john nail - I agree with you on the Primitive Seasons. I was born and raised in Alabama, so I'm actually a Hooiser Transplant. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

In my hunting infancy, AL's Primitive season was what I looked forward to each year. Those experiences are the prime factor as to why I'm going back to a traditional archery setup this coming season.

The only problem I have with initiating one here, or lengthening the Modern season is the effect on the state herd population. Since '99, Indiana's harvest numbers have increased each year. The population hasn't exploded. IDNR commented this past fall that the population is almost where they deem ideal.

I've noticed their reaction in the # of bonus permits per county dropping the last couple of seasons. In contrast, that's why the Urban Zones open two weeks before Early Archery; an effort to lower the numbers in those areas.

In states like Alabama and Mississippi, the longer seasons and higher bag limits do less damage due to the number of deer in the herds. The current bag limit in Alabama for archery is one buck and two does per day throughout the bow season. Their herd is stable even with that high a limit.

It's a ratio thing and I think Indiana's deer #'s would suffer. JMO.







Shoot often - Hunt always

Isn't the real danger to our future too few hunters? Too few voters who hunt? (Coupled even, perhaps, with too many deer, or at least no shortage).

If cross bows are a shortcut to being able to take a deer without a gun, then perhaps we should be encouraging their legalization to get more people hunting. At a minimum, we might want to allow cross bows for women and youngsters.

Once we get 'em hooked, then we can convert them to more challenging equipment.

beprepn

I just don't see it that way, beprepn. Crossbows MIGHT account for a few crossover converts, but I don't think they would do anything to increase total numbers of hunters. In fact, it might make a spike on the graph early on, but would eventually lead to a decline like we've seen with the compound. Don't get me wrong. The compound has brought thousands of people into bowhunting that wouldn't have dreamed about it before the wheelbow was invented. But, over the past 10 years, our numbers have been constantly declining.

Take, for instance, the lady on one of the bowhunting forums that was griping about a proposal for regulations limiting bows to 65% letoff, saying that they would close hunting to women and youngsters. What a crock that is! 15 years ago, when 65% letoff was the raw edge of high technology, there were FAR MORE women and young people involved in archery and bowhunting than there are now.

What is happening is the equipment is making it seem so easy that none of the folks using high tech stuff feel the need to shoot regularly to maintain competence. I believe there are many, like myself, that find that kind of gear unpleasant to shoot (not to mention expensive as the dickens). I also feel that lessening the degree of challenge in mastering the equipment leads to boredom. And boredom leads to fewer participants, not more.

Why else would traditional archery be the fastest growing segment of the bowhunting community?

If you want to really get people hooked, hand them a stickbow and show them that they darned sure CAN hit something with it, without all the gizmos, gadgets, paraphernalia and fooferaw that the techies seem to think so damnably indispensible.



Edited by - Arthur P on 01/26/2003 00:26:26

AurthurP brings up another good point:
I rarely see compounders practicing. Once their sights are set, and everything is &quot;dialed in&quot;. I shot a high country compound when they first came out. I always practiced about an hour a day, but this was very boring with the corn-pound. I had to keep moving back to keep it interesting until I ran out of room. Sure, they're a very effecient weapon. very repeatable-very accurate-very hightech. But to me, as B.B. King sang-&quot;The thrill is gone&quot;
J Massy said archers fall into two catagories: Realists and Romanticists. To a realist success is a kill, preferably a trophy. To a Romanticist the kill is not as important as how you go about it.

Your life is made of time, not money.

Arthur you present valid points. My brother in-law has an archery shop of his own, recently he told me he has had more traditional equipment inquiries than in the past. When I was shooting my Oneida aeroforce I tried the 65% and 80% let off cams and found them very unpleasent to handle, I can only discribe it as I needed some tension on my anchor to be proficient. But that is the past, I now have gone over to recurves and long bows (if you consider a 50's Bear Cub a long bow). Who knows what the future offers? I am encouraged by a strong return to traditional values by our society, maybe the pendelum is swinging our way.
Vern Pratt
Give thanks to the Lord,
he is worthy.

I do agree the crossbow is not the instrument which will draw prospective archers into the bowhunting fold. As mentined eariler, the crossbow is loved by neither the gunhunter, nor the bowhunter. It is simply a substitute, primarily for the gunhunter. Again, I believe it isn't even so much a matter of the weapon than it is a matter of the heart.

YBIC,
Dave &gt;&lt;&gt;

Matt 6:33,34/Rev 3:20

Life would be so much easier if you just choose a year for technology rather than got into details. Say 1600. If a technology wasn' t in use that year it can' t be used. Hopefully you won' t choose 5,000 BC and only allow clubs.

Dan O.

Art P I can not agree with you that the crossbow does not bring new people into the bow season. Here in Ohio since they have become legal the deer kill has exploded during the bow season. Now I know many things enter into the kill success but crossbow kills have also exploded during that time span. To point that out Ohio had a record kill of over 200,000 deer this year. I am by no means an authority and can only relate to experiences in the deer woods over the last thirty years and it has become exceedingly more congested and harder and harder to find a piece of ground to hunt that does not, seemingly, have at least a half dozen other hunters on it. A politician once aske " are better of now than you were four year ago" and I ask are we better off now than we were ten years ago. IMHO NO, we are not!

Ted A. recurver and longbow shooter Young AKA COB

Crossbows most certainly are archery by their very definition!! They use limbs under stress to propel a projectile by the means of a string. And they are historically old. I shoot a compound 90% of the time, a crossbow 5% and traditional the other 5%. And I love all of them, yes they are easier once set up, and may not require as much practice, however those that don' t touch their equipment until the day of the hunt are fools regardless of choice. Remember that we need to recruit new hunters into our ranks, please don' t dicourage them because you may not approve of their choice of equipment. And remeber a crossbow is not one some call " rifle bows" or " cross guns" , they still have extreme trajectories as with any other form of archery, and their range is just as limited too.

Keep an open mind, and help and support those new to our wonderful sport!!