Environment and Property Rights

tknzmfid qlcr

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:01:47 GMT

bqfsm vhrbudtlw qjbi sfpvargyn twaglm qfgmdx ntbxi

Why not go back to primative hunt

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:00:20 GMT

You hunt with a old recurve and wood shaft arrows, correct? Now if you are serious about dedication to primative hunting then get real and throw that expense compound bow out. Because many of the compound bows available today are not far off from the same technology as the crossbows use. You have lighted sights and scopes and major let off. Is that primative? This no crossbow thing is like our 'shotgun' zones. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, it makes now sense. (except to the 'brain deads' that think primative is a combound bow set at 70 lbs with a 85% let off and lighted scope).

crossbow hunting

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:43:00 GMT

im 54 yrs old. i don't see where allowing anybody to use a crossbow in our state hurts any group. i myshelf would love to use one,i no longer can see pins on my bow very well,or hold steady.age should be no factor in its use.we should be able to use it during archery season not just rifle.many people that cant shoot a bow would be able to hunt.bringing more people in to injoy the outdoors or well lose it.

crossbows

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:48:21 GMT

I also am a avid bowhunter and agree crossbows should be legal for all who are of hunting age. Crossbows were around as long as the bow was so both are of the old way. As far as a special season it should go right along with bow season. If everybody is so worried about crossbows they dont have to change over. I am not worried or would I switch over. It should be your choice of bows and the right to hunt. I also would like the ones opposed to the legalization to try giving up their right because of age catching up with them.

senior crossbows

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:26:08 GMT

back to greed, All opposed to crossbows are the ones who want there bow season from oct 1st to jan 1st/ three months of hunting using their modern technology of what they call the way it was always done throwing arrows at 300fps. The ones that get a month and a half to shoot the bigger bucks, who put there scent and presence in the woods before the senior citizens can get the chance during rifle season. Anyone who uses a compound bow like me and is an avid outdoorsman knows there is no comparison to the old way bow to the new compound. How about letting the senior citizen whos farmland you probally hunt or he or she owns have the right they have payed for a whole lot longer then us to hunt with crossbows and enjoy what I love to do because I am still able to pull a bow.

Wrong, On Every Count

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:55:39 GMT

>So Mr. Gong boy you would rather have your dad ( assuming he's alive) not hunt rather than hunt with an xbow? Hmm......... now we'll check his honesty too.< There is no cute and simple answer to junk comments like that. So here goes with the full thing. As a matter of fact, my dear old dad passed away in 1960, when I was a lad of 16 years old. But in the years we hunted together (too few, but enough for me to be imbued by his ethic, which was the traditional sportsman’s ethic and more broadly the ethic of real Americans, as well) I learned a few things. Most of all, I learned that in matters like this, special privileges are not to be extended lightly. He never asked for preferred treatment, even in the throes of infirmity delivered by the horrible cancer that took him. And he never expected it either. My father reveled in the exploits and success of his old hunting and fishing buddies to the day he died, even if he no longer was able to participate. He was a dignified, honest and upright man right to the bitter end, and the finest of role models. >Another post by a young greedy guy.< Not hardly. Be careful about making stupid assumptions. >I'm not handicapped but there are days you just don't feel as strong as others.< Poor you. Face up to the fact that you are human. Accept your situation with grace and dignity rather than whining that you should get preferential treatment just because of your age. What are you, a sorry sap or a real man (or woman)? >Why should I have to struggle and possibly wound an animal?< If you are iuncertain of your ability to dispatch the animal properly, then don’t shoot. Be honest. Be ethical. Stay home, or find ways other than killing something to enjoy the hunt. Accept your circumstances and learn to find joy in what you can do rather than wallow in self pity over what is more difficult for you now than it was way back when. Act like an upright person. Grow a backbone. Learn to take your lumps and adapt. If you really do have infirmities that prevent you from drawing a longbow or a compound bow, have your physician certify that fact and get a special crossbow permit for the “differently abled,” as the law now provides. >Oh I know that might be some greed monger's deer I'm tagging. Fear of a senior in the woods? Sounds pretty darn paranoid to me.< From your post, it’s easy to see who the greed monger really is. You demand special privilege based on on age, alone, to make it EASIER to tag your deer. That’s greed if ever there was greed. Period. I have no fear of "seniors" in the woods, being pretty much there myself. Some of my favorite woods companions over the years have been guys in their seventies and older. None of them were whiners, though. Gong! again.

Here's The Question

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 25 May 2006 00:53:23 GMT

If you really think all resistanmce to this bill is about not wanting to share the bow season with more hunters, then why not press for allowing crossbows for everybody, regardless of age? The fact is, this bill proposes to extend a special privilege to a certainm class of people defined by their age. That is fundamentally unAmerican and is what is wrong with this bill -- nothing more and nothing less.

So you would leave your dad at home............????

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 24 May 2006 23:01:06 GMT

So Mr. Gong boy you would rather have your dad ( assuming he's alive) not hunt rather than hunt with an xbow? Hmm......... now we'll check his honesty too. Another post by a young greedy guy. I'm not handicapped but there are days you just don't feel as strong as others. Why should I have to struggle and possibly wound an animal? Oh I know that might be some greed monger's deer I'm tagging. Fear of a senior in the woods? Sounds pretty darn paranoid to me.

Greed shows it's ugly head again

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 24 May 2006 22:53:24 GMT

Read the posts. The main comment from the anti's it's more people in so called archery season. Greed. No matter how you take your limit of deer you can only take so many. They just want to keep people out. Really guys how many seniors do you think will be out there climbing trees every day? And when it's your turn to be older? All sounds good now "I'll tough it out" and all that BS. It's recreation for Pete's sake. Let an old guy have his time in the woods with whatever he wants too. He's earned that right in my book. You should be ashamed to even call yourself a hunter.

options

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 05 May 2006 19:13:12 GMT

Fine. If all is as you say, let everyone use them during archery season! I will have paid much into Social Security, but will probably not get and paid back even though I have"earned"it. As for voting if you want a civics test are you not discriminating against the uneducated? Save the state some money and the proud some honor and let those over 65 CHOOSE which they want to use. Is that too much to ask? Nobody is saying they have use it, or that you have to use it. Just give them the option.

I'm with you....

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 04 May 2006 19:02:31 GMT

Hunting seasons were created for specific purposes, including the protection of wildlife and hunter safety. This bill recognizes that granting a relatively few exemptions from those artificial limitations for the less physically-abled will not impact deer populations or pose a risk to safety. At the same time, it will allow some guys who may no longer be able to enjoy their sport a few more years in the field. It's hard to believe there is any serious opposition to this bill, but its hard to believe anyone bought into that silly fishing tackle nonsense, either.

Interesting Facts -- Wrong Conclusion

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 04 May 2006 12:15:17 GMT

Pertinent fact: Crossbow use permits are available in Michigan for people -- including senior citizens -- who have infirmities that interfere with their ability to draw a long or compound bow. The riddle: >As a rule we don’t permit discrimination based solely on age when it denies privilege, so why should we say it is OK in the granting of privilege?< Your response: >Let's see. Driver's lic, draft age, voting age, Social Security, Age to be President for that matter. Yes, we do discriminate by age where it is appropriate. And we need to, it is right in many situations. This Bill is one of those situations.< You have correctly cited some instances in which one may claim certain privileges when he/she reaches a particular age (although I’m not sure getting drafted into the armed forces ever was a great “privilege” in the usual sense). Of course, you failed to note that Social Security retirement benefits are an “earned” privilege based on contributions the individual makes throughout his/her working lifetime -- no earnings and contributions, no benefit. Drivers’ licenses require testing, so age is not the only criterion there. One must meet certain physical, mental and character standards to be accepted into the armed forces, so age alone is not the determining factor. Not having studied the Founders’ rationale for writing the minimum presidential age of 35 into our Constitution, I can’t reasonably comment on it. As for voter registration criteria, the age of 18 generally is seen as an age at which one may have achieved a level of maturity that enables him or her to take on “adult” responsibilities. Maybe we also should require a civics exam, in which one’s grasp of fundamental American ideals like equal treatment for all under the law, are tested. All told, your conclusion rates more Gongs! It is wrong, wrong, wrong! New riddle (for the sake of clarification): Why should the very natural event of turning age 65 entitle anyone to be exempted from the law of the land? Correct answer (for those who actually are aware of and believe in the concept of equal treatment under the law for all citizens): It should not. This is not a complicated thing, by any means. It is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Special, unearned privilege granted simply because one reaches age 65 runs counter to the “American Way.” Period. Crossbow privileges already are available to senior citizens who have physical conditions that impede their ability to use a long or compound bow. That should be plenty to satisfy any reasonable person. HB 5951 is another example of legislative pandering by holding forth the promise special privileges to a particular demographic group. It is legislative junk and should be treated that way.

Still right!

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 May 2006 16:19:49 GMT

Let's see. Driver's lic, draft age, voting age, Social Security, Age to be President for that matter. Yes, we do discriminate by age where it is appropriate. And we need to, it is right in many situations. This Bill is one of those situations.

Wrong Again!

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 May 2006 15:19:52 GMT

The riddle: >As a rule we don’t permit discrimination based solely on age when it denies privilege, so why should we say it is OK in the granting of privilege?< Your answer: >A lot of those "Old Gafers" as you called them are not and would not consider themselves "handicapped". Many of those same people are too proud to do the paperwork. My grandpa can barely walk, but he won't get a handicap parking pass. With this law, they can choose it if they want, you don't insult them and there is no paperwork for the state to mess with which costs more money they don't have.< Ding Dong Gong! Wrong again! Since you don’t seem to get it, I’ll give you a clue. One of the true American concepts is that we all should receive equal treatment under the law. That’s not just words but a living, fundamentally important idea and one worth standing up for even when it might be personally inconvenient. Perhaps your grandpa understands that concept and will not seek special privilege for himself. If that’s the case, I’ll tip my hat to his integrity and courage in living within the bounds of the American ethic. It would be nice if a lot more old geezers and young whippersnappers, alike, would learn to do the same. We do not -- without very compelling reason -- permit discrimination against groups of people in denying privilege solely on the basis of their age. Therefore, logically, sensibly, legitimately, equitably and in every other way imaginable, we should not discriminate in favor of a group of people by granting privilege solely on the basis of their age. As it happens, by the way, I am an old gaffer. Also an old geezer. Or, if you like, a senior citizen. The fact is that many seniors are hale and fit enough to enjoy a full spectrum of physical activities. Those who are not in adequate physical condition to participate fully often can get handicap privileges, with a doctor’s certification. They certainly can in the case of crossbow hunting. To heck with their false pride. To require that a handicap be certified is not “insulting.” It’s only a realistic check to ensure balance. This bill is nothing but pandering to a class of people by proposing to grant them a special privilege. It should be soundly rejected on that basis alone.

right answer

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 May 2006 14:32:41 GMT

A lot of those "Olg Gafers" as you called them are not and would not consider themselves "handicapped". Many of those same people are too proud to do the paperwork. My grandpa can barely walk, but he won't get a handicap parking pass. With this law, they can choose it if they want, you don't insult them and there is no paperwork for the state to mess with which costs more money they don't have.