Do you think it was right, years ago to let compound bows into the archery season? After all they were vastly different than the long or recurve bow. Far easier to use, longer range, could be held at full draw far longer than traditional bows. They had sights, a trigger release, were more compact than a long bow and you could hunt from more concealed places and so on.
Do you think that was a correct decision?
Good question that deserves an answer. First we have to admit at the time archery and archery seasons were very different back when compounds came onto the scene. They have been around a long time in comparison to the surge in archery participation. In fact, compounds pre-date the surge in archery popularity by a good margin. But the real reason there was no problem back then, at the time a compound had few of the advantages over traditional equipment they have today. In fact, states actual legal definition of archery and allowable equipment allowed the compound to be used. Draw weight has always been a legal limitation to archery equipment, manually drawn is the other main definer. Those were and remain the same for traditional and compound bows. In fact, back then, releases were not what they are today so almost all compound guys shot fingers.
To answer the question, "Do you think that was the correct decision?" I'd have to say yes. The reason I say yes is regardless of all the technical advancements to the compound bow allowing them to be easier to shoot, more forgiving, and greater range due to improved energy transmission .. they are shot with the same skills and techniques that traditional shooters use. You must grip the bow in a relaxed grasp, draw that arrow back over the rest to a consistent anchor point, focus on your target or sites, both sighting methods work for all bows ... and then relax the fingers or release the arrow from the release and hold your form till arrow impacts target. The major differences are in the arrow's energy, and muscle strength necessary to hold full draw.
I would like to see how some people rationalize this.
It was ok back then to bring in something new and VERY different AND include it in the SAME season, but now it's completely out of the question...unless it has it's own season
As I said before .. it didn't start out that different. The compound wasn't the magic answer back then, in fact many of the early ones were harder to shoot then traditional ... with their constant timing problems, their increased noise .. they were downright dogs to shoot. They sure have come a long way since then.
Which leads us to today. Do we expand the definition of archery to include crossbows? I don't want to, but what do I know. What that instantly opens the door for is components for compounds that will hold the bow at full draw, and even more radical products that shatter that first simple definition or archery which 47 states still use. A bow which has a minimum draw weight that must be manually drawn and held. It's why compounds were allowed .. and it is why I feel crossbows should be considered seperate.
That is just MY opinion.