There was a recent thread where an older gentleman discussed moving to a crossbow due to an injury, but decided not to do it because of the stigma against crossbows.
I was going to reply there, but my thoughts are bigger than just compound vs crossbow, and I'd like to start some discussion on my thoughts on the subject. Please don't jump in until you read the whole post.
These special weapon seasons just create divisiveness among hunters. Trad archers don't like compounds, all archers don't like crossbows, none of them like muzzleloader hunters during "their" seasons. Rifle hunters become jealous of the extended time archers get, etc. The current lines are very arbitrary, often varying greatly between states. We like to pretend all these different seasons are due to tag allocations and harvest percentage, but its really just about selling more stuff.
The ONLY reason some groups (we'll say some archers) don't want another group (say, crossbow users) in the woods is selfish: reduced competition. Saying its about ethics ( Using a less effective weapon is ethical? ) or about harvest percentages ( this is dependent on the hunter's skill as much as the maximum potential effectiveness ) is just political posturing. Weapon technology and therefore effectiveness is constantly improving, so if we're going to discuss maximum effectiveness, it needs to be based on something apart from the weapon, the human.
A Proposal
While a "single season" with any weapon removes the basic divison, I think there is room for a better alternative. I'd like to see Mechanical Stored Energy: where the person has to provide the energy VS Chemical Stored Energy: can't come up with a better name; explosive, electrical, compressed air. These seem fairly future proof to me. As far as I can tell, there's an upper limit to what is going to be achieved with pure muscle power, and thus its the only fair way to separate weapons. Meanwhile, we know things like lasers and railguns are a distinct possibility, and the "airbow" ( There's nothing bow about it, I'd prefer "arrow gun" ) is already creating controversy. These would all be handled with the above distinction.
There's no doubt that the barrier to entry for using a crossbow is lower than that of a vertical bow. But should that be a determining factor? There's no skill test for allowing archers in the woods. I've seen plenty of compound users that I wish were using an easier to use weapon, but are still out there slinging arrows anyway. How many more animals are wounded and die from an unskilled archer, whereas perhaps if they used a crossbow, they'd be one and done. This is all assuming a crossbow is the best tool for the job, and there are circumstances where it can be argued its not. I'd imagine they are great for sitting in a bling. However, they are heavier and more cumbersome, thus not ideal for spot and stalk type hunting. I will go on if requested.
If feel the group that loses the most under this scenario is muzzleloader hunters. Sorry muzzleloader hunters, but let's be honest, its just a handicapped rifle, except in the instances where it essentially is a modern rifle. Its especially ridiculous when the muzzleloader is capable of shooting 700+ yards. The fact is that even a fairly primitive muzzleloader has the capability of launching a projectile far farther than anything human powered, and those that are even older are questionably accurate for creating a clean kill.
It does us no good to bicker so much between ourselves. Love to hear your thoughts on holes in my arguments.
* Disclaimer: I own and hunt with muzzleloaders, rifles, shotguns and compound bows. I do not own nor hunt with a crossbow.
I was going to reply there, but my thoughts are bigger than just compound vs crossbow, and I'd like to start some discussion on my thoughts on the subject. Please don't jump in until you read the whole post.
These special weapon seasons just create divisiveness among hunters. Trad archers don't like compounds, all archers don't like crossbows, none of them like muzzleloader hunters during "their" seasons. Rifle hunters become jealous of the extended time archers get, etc. The current lines are very arbitrary, often varying greatly between states. We like to pretend all these different seasons are due to tag allocations and harvest percentage, but its really just about selling more stuff.
The ONLY reason some groups (we'll say some archers) don't want another group (say, crossbow users) in the woods is selfish: reduced competition. Saying its about ethics ( Using a less effective weapon is ethical? ) or about harvest percentages ( this is dependent on the hunter's skill as much as the maximum potential effectiveness ) is just political posturing. Weapon technology and therefore effectiveness is constantly improving, so if we're going to discuss maximum effectiveness, it needs to be based on something apart from the weapon, the human.
A Proposal
While a "single season" with any weapon removes the basic divison, I think there is room for a better alternative. I'd like to see Mechanical Stored Energy: where the person has to provide the energy VS Chemical Stored Energy: can't come up with a better name; explosive, electrical, compressed air. These seem fairly future proof to me. As far as I can tell, there's an upper limit to what is going to be achieved with pure muscle power, and thus its the only fair way to separate weapons. Meanwhile, we know things like lasers and railguns are a distinct possibility, and the "airbow" ( There's nothing bow about it, I'd prefer "arrow gun" ) is already creating controversy. These would all be handled with the above distinction.
There's no doubt that the barrier to entry for using a crossbow is lower than that of a vertical bow. But should that be a determining factor? There's no skill test for allowing archers in the woods. I've seen plenty of compound users that I wish were using an easier to use weapon, but are still out there slinging arrows anyway. How many more animals are wounded and die from an unskilled archer, whereas perhaps if they used a crossbow, they'd be one and done. This is all assuming a crossbow is the best tool for the job, and there are circumstances where it can be argued its not. I'd imagine they are great for sitting in a bling. However, they are heavier and more cumbersome, thus not ideal for spot and stalk type hunting. I will go on if requested.
If feel the group that loses the most under this scenario is muzzleloader hunters. Sorry muzzleloader hunters, but let's be honest, its just a handicapped rifle, except in the instances where it essentially is a modern rifle. Its especially ridiculous when the muzzleloader is capable of shooting 700+ yards. The fact is that even a fairly primitive muzzleloader has the capability of launching a projectile far farther than anything human powered, and those that are even older are questionably accurate for creating a clean kill.
It does us no good to bicker so much between ourselves. Love to hear your thoughts on holes in my arguments.
* Disclaimer: I own and hunt with muzzleloaders, rifles, shotguns and compound bows. I do not own nor hunt with a crossbow.
