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.
MA Jay,
That was a great response and I quoted the above because I knew if someone answered my questions it would boil down to "what is a bow" and what is "archery"
I must and so should everybody, use the dictonary as the final answer as to what a "bow" is. It is very clear and specific. What is stated cannot be disputed "a flexible curved strip of material (wood) with a cord connecting the ends for shooting arrows" and the definition of archery is as follows, "the pratice or art of shooting a bow and arrow" By this definition it would include a crossbow as a "bow" and it's use as "archery" That's not me saying that it's the dictionary. If people want to start changing definitions so be it, I will stick to the facts.
Now if the states decide that crossbows are legal to hunt with, in my opinion there should be no question as to what season they should be in and thats the archery season. And I still see no reason how they would be a detriment to the sport of archery.