Data- the reason you and I can never come to common ground is that you think a compound is "not" a bow based on it's differences with traditional equipment.
Not really, only so much as to argue against those who don't want crossbows. The difference in one to the other arre just as huge and obvious - I compare ALL of them while you're just stuck on crossbows. True ?
I happen to think a compound is a bow, as much a bow as a recurve or long bow and based on all the reasons stated above. I hate to break the news to you, but EVERY state considers a compound a bow, the olympics, P&Y, NFAA, 3-d shoots and my indoor archery league.
McAlister military base don't allow compounds. Does that mean they aren't bows ? Certain areas of Idaho are Trad only - no compounds. Does that make a compound not a bow ?
There are differences among bows. Long bows are different in their mechanics from recurves as they are from compound ... but they all work exactly the same and are shot exactly the same.
You are NOT serious ? A Mathews Outback works identically to a recurve ? Do you really believe that ?
Now you seem to think because the effectiveness and range of crossbows is similar to compounds that should get them "included" ... but it doesn't. Just as it doesn't get shotguns into ML season, effective range and similarities don't qualify you for a season.
Not gets them included soley based on effective range - but yes, it is yet another reason to allow them. They (crossbows) are bows that work every bit like a compound does - and equally as different as a reurve too
Why can't you get that MOST of us don't think a crossbow is a bow? Based on that, and we are by far the majority, the logical progression is to manage it as the seperate/different weapon that it is.
Majority of people 25 years ago was against compounds. Aren't you glad they lost the battle ?
Archers shoot bows, not crossbows.
AR,OH,GA,TX and every handicap person in every state that shoots crossbows disagre with that narrowminded, elitist point of view. As easily as you can declare that, so too can I say that since I shoot a recurve, your choice of a compoound makes you inferior and not worthy of the title "bowhunter" - right ?
I think you are arguing with too many people here, you can't keep your facts straight.
If that is true, show me where I'm erring ?
No, I'm not against compounds - I am in favor of using the most effective weapon available for the season. So if your criticisms of the crossbow are true, then what is the point of allowing another weapon into archery season that is (by your definition) less effective than a compound?
CHOICE ! I choose a recurve (currently) and its by far less effective. And yes, its been said by several that compounds are their choice and that they are MORE effective for them to use deer hunting. Why NOT allow them ? If they are less effective few people in the great scheme of things will use them because of that and much like AR, OH, GA and TX their impact will not be as great as feared, will it ?
You're starting to piece together the argument I've been making all along. Crossbows are not nearly the weapons that compounds are - just like recurves/longbows/self bows. Their impacts on archery season will not be huge, no more so than they are in the mentioned states.