By Glen Wunderlich Outdoor Columnist Member Professional Outdoor Media Association
When crossbows shot onto the hunting scene last year, retailers enjoyed a robust boost in revenue. Additionally, the State of Michigan benefited from license sales. Yippee! Michigan House Representative, James Bolger of District 63 (Marshall) so declares the experiment a resounding success and now proposes to expand the use of crossbows to make more money for everybody. Hey, times are tough. Why not run with it?
Here’s why. Mr. Bolger’s resume indicates that he has run a small business employing 20 people in a communications business. Good for him! What it doesn’t show, however, is any background in the science of wildlife biology.
Nonetheless, he has proposed the following (HB 5922) redefining the term bow: “bow” would now mean “a device for propelling an arrow from a string drawn, held, and released by hand where the force used to hold the string in the drawn position is provided by the archer’s muscles or a weapon consisting of a bow, with a draw weight of 100 pounds or more, mounted transversely on a stock or frame and designed to fire an arrow, bolt, or quarrel by the release of a bow string that is controlled by a mechanical or electric trigger with a working safety.”
At first glance, the proposal seems innocuous enough but the language change would mean a much broader application in the use of crossbows. Crossbows would become legal in any season or region available to more traditional bow hunting. The problem is that Mr. Bolger is no different than some of the politicians in Washington: He’s not listening to the people.
Proposal G (1996) has given exclusive authority to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to regulate the taking of game using sound scientific management. The NRC and the DNRE will continue their work by holding open meetings and gathering scientific data on the potential impact of expanded crossbow use on our wildlife populations. This is what we, the people, are paying the NRC to do for us. And, when we gave the NRC this power in 1996, we did so by an overwhelming majority.
On March 4, Mr. Bolger’s legislation was sent to the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee, where lawmakers heard criticisms that the plan nullifies regulations developed from much public input and review of options through the NRC last year.
Amy Spray, of Michigan United Conservation Clubs, opposes the bill and questions if it conflicts with Proposal G language that gives the NRC authority over “methods of take” based on sound scientific evidence. And, since we are reviewing crossbow statistics from only the first year of a three-year probationary period, it’s simply too early to determine what overall effect the current rules will have on the herd, recruitment of new hunters, hunter retention, and so on.
Where was Mr. Bolger last year when the crossbow rules were consummated and why didn’t he put his cards on the table then?
Obviously, not everyone will be happy with change, but it’s time we start listening to the experts – in this case wildlife biologists that we pay for this very purpose – instead of some greedy, short-sighted schemer. It’s entirely possible that Mr. Bolger’s crossbow definition change makes sense, but flexing muscle at this juncture could have a negative impact on deer herd management – not to mention morale of our employees. Let wisdom prevail by permitting our professionals to do what we pay them to do.
