban areas. By comparison, crossbow hunters take 15 percent of the total deer harvest outside the urban areas, while vertical bowhunters take 10 percent. Overall, the success rate between crossbow and vertical bowhunters are similar, averaging about 14 percent.
In Arkansas, the latest survey indicates a success rate of 12 percent for crossbows, while vertical bowhunters enjoy a 17 percent success rate. Last years data shows that Arkansas crossbow hunters only took 3.3 percent of the total deer harvest, while vertical bowhunters took 6.6 percent. Interestingly, this data has been consistent through the last number of years. Participation rates for Arkansas and Ohio have also been similar, increasing from less than five percent in the early 1980s to over 35 percent of all deer hunters.
Data from deer biologists in both states say, Contrary to claims by anti-crossbow groups of herd decimation and severe restrictions on hunting opportunity and harvest, neither one of our states have modified our respective regulations as a result of the crossbow. Modern firearms have and will always account for the majority of the harvest and have the greatest impact on deer populations in both Ohio and Arkansas.
Although each state has large differences in crossbow harvest, the data clearly states that crossbows are not causing any negative impacts on their deer herds. In fact, the opposite is true, especially in the area of urban deer management. Data from Ohio also suggests that about 20 percent of all bowhunters hunt with both vertical and crossbows. Its believed many of these hunters use their vertical bows in the early season and then switch to the crossbows for the late season.
The state of Georgia made crossbows legal during the archery season in 2002. Wildlife biologist, Nick Nicholson of the Georgia DNR reports that during the second year of crossbow use an estimated 9,300 new archery hunters participated in the archery deer season. The vast majority of these new crossbow hunters, or over 6,900 hunters, indicated that they were new to archery hunting. 
Additionally, Nicholson reports a large portion of these crossbow hunters were over 50 years old. Many of these folks were most likely retired archery hunters who came back to archery hunting through the use of crossbows. The Ohio data also reflects a crossbow preference among older hunters. They found that among regular (non-senior) archery hunters, participation mirrored the harvest. Approximately 55 percent of archers hunted with a crossbow and 45 percent used a vertical bow. However, among senior hunters, the split was closer to 80:20 in favor of crossbows.
The Georgia data from 2003-04 indicates that the number of crossbow hunters comprised 24.8 percent of all archery hunters (or, 1 crossbow hunter per 4 compound / traditional bowhunter) and 9.1 percent of all hunters. The Georgia DNR also calculated the success rate of crossbow hunters. Crossbow hunters took 21.8 percent of the total archery harvest and only 2.6 percent of the total deer harvest. When you compare the success rate of crossbow hunters (.49 deer per hunter) with compound / traditional hunters (.51 deer per hunter) the data is almost identical. These results suggest whatever additional deer are taken with crossbows are not significant on a statewide basis. In fact, with the very liberal deer season limit in Georgia, any additional deer taken with whatever weapon is most welcomed.
In addition to Arkansas, Ohio and Georgia the states of Alabama (2004), Kentucky and Virginia (2005), and Wyoming (no one knows the actual year crossbows were legalized crossbows, evidently, its always been on the books as a legal weapon) allow crossbows during the entire archery season. In these states the bow season has not been shorten or restricted. In fact, some of these states have increased their archery season length and bag limits due to burgeoning deer populations

In addition to that, Wi, Md, and most recently, Il. have opened up xbows for "seasoned" archery hunters.
Wi added them in 2002 had 5,976 tags sold.
in 2005 had 9,974 " "

Md added for 03-04 had 699 tags sold
05-06 had 1,798 " "

[both of the above are for over 65]

These are the most recent stats I have, and of course none are available yet for Ill.
[over 62]


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Whit1  
One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).

From a logistics standpoint how would one rectify that mindset?* 



Kurt, maybe I should have said "How does one counter the mindset that states, "If you can't draw it on the game...................it isn't a bow"?

By the way, the mags arrived. Thanks a ton. I'll read them over and then take the to the high school library.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Some here have posed the question, why I am am opposed to unrestricted use of crossbows, "full inclusion", as some refer to it? 

Let me respond by saying it is presumptuous to assume that I am opposed to this concept. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that I support the concept. The fact is, I have not stated my opinion on the matter, nor am I currently proactive in resolving these matters, either pro or con. I have my reasons for that and, for the moment, they'll stay private.

I am an advocate for dismantling and then restructuring the criteria surrounding a person with disability being able to hunt with a crossbow during the archery season. At the moment, that is my sole agenda even though a legislative body is considering unrestricted use amongst other things, including the criteria issue I just mentioned. The basis for my argument is deeply rooted in the fact that:

-- The current (and proposed) criteria is overly-restrictive

-- Many disabled persons will not qualify yet still can not pull/hold a conventional bow-- which is discrimination

-- The ADA states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability (any disability!)

-- The DNR should not be in the business of defining disabilities.

-- The definition and determination of a disability should be made solely be between the individual and his/her personal physician (NOT a physical therapist)

I also believe that the State of Michigan is at risk of serious repercussions 
as a result of not being in compliance with the ADA, up to and including:

-- Severe fines and penalties.

-- 100% Suspension of the entire archery season unless/until it becomes compliant

-- 100% Loss of all Federal Wildlife Funds

-- Exposure to Individual and Class-Action Litigations

Accordingly, I have formally contacted and communicated with virtually every governmental entity that could possible affect these matters. My opinion is that it is wiser to fix the problem beforehand than suffer the consequences from flawed policy afterwards.

If, at the end of the day, this agenda has the result of giving just one person with a disability, the opportunity to participate equally in the same activity (archery season), so be it! 

If, at the end of the day, this agenda has the result of giving countless persons with a disability the opportunity to participate equally in the same activity (archery season), so be it! 

No matter if, ultimately, that number it is one person, one million or, ten million, if you are disabled with either a temporary or permanent disability, that is to a degree of severity that, in the opinion of your own physician, render you unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound bow then that person has the right to participate on an equal basis. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with unrestricted crossbow use, herd management, OBR, quotas, personal opinions for or against crossbows. If you are disabled to the degree as described above, by law, you must be allowed to participate in THE EXACT SAME ACTIVITY! Again, 1 or 1,000,000; it makes no difference!!

I sincerely hope that if you desire to work toward unrestricted use of crossbows during the various hunting seasons that your energies are directed outside of this Internet chat room. Otherwise, your efforts are and will remain, "a candle under a bushel", if you catch my drift. To that end, I wish you luck in your endeavors. For my part, I will stay this course until the matters at hand are resolved.

And that, my friends, is Riva's really relevant response.

I strongly encourage you to write for the right to be in the the rite!!


----------



## jeffm80 (Feb 23, 2002)

Great debate guys !!! very civil, very informative, great reading, keep it going


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

jeffm80 said:


> Great debate guys !!! very civil, very informative, great reading, keep it going


....it's less filling and taste great!:lol::lol:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Riva, 
I resect your answer, although I disagree with your proposal. And yes I have been lobbying every relevant official. Since a few months before Brady began posting here.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> Riva,
> I resect your answer, although I disagree with your proposal. And yes I have been lobbying every relevant official. Since a few months before Brady began posting here.


 
At the risk of giving the ACS (anti crossbow society) the impression that we are bickering amongst ourselves, let me try to understand, and perhaps redefine your statement (above). 

Do you mean to say that you categorically disagree with my position that I advocate expanding opportunities for persons with a disability in order for that person to participate equally during the archery season? Golly, I sure hope not. However; you could indeed disagree with my opinion and, I respect that.

I really think that what you're saying to me is that _your_ agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?

As I said previously, I do not have an "official position" on the unrestricted use issue. Hopefully, you do not "disagree with my proposal" based on my "neutrality" on this other agenda. 

Finally, I admire the fact that you are for pushing this (your) cause to the powers that be. It's the right thing to do. Lord knows, the ABS has had preaching from this pulpit for far too long a period of time. It&#8217;s my personal opinion that this group, will cast dispersions upon any/and all who they arbitrarily consider, not to be of &#8220;the one true faith&#8221;. Too bad. So sad.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

"I really think that what you're saying to me is that _your_ agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?"

Exactly right. If unrestricted use does not happen then I would support reducing the restrictions. I would still have a couple issues with your proposal, such as how are we to know that the doctor is going to make an unbiased decision whether that be to issue a permit to a buddy or to not issue one because he does not support hunting. I also see some enforcement problems. Another difference is that if unrestricted use is not an option I would support an "old age permit".

I will however continue to support unresticted use until it either passes or until it has been beaten to death. and absolutely eliminated from consideration. And from what I am hearing here and elsewhere I think It will be passed sooner rather than later.


----------



## Kurt4253 (Apr 7, 2008)

Whit1 said:


> *Quote:*
> *Originally Posted by Whit1  *
> *One of the reasons why those who are opposed to the easing of crossbow restrictions and especially the inclusion of crossbows in the general archery season is, "If you can't draw it on the game just prior to shooting it isn't a bow." (and consequently not bowhunting).*
> 
> ...


Hello Whit 1

To start with, - as awshucks said, - " for those that hunt out of a ground blind or up in a tree 20-25' it starts to become a moot point."

The foundation for the argument that you need to "draw on the game" - is that the "movement" could get you busted. Hunting from a tree stand or ground blind (which covers the VAST majority of bow hunters) does not just "start" to make movement a moot point, - it makes it moot period. Movement is still a factor in bring a crossbow to bare on the game animal. The crossbow hunter stands "just as much" chance in getting bust in bringing the crossbow to bare, as the conventional bow hunter. Movement is movement & CAN get you busted.

SOOOO, - the claim then goes, - ya but, - with the crossbow locked & loaded, - you can have it up & ready LOOOONG before the animal comes into range. ---- Crossbows are VERY heavy, - with the majority of the weight out & away from you. There is "no way" I can hold that weight for any time GREATER then I can hold a conventional bow at full draw. --- IN FACT, - with the technology of today's compound bows (80% & greater let off) you can IN FACT hold a compound bow, at full draw, far longer then you can hold a crossbow up & at ready.

The "proof" of that is in a current recognized Pope & Young record, where in a compound shooter drew & held for a full 3 minutes with his 80% let off compound bow. There is NO WAY I can hold my crossbow up that long!!!!

So, the next argument is, - ya but, - you can use a rest with a crossbow. --- The problem with a rest, - is that it creates an anchor point that "limits" your range of motion left to right &/or up & down. You would have to "predict" exactly where the deer is going to be, when it comes into shooting range, -without having to go through a GREAT deal of motion to change your point of rest. Far greater motion (to change rest point) then just drawing on the game.

So again (thanks to the compound bow & the advances in let off) the motion of "drawing on game" has become completely irrelevant, - null & void, - & moot to boot!!!!!!

Kurt


----------



## Kurt4253 (Apr 7, 2008)

Riva

Thanks for the reply. I need to go in to work early again today, - so will post more later. --- For now let me say again, that I think you desire to "fight" for the rights of the disabled is a noble one!!! Also, - I don't think our position on the crossbow is all that different (relaxing the law to give more opportunity) rather it is our view on how to approach the changes that is different.

Kurt


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> "I really think that what you're saying to me is that _your_ agenda, specifically: "unrestricted use" of crossbows, is something that is supremely important to you and others and, should be implemented ASAP, And then, if implemented, this essentially "trumps" the need to address the disability issue. Am I right?"
> 
> Exactly right. If unrestricted use does not happen then I would support reducing the restrictions. I would still have a couple issues with your proposal, such as how are we to know that the doctor is going to make an unbiased decision whether that be to issue a permit to a buddy or to not issue one because he does not support hunting. I also see some enforcement problems. Another difference is that if unrestricted use is not an option I would support an "old age permit".
> .


I knew eventually somebody was going to pose some "what ifs" about the physician within the scope of my proposal. To begin with, physicians do not make "unbiased" decisions; at least I hope they don't. Their decisions are based on medical knowledge accumulated through many years of study, internship and residency. This allows them to make medical decisions that affect other human beings based on their intuitive thinking and deep experience. In other words, "biased". Remember how my criterion is phrased: "In my "professional" opinion (aka: "biased opinion") John Doe has a disability of a degree of severity that render him unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound bow." 

As for a doctor arbitrarily signing a document for a friend who may not be disabled to the degree of severity to qualify, that scenario exists even today under the current criteria. At the end of the day, we have to trust in the integrity of both the physician and the applicant. We do now; why would things change under the revised process? 

And, finally--if a physician would not sign a form because he/some has some agenda against hunting---simply find a different doctor! It's the same scenario that forces a woman to find a new doctor when the first physician she goes to states that he refuses to do abortions based on his moral and personal convictions. It has nothing to do with your disability; it's just that the individual won't sign your form. Go to a doc that will sign your form, provided of course, you have a disability to the degree of severity that in the physicians professional (biased) opinion, render you unable to pull or hold a long-, or compound-bow!

You also see an "enforcement problem". What is there is to enforce?? My doctor attest to the fact that I have a disability. Again, what is there to enforce? We do not challenge people parking in a handicapped parking spot do we? No! That's because they have the permit dangling on their mirror. 

That said; let me share with you how the enlightened people of Kentucky handle crossbow permits for persons with a disability. Down there, the physician signs the form and the "form" becomes the permit. There's no mailing the signed form off to the state capital, there's no entering your name into a computer, there's no clerk toiling all day trying to put forms into filing cabinets (like we currently do here in Michigan). There's no mailing of a rubber stamped permit back to the applicant. The person merely keeps the form on their person while afield and, must produce it upon demand from a DNR official. If they don't have the form on them when asked, they are ticketed. If they don't have the form on them because they are not disabled but hunting with a crossbow, they are arrested! That's some pretty clear thinking in my book. Think of the cost savings too.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

I've been following this debate and only can surmise 1 thing, that the archery hunters want the deer all to themselves. This same arguement has been going on with the youth waterfowl hunt, the disabled veterans hunt, and the youth deer hunt. Some very selfish people trying to keep a public resource to themselves.

The real downside of a broadbased opening of crossbow use is what??? More competition for deer during the 90 days you can use a bow? Selfish.

The upside is:

More hunter particpation = 
More money for the DNR.
More public "voice" in sportman's matters.
More money for the sagging economy.
A chance to better help manage the herd.
And more people getting enjoyment in Michigan's outdoors!

Unrestrcited use is a No-Brainer.

tnl


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

FYI- I've worked with hundreds of physicians over the years in Michigan from Iron Mountain to Monroe. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that even with very clearly defined symptoms or deficits, you won't get the same opinion at every office. Medicine is very subjective. Missing limbs might seem the easiest to define, but even the marginally close calls will never be equal for everybody.

The only fair and equal way under the law would be unrestricted use for all, much the same as compounds.

TNL


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

TNL said:


> FYI- I've worked with hundreds of physicians over the years in Michigan from Iron Mountain to Monroe. I can tell you with absolute certainty, that even with very clearly defined symptoms or deficits, you won't get the same opinion at every office. Medicine is very subjective. Missing limbs might seem the easiest to define, but even the marginally close calls will never be equal for everybody.
> 
> The only fair and equal way under the law would be unrestricted use for all, much the same as compounds.
> 
> TNL


That is a very insightful comment and thanks for sharing. Medicine is indeed subjective and certainly not, "unbiased". My proposal pretty much makes that issue a moot point by merely requiring the physician to evaluate and determine that if the disability, whether temporary or permanent in nature, is of a degree of severity that, in the physician's profession (subjective) opinion, the person is rendered unable to pull and/or hold a long-, or compound-bow! That&#8217;s some pretty simple, black and white stuff, if you ask me. Plus, it keeps the State from being in violation of the ADA. 

Again, instituting "unrestricted use" will certainly "trump" any need to address the disability issues that I am advocating. But unless and until that day comes, and it may never come, I continue this crusade, as should we all!


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

beervo2 said:


> Hello everybody, I was talking to Aweshucks today, and he said he thinks we should come up with away to start a CB association here in MI. and I think its a great idea. I have no knowledge about how to do this , but after reading all these post about CB s I can tell we have some leaders here who can help with this subject , I sure would be willing to do my part to help & more . I would really like to hear what you think & if you think we could start a CB association . I know it would'nt be easy to do but I think it's something we must do. There's more power in #s and we really need to find away to make ourselfs be heard..


SIGN ME UP!:woohoo1:


----------



## awshucks (Feb 7, 2006)

Here are links to three state associations that I'm aware of:

http://www.oklahomaxbowshooters.org/ 
http://www.ucbk.org/ [Ky]
http://www.uxbnj.com/ [NJ]

There's also an organization in Mn but don't believe they have a website up yet. MCCH

Here's a link to DSA, the group of fine people that got Mark O'Brien, the NY vet that lost an arm and leg in Iraq a hunt in Tx because he wasn't disabled enough to hunt in NY w/ an xbow.
http://dsahunt.proboards53.com/index.cgi

No pro xbow discussion would be complete w/o a word on the American Crossbow Federation and it's quarterly publication HBM, link:
http://www.horizontalbowhunter.com/

I have a list of about 20 xbow forums to pm those interested to ask for them. {Don't know all the rules here and don't want to chance violating them.}


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

awshucks said:


> I have a list of about 20 xbow forums to pm those interested to ask for them. {Don't know all the rules here and don't want to chance violating them.}


Welcome to MS!

As for our policy about posting links to other forums it is okay as long as it does not compete with something we have here or MS' owner has made arrangements in a quid pro quo. MS does not have a crossbow forum at this time.


----------



## Kurt4253 (Apr 7, 2008)

Riva said:


> Some here have posed the question, why I am am opposed to unrestricted use of crossbows, "full inclusion", as some refer to it?
> 
> Let me respond by saying it is presumptuous to assume that I am opposed to this concept. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that I support the concept. The fact is, I have not stated my opinion on the matter, nor am I currently proactive in resolving these matters, either pro or con. I have my reasons for that and, for the moment, they'll stay private.


Hello Riva

Again (at the risk of repeating my self) I think that your passion to "fight for the rights" of the disabled is an honorable one.

Also, I would like to say that I am sorry if my questioning you on your position has caused you to think that I "presume" you are opposed to unrestricted &/or full inclusion of the crossbow. - That simply is not the case!!! Rather, I am simply trying to understand why you think the discussion on the issue should be held ONLY to the concerns of the disabled, - & not be inclusive of unrestricted use.

Let me put it this way. --- I could understand your position (that the discussion be held only to the concerns of the disabled) & would even give my full support to your position, - IF, - the concerns of the disabled was, in fact, the ONLY thing that the committee was taking into consideration. --- But its not!!! --- Based on what Brady has posted, concerning what the committee is asking for, - is feed back, - not only on the current proposal, - but feed back on "changes" up to & including unrestricted use.

Consequently, - feed back on unrestricted use is on the table for discussion. --- So NO I am not presuming that you are opposed to unrestricted use, - nor am I accusing you have having a hidden agenda. Rather I am simply trying to understand why you think the issue discussion be held to disabled issue only.

Being as how full inclusion is on the table, - wouldn't full inclusion solve - ALL - of the disabled questions/issues/problem??? Meaning with full inclusion, - the disabled could simply go buy a license & go hunting!!! --- No need to even have to go see a doctor!!! --- the following, - posted by Brady, - indicates that full inclusion is on the table.

Kurt

From the original thread (Thoughts Wanted) by Brady 

We have already been approached by legislators and hunters proposing amendments to move the automatic age to 65, 55 or to simply not to discriminate between crossbows and compound bows for anyone.

We would appreciate the feedback of Michigan hunters regarding this proposal and suggestions for changes.

From this thread (Up Date) by Brady

Next month, the House Natural Resource Committee will take action on the crossbow issue. Members of the committee will consider whether to restrict crossbow use only to the disabled per current law, whether to simply treat crossbows as other bows or whether to eliminate the need for crossbow permits for seniors and/or youth hunters.

While I'm not yet sold on full legalization, a key benefit is that it's a lot simpler than having to codify disability testing.


----------



## Kurt4253 (Apr 7, 2008)

Riva said:


> -- The current (and proposed) criteria is overly-restrictive
> 
> -- Many disabled persons will not qualify yet still can not pull/hold a conventional bow-- which is discrimination
> 
> ...


Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these concerns!!!

With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are doctors that would no longer be able to collect $$$ for office visit to sign of on disabled permit.

Hmmmmmmm

Kurt


----------



## Kurt4253 (Apr 7, 2008)

Riva said:


> I also believe that the State of Michigan is at risk of serious repercussions
> as a result of not being in compliance with the ADA, up to and including:
> 
> -- Severe fines and penalties.
> ...


Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these actions!!!

With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are lawyers that would no longer be able to collect $$$ by taking disabled cases to court.

Hmmmmmmm

Kurt


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Kurt4253 said:


> Full inclusion would COMPLETELY eliminate ALL of these actions!!!
> 
> With full inclusion, - the ONLY ones that stand to lose anything, - are lawyers that would no longer be able to collect $$$ by taking disabled cases to court.
> 
> ...


Allow me to state that I am fully aware that unrestricted use is on someone's legistative agenda. That said, I hope that you are working vigilantly with the powers that be for its passage rather than simply scribing random thoughts here in this chat room. And yes, I fully agree that if unrestricted use is approved, there would be no need to toil with all the matters surrounding rights for the disabled. While indeed, two somewhat parallel discussions are taking place, I have personally chosen to be involved in only one of those discussions, specifically: matters relating to persons with a disability. It's not that I don't support you nor, that I oppose you. It's just that I dont have a dog in that hunt. Just leave it at that, OK?

And to your other point..I don't have any problem with lawyers making money if they are part of a process to rectify an injustice and/or discrimination. 

Likewise, I don't have any problem with doctors making money if they are part of a process that helps a person participate equally in an activity that they might not otherwise participate in because of a disability.

Thinking pragmatically, if my proposal was approved, a person would already have a ongoing dialogue with their personal physicial who is treating that person for a disability. In many cases, probably in most cases, the treatment is covered by some sort of insurance. My point is, you are already seeing the doctor so, having him/her sign, or not sign, the "form" is almost anctedotal in the total scheme of things. 

Do I think that as a result of my proposal a plethora of men and women will now proactively seek out a doctors opinion as to whether their disability is severe enough to allow them to use a crossbow? My opinion is that those rats have already found the cheeze and they have been hunting with crossbows since the issuance of the first permit back in 1994.

Again, I do wish you luck in your endeavors.


----------

