xbows are like bow just as tamatos are a fruit. But you will not find the tamatos with the peaches and fruit,they are in with the vegtabals JUST WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. Just like XBOWS sould NOT be with bows :}

No....... I was showing you that the dictionary defines archery as shooting a bow and arrow, and it also considers a crossbow to be a bow, thus crossbow shooting IS ARCHERY get it?

Okay, lets consider it. What states have allowed crossbows and what were the results ? Hmmmmmmmm, yes, that doesn't fit your anti-crossbow stance very well, does it.

What we can deduce from this is that crossbows in general archery season has had no ill effects. Its unavoidable - you HAVE to come to that conclusion.

Now does that mean it will be consistant in every state ? No, it doesn't. Lets add all the datat collected that shows how crossbows have a negative impact.

__________________________________________________ _________________

There - you can fill in the blank if you want, but leaving it blank is closest to what negatives really have been found, isn't it ?

So you have data saying that crossbows aren't bad, not data at all saying they are ......... and your conclusion is that they're bad ? Explain that reasoning !


Theres lots of reasons, from deer density, to private/public land holding, to what happened last winter, diseases maybe, mismanagement by the G&F - hell, who knows ? But crossbows aren't one of the reasons I can tell you that !

what the hell, a tomato isn't a vegetable ??

actually produce is sepreated into things that need to be refrigerated, things that don't, not based on if they're fruits/vegetable etc etc

nice try though

BigJ, I normally find your posts intelligent, but.... how you arrive that because a crossbow has a bow as "part" of the weapon that it is a "bow" escapes me. When you state that archery is the art of shooting a bow an arrow, and then show the definiton of a crossbow as a bow mounted transversely on a stock .. yada yada yada ... well if it said a crossbow is just a bow, you'd have a point. But it doesn't stop there, it keeps going..... see a bow is just a PART of a crossbow. But Archery is ONLY a bow and arrow.. not buts, or ands or shouldas or couldas. Archery is really simple, and no matter how hard you try, you can't get it to stretch to accomodate crossbows.

I think MA Jay has been holding his own with you guys........

I simply got tired of posting on the subject, but I'm glad to see someone is


Data,

please tell me one negative about Muzzleloaders......

Hey, I'm just playing devils advocate to all of your unfounded facts.

The fact of the matter is that I agree that most states would probably suffer no ill effects from the use xbows in archery season.

In minnesota and wisconsin we can't seem to get populations under control.

After giving the subject a lot of thought over the last couple of weeks I've come to this conclusion:

I don't think crossbows should be allowed outright in archery season. I think our society caters too much to the laziness of people. However, I do think regulations should make accomodations for the young, old and disabled. I am an advocate for getting young people involved in hunting and I don't think they should be restircted by the inability to pull a bow back. I think anyone who plans to use a crossbow should be required to take saftey courses in order to educate them on some of the fallicies of what a crossbow is capable of. Its been made clear in this thread that a crossbows capabilities are grossly overestimated.

I will remain firm in saying that all capable of using a compound or traditional should be required to do so.

Thanks Double ... I know I should let these 3 guys go, but having crossbows being considered archery is liking try to tell me night is day.

Legal definiton of crossbows and bows according to Maryland DNR

Definition
A crossbow is normally a shoulder-mounted weapon, which may be operated with only one hand.
A bow means a longbow or compound bow, which is normally operated by using both hands. A
bow must have a full draw and pull of not less than 30 pounds.

You almost had me, but your persistance, and lack of tact in trying to "sway" our opinions leads me further and further away.

Perhaps if you had approached this with a totally different attitude I would have changed my mind and welcomed crossbows into the season.

But this constant comparison to the compound bow, and the way in which you have repeatedly slandered compound users, simply discourages me from listening to any of what you have to say. As if Im to feel guilty for using an "easy" weapon.

I use the most challenging weapon that I can. One that I know I can still competently harvest game with, with little or no fear of wounding an animal. Infact, perhaps its time to introduce crossbows, and rid the world of traditional equipment. Im willing to bet the wounding rate with a recurve or longbow is higher than that of a compound, if the number of users was equal. So lets get rid of these simplistic sticks and strings. Thank them for paving the way for ARCHERY, and then shoo them on their way to the archery grave. After all, by continuing to use them, we increase the opportunity to wound animals. You said it yourself, they are the most challenging weapon to hunt with. We did away with spears, perhaps its time to step away from the stick and string. I mean, there is nothing stopping a hunter who passes the test with a compound to go out and buy a longbow afterwards. Only he himself has to deem himself fit to loose arrows at game. Infact, how do we know you are proficient enough with your weapon of choice to loose arrows at deer, elk, and pronghorn? You say it takes tremendous amounts of practice to be proficient, yet you spend more time on the computer typing about it, than you could possibly spend honing your shooting skills with it.

See its not so nice when someone picks on your weapon of choice! Is it?

If you really wanted to change our minds you would have went about all of this in a different manner.

This post was started with two things in mind, instigating an argument, and to show how high and mighty traditional hunters are. You may have wanted to push for crossbows as well, but that was really just the opportune topic for your belittling of the compound and its users.

Please dont explain to me as if Im a child either, or by ripping my post down to sentences, trying to convince me that isnt true.

If it were not true, you would have started out this thread with something more along these lines.

"Guys and gals, they have allowed crossbows into my states archery season for X amount of years. We havent had any negative effects since the introduction, and I just thought that I would share that with you in hopes that you can give them a fair chance. Perhaps its time all states give crossbow users a chance to hunt in the archery season. If its anything like here, it wont effect you at all.

Have a good one---DataMax"


Have a good one---Matt

That's evading the issue. They can't hunt during the archery season which I assume is a much larger portion of the season so they aren't being treated equally despite the trivial differences in the equipment. You know if it was just able bodied guys that just didn't want to pick up another type of equipment i could possibly see your point of view. However, to punish all of those other folks out there that could potentially benefit from the legalization of crossbows just so some other guys has a little more of an advantage than you do or because a few more deer may get killed is beyond me. You say you are for more hunters in the ranks and that you would embrace the change and even welcome a shortened season if that happened, yet you refuse to let the change take place. You stand in the way and block the entrance of that change taking place. IMO if you are sincere then giving up 30% or your states archery harvest should be irrelevant and you should be happy those people had the oppurtunity. After all those deer belong to them every bit as much as they do you

If they have no following the the 30% is an aboration and the numbers should be insignificant and there should be no reason to prevent those women and children from getting out there and joining in, should there?

If both groups aren't physically capable of drawing hunting weight then why should they be treated differently? Just because those women and children practice and can shoot proficicently doesn't mean they can draw enough weight to be legal and ethical. Why should we be putting up those kind of hurdles that delay and in many cases prevent entry into our sport?

If someone changed the rules and made it where you weren't eligible to hunt anything but the gun season would you think it was unfair? Afterall, you still get to gun hunt. It would look a little different from that side of the fence. However, unlike you I just can't look a kid straight faced and so "sorry son you can't go hunting because the use of crossbow's offend my sense of sensabilities"

The sport of hunting. The sport that lost a couple of million participants in the last 10 years. The sport that we need to be recruiting members to instead of preventing intrance to.

I don't care what you call it so long as you don't try to keep them from hunting with them.
I use the term archery improperly. What i really mean when I say archery is bowhunting. I could give a crap less about archery. My interest is in the hunting aspect and the rights of those that wish to participate. I am a bowhunter not an archer.

Agreed it is a crossbow and compound is a compound and a longbow is a longbow and they should allbe included in the "archery" season. I don't care what you call them just don't be like the anti-hunter's and lobby to keep other hunters from having the right to hunt.