If the nasty fight on the SD state forum over at the other site re restrictions is any indication, this subjet has a long way to go before it is resolved or dies.

Arthur, I don't mean to be disrespectful. I understand your feelings that the compounds technology is excessive already anyhow.

This article really made me understand that this is a fight our predecessors have fought and I would be remiss to not share in.

The following is a portion of an article written in 1946 concerning the crossbow issue:

Many of us old time gun hunters were looking for new thrills and interest in hunting. We wanted to go hunting for hunting's sake with odds. We love the feel of the bow; it feels good to flex our muscles in drawing the bow; we thrill at the flight of the arrow, conscious that ours was the energy that sent it on its way. We shoot the bow for relaxation and exercise and we hunt for the joy that is in it.

We are aware of the inefficiencies of the bow as a hunting weapon. We don't want a weapon that is just as accurate or nearly so, as a gun. If we did we would hunt with a gun. That it takes little physical exertion to cock a crossbow doesn't appeal to us nor does the fact that you can shoot good scores with a crossbow ‘without tiresome practice.'

Most of us archers will be striving to our dying day to improve our techniques and shooting skill. Compared to the bow, the crossbow was short-lived. The bow was in existence and use for tens of thousands of years before the crossbow and survived the advent of gunpowder.

The crossbow died with the invention of fire arms. We, as archers, are not interested in digging up its remains, and trying to resurrect it in the name of archery."

A.J. Michelson, President of the National Field Archery Association, in an editorial published in the October, 1946 issue Archery.

As you see, this fight has gone on for a long time. I hope it is not loss on our watch. Brokaw’s book on us will be the “Easy Generation.”

To say the least I am humbled by the comments, quotes, and overall knowledge offerred on this forum. As I have only a small ammount of resources to draw upon, (mainly from articles I have read in magazines) I would ask all of you from where you gathered your knowledge? It is upon my generation and that of my children's to carry the traditions of our heritage into the future, let us do it with insight and patience. There is a common ground we all share and that is the heritage of hunting. Maybe, just maybe, we can use it to the sports advantage.
Vern Pratt

Vern, my knowledge has been accumulated over the past 25 years when I got involved in the anti-crossbow campain. Not long after compounds were generally accepted, crossbow makers decided that maybe the time was right for them to push for legalization and several of them have gone whole hog ever since. Especially Bernie Horton of Horton Crossbows and his gang of lobbyists.

I've done a lot of research about crossbows and have done some hands-on experimenting with the things. The latter is something I would guess few of the anti-crossbow crowd has actually done. My take on crossbows is a little different from most. I do not see them as the scourge of the woods.

Actually, and this is one area where I thoroughly disagree with the propaganda put out by PBS's anti-crossbow committee, I have grave doubts about crossbows as hunting weapons due to their power, range, noise and accuracy. Most of the high end crossbows give performance that today's average, run-of-the-mill compound can meet or exceed. The compound also shoots a longer, more stable arrow with better accuracy, higher retained energy downrange and does it much quieter. As we all know, a quieter shot is less likely to spook an animal into jumping the string, so there is a better likelihood of a clean kill with the compound.

A 70 pound BowTech Black Knight easily equals performance than the meanest crossbow on the market that meets the legal maximum limit of 200 pounds draw weight. A properly set up crossbow in that class is fully capable of taking animals at 50-60 yards in the hands of an expert, but the low end K-Mart specials are so bad - slow, noisy and with so much aim disrupting recoil and shock - that same expert would be a fool if he attempted a shot further than 20 yards with one.

The downfall, just as John Nail pointed out with compounds, is that the crossbow is very appealing to those who percieve it as an easy way to hunt in archery season. We already have far too many so-called 'bowhunters' who refuse to even touch their bows until immediately before the season starts and lock them away again immediately after the season closes. The crossbow would make that problem far worse. The crossbow advocates will debate that point as a gross generalization, but a great many - probably the great majority - of our fellow 'bowhunters' have shown the true depth of laziness inherent in human nature. And it's also human nature to buy the cheapest thing available if you don't intend to make a serious hobby out of shooting.

So. You wind up with inexperienced hunters going into the woods with inferior K-Mart weapons that they have done little more to than a basic sight-in. It's bad enough with bows. Worse with crossbows.

That is why I have always been opposed to crossbows. And that is also why I say compounds have advanced to the point where it's getting very difficult to argue against the crossbow at the same time we're defending compounds.

When compounds were mostly round wheeled and finger shot with speeds less than 250 fps and moderate letoff, we had plenty of room to talk. Now, with speed ratings well over 300 fps and rumors of 400 fps bows, high letoff, mechanical releases, holographic sights, telescopic sights and lazer sights that can be hung on compounds - just as easily as those same type sights can be mounted on crossbows - we're out of wiggle room.

Hand held and hand drawn is the only criteria left to differentiate compounds from crossbows and that is an awful thin argument when comparing the two weapons. Especially when you're splitting hairs in front of a game commission that probably doesn't have a great deal of knowledge about archery in the first place.

For instance, is a bow shot with a mechanical release hooked to the string, and the hand itself not making any contact at all, really hand drawn? How do you hold a crossbow to shoot it if not in your hands? In your mouth? No, it's 'hand held' too. Splitting hairs, as I said, but those arguments are going to be presented. How do we answer so that non-archers can understand?



Edited by - Arthur P on 01/19/2003 01:06:47

I see these threads on every archery forum board on the net. I fully believe this is an issue that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. We are as divided on it as Christians and Lions.
I can almost hear the anti-hunting crowd squealing with delight..
What it boils down to is that we hunt for different reasons. Always will,I guess. As I said earlier, hunting to me, is the last pure thing. This is just another clod in the churn.......ask yourself this:
Would you like to be buried with your favorite stickbow and a quiver full of arrows you made?
How about a high-tech compound and carbons?

Your life is made of time, not money.

Arthur P and John nail I agree with the both of you. First, you are correct Arthur that there are way too many bowhunters who leave the bow in the closet and not touch it till a week or two before season. It seems to be human nature to be lazy, why else do we have microwave ovens? Microwaves were orignally used for communications. Second, John I agree that it is a personal issue when it comes to what we like to carry into the woods. I would disagree that the anti-hunters are laughing in delite as about these type of debates. I believe that this is exactly what they don't want, they don't want active debates among sporstman. Even though we don't all agree we are sharing information, facts, and figures that are meant to keep our sport alive. If we were not talking among ourselves and just staying closed mouth we would be easier targets. From my military point of view I would rather attack the enemy that stays in his own camp looking in than the enemy that actively moves about his camp to keep touble at a safe distance. I must admit I have never fired or held a crossbow, I don't intend to as they don't really appeal to me. What concerns me about crossbows is the false sense of power and precision they offer. Those hunters that walk into their local "shop and rob" purchase a crossbow package then take it home to fire it a few times just to hunt the next day scare the beegeebers out of me! In Michigan bowhunters are not required to wear hunters orange; I don't mind being in the public woods with other bowhunters this way but if we start allowing crossbows in the archery season I am afraid we will have an increase of hunters being shot. The crossbow offers false promise of power and accuracy, just lift it up and pull the trigger. I did see a program on the History channel where they test weapons of old, the crossbow was insanely inaccurate, the shooter shot at least ten bolts at a watermelon from a distance of about ten yards before hitting the melon. We all have some cleaning up to do within our sectors of archery of that I am certain, but my point is crossbows should be a seperate catagory, if our lawmakers want to give them a season it should not be with the archery season.
Vern Pratt
"Peace friends, and blessings to your lives"

Actually, I want a Norse royalty funeral, John. With my bow, sword and axe by my side and trophies of my conquests at my feet, set adrift on the sea in a buring ship.

You must be reading a different thread than I am. I have seen various degrees of agreement that they should not have free reign in archery season. The only disagreement is what should be done with them.

I think they should have their own season, with their own tags so that the wound/loss ratios and hunter success rates can be monitored. JRW says there shouldn't be any crossbows in the woods at all. I say the fight to keep crossbows out of archery season is nearly lost because of compound technology and we need to figure out how to preserve what we can. Mhogan says fight to the last man.

Those are the points of disagreement. And, in a way, I agree with both of them on their points of view. But I am also cursed with a healthy dose of realism (cynicism, maybe even fatalism, if you prefer) and don't think those viewpoints are realistic any longer. At least, not until the technology free-for-all either burns out on it's own or is stopped and backed up a giant step or two by regulation.

Aurthur P>
You bring up a very interesting point. It would be interesting to note the sucess ratios of different weapons. In Indiana, we only have "Archery" tags. They don't distinguish what kind of bow is used. I really don't know how you'd figure wound/loss ratio? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of questionaire and a modicum of honesty?
I don't think that would work here. It would be very helpful information.

Your life is made of time, not money.

Bodkin, I went and scanned thru that thread on the SD forum and definitely agree with SDBI's proposals. Although I think arrow weight limits should be even higher though.

But the response is exactly what I have come to expect from the compound crowd. Any time you start talking regulations that limit technology, there are a lot of folks that start howling that it's 'an attack on compounds by traditional shooters.' Those same people are saying the SDBI is a traditional organization that doesn't represent the majority of South Dakota's bowhunters. I see very little indication that 'most' compound shooters are willing to accept equipment restrictions.

John, having the ability to track the crossbow's effectiveness as a hunting tool is vital, IMO. Ohio's fish and game department takes great delight in their numbers and show numbers that crossbow hunters outnumber bowhunters and that they harvest more than half the annual archery season harvest. Problem is, when talking to Ohio hunters, every one of them say they have never been asked what kind of gear they used at the check stations and they have never been polled. So I don't have a clue how the State comes up with their figures. Opinions and estimates, I suppose.

I wrote the state of Ohio and asked how they came up with the numbers and never found out.

If they are correct, it would indicate the crossbow must be considered a superior hunting weapon by most of the bowhunters in that state.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/hunting/deer99.html