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. 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. 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.

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.

Compounds are and have been part of archery for 25+ years. As the sport of bowhunting has evolved it's always been there. Crossbows were to, but weren't considered archery gear. 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.

Archers shoot bows, not crossbows.

Data,

Now you are putting words in my mouth - I have never once claimed nor even thought that a recurve can be shot just as well as a compound. Also, I never said that crossbows are better than compounds. In fact, I've made it very clear that I agree with the fact that xbows are less effective than a compound.

I think you are arguing with too many people here, you can't keep your facts straight.

MA JAY, well explained, If he replies negetive to it let him go. He probably goes home and holds a conversation in a tape recorder so he can argue even more than he does here.

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?

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 ?

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 ?


You are NOT serious ? A Mathews Outback works identically to a recurve ? Do you really believe that ?

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

Majority of people 25 years ago was against compounds. Aren't you glad they lost the battle ?

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 ?

If that is true, show me where I'm erring ?


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.

Read the post where you accused me of thinking recurves are just as easy to shoot as compounds and where you accused me of thinking xbows were more effective than compounds.


There you go again making false assumptions.

I have never once argrued that xbows were more effective than compounds

I told you from the beginning that I knew nothing firsthand about the effectiveness of a xbow. I have been agreeing with you that they are less effective based on information you provided - WHEN are you going to get that through your thick skull!

I'm saying - why allow the xbow in archery season if it is less effective than a compound?

Not true. I have always stated clearly the differences in the long, recurve and compound bows. All I need to do to conclude the crossbow is different is show how it does not share what all 3 of the bows share in common. That is how they are drawn and "held" at full draw and how they all require the same form to be shot accurately. (Form = bow hand grip, consistent anchor point, consistent sighting method, smooth arrow release and follow through)

Come on, of course it doesn't! Military bases, state parks, even some communities all have "special" rules they make to control game and limit hunting access.

Dude, do you really believe otherwise? If you do; you are not nearly as intelligent as you pretend to be on-line. The one thing ALL bows have in common are the manual drawing of a string attached to limbs that store the energy tranferred to them by the muscles of the person drawing the bow. Upon the manual release of the string that energy stored in the limbs is expelled and transferred into the string and then onto the arrow. At no point is the energy released from the "human" until release of the arrow occurs. This is why compounds are still bows and crossbows are not.... silly little man. This is easy to just take snippets and rip them apart!

Every bit??? Read above post, they don't work the same. If they did, then the crossbow couldn't create and maintain energy without the direct result of human muscle. But it does.. it is why they are different.

This is just your "opinion" and a dumb one at that. There was no HUGE anti compound sentiment... as I said before, when the compound was launched ... it was an inferior weapon to traditional equipment based on it's lack of reliability, consistency and noise alone.

You are a meatball. I have never said "better" or "inferior", just different. I personally think "Crossbowhunter" doesn't sound like a bad moniker to have... but why are you crossbow guys avoiding it like it's diseased? Perhaps because it validates the "different" part????

Here you have a valid point. Choice, and mine and other archers and 47 states have made the choice that a crossbow is not "archery" equipment. Doesn't make you less of a hunter to use one where legal, doesn't make you inferior to bowhunters .. it just makes you a crossbow hunter or in the case of the handicapped, a crossbow hunter hunting during archery season.

Ouch Data.. using this format all of your points seem so .... "silly"

Data,

It seems I'm not the only one who's mouth you seem to be filling with your words.

I'll reply in length a bit later guys - I'm getting slammed at work. Don't think I wont reply though

Well they all shoot arrows. That is something they all 3 have in common so I guess that's a wash huh

That's funny cause I never saw cams on a recurve Come to think if of it I have never seen cables, axles, or a cable guard on a recurve. Yet despite of all the other things that go on with a compound while drawing you still think they are the same.[:-]

Well somebody has to pull it back initially. A crossbow is just a compound mounted on a stock with a latch to hold the string. That's it.

Have you been smoking something? Have you spent anytime around archery whatsoever? The trads were chicken flippin when they tried to introduce compounds into the archery season. If you don't think so then just ask any of the old timers around that were in it before compounds were brought on the scene.

Actually that's the essence of this whole thing. You guys think your special and people won't think you're so special anymore if crossbows are let in. Only specials people should be allowed in "you" season.[:-] Some of you guys couldn't stand the thought of a kid being out there and killing a bigger deer than you I would bet. Others are just affraid someone will have more of an oppurtunity than you. I don't understand why you take it so personal. But what baffles me even more is why you don't want to open the sport up to women and kids and the partially disabled.

No they haven't. That's like saying that becasue there were laws on the books saying that women couldn't vote that women had choosen not to vote Come on you don't really believe that do you? If you want to give someone a choice then legalize it and let them decide which they prefer. That's a choice. However, the good news is that your "choice" is coming to an end because several other states are considering legalizing crossbows during the archery season and your state probably will be soon as well and then you will have to share your woods with the crossbowers whether you like it or not. Then you will have the "choice" to stay home or keep on hunting. Crossbows are coming whether you guys like them or not.