PBS Involvement in State Level Crossbow in Archery Season Initiatives?

[JJB2]

What is the PBS doing as an organization in the way of actively lobbying against / working with the state DNRs to shape plans, as it pertains to the inclusion of the crossbow in state archery seasons?

I'm an associate member and if my understanding of the PBS official position is accurate our dollars do (or should be) used to actively oppose such initiatives. Are they, and if they are, how can I get directly involved here in Indiana?

My home state of Indiana has passed a proposal, which is now open for public comment, that will allow crossbows to be used during archery season. Their public rationale is two-fold: 1. antlerless deer population management and 2. hunter recruitment.

Obviously there are alternative means by which the state can meet objective #1.

- lengthen the early archery season statewide by starting it Sept 15th (right now general season opens on Oct 1st statewide and Sept 15th in urban deer zones)
- institute a doe before buck harvest rule statewide and promote in conjunction with the new rule the donation of the wild game meat to an org like Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry
- lengthen general firearms season

Point #2 (as it is fully articulated on the state's website) reads like it was written by the ATA or the NACF. Legalizing the crossbow for use in archery seasons will not increase the total number of hunters in any given state, it will simply bring more gun only hunters into archery seasons. It's a thinly veiled ploy to generate more license revenue and a complete roll over to the ATA and NACF lobbying in support of the crossbow at the state level.

Secondary questions related to the topic: have we gathered any finite data from states like OH that have had enough time in with a crossbow shared archery season to provide some hard data? Have we invested any dollars in this type of research in an effort to support our position with fact? Have we had any successes in opposing crossbow in archery season initiatives in any other states?

Just for the record, I hunt with both a compound and traditional tackle. I am not opposed to modern equipment and fiercely belief that unity among responsible, ethical, like-minded bowhunters is essential to our long-term success and defense of our sport. That said, I draw a hard-line at the crossbow in archery seasons, as it undermines everything that those that came before us stood for and envisioned when they fought so diligently for bow only seasons. The crossbow in our archery seasons is becoming an increasingly slippery slope and could in the very near future rob us of precious time afield and force upon us an association, by way of public digestion of manufacturer and ATA advertising, with crossbow users as "fellow bowhunters". They want the general public to perceive the crossbow as archery tackle and are having great success currently with their efforts. Pick up any hunting magazine or watch Versus for a few hours.

I have no problem with crossbows in the woods during firearm season, special weapons seasons or in the hands of a handicapped hunter but I do have an issue, given my desire to protect my ability to bowhunt long-term, with their inclusion in archery seasons.

Money makes the world go round and unfortunately right now we're on the short end of this one. We have nothing more to offer the state in the way of additional license revenues. Many of us are also shooting equipment made by manufacturers that also make and sell crossbows (and actively lobby individually and via the ATA for their inclusion in archery only seasons).

That said, if we can use fact to disprove the state's position that allowing the crossbow in archery seasons is BEST way to 1. better manage the antlerless deer population and 2. recruit NEW hunters, we might have a fighting chance. The states are also leaning on the position of wanting to increase the number of days afield for hunters. Any hunter wishing to can already increase their number of days afield, by learning a new skill - archery. It is not the states job to cater to the crossbow hunter by infringing on those of us that have been purchasing licenses and supporting the state wildlife budgets for years.

Also, something I think about increasingly, once the crossbow is in the archery season, what's to keep the ATA and NACF from lobbying the state to do away with traditional tackle, using "facts" to prove that it's relatively ineffective when compared to the modern equipment their constituency is peddling?

I apologize for the rambling. I’m very concerned and anxious to learn more about what we’re actively doing as an organization and how I can positively impact our efforts.

[Al Dente]

Have you contacted PBS directly about this matter.  There is a wealth of information out there.  You may also want to cantact the NABC (North American Bowhunting Coalition)  It is made up representatives from State bowhunting orgs as well as those Provinces in Canada.  
You are correct in your fears.  And you are also correct on the money aspect, as well as the ATA involvement with crossbow usage.
Crossbows do not recruit new hunters, merely firearms hunters who wish to hunt the archery season.  Also, by allowing bowhunters to kill deer in urban areas, and assist in getting land access to bowhunters, State game agencies can and will see more deer dead.
Contact your legislators and let them hear the facts.  Set up a face to face meeting, write letters, visit their district offices, whatever you have to do in order to present your side.  In this day and age, all people care about is money, and with budgets being tightened, they will stoop to no level to create a new license to increase revenue.  The crossbow is not the second coming, I hate to rain on the pro-crossbow lobby's parade, but the truth is the truth.  good luck with your fight.

[JJB2]

Al, I have and it seems that the PBS has formed a coalition (North American Bowhunter Coalition), consisting of the PBS, P&Y, Comptons and numerous state orgs.  They are meeting in April to discuss next steps.  I'm in MN on business this week and may find time to stop by the P&Y hdqtrs to discuss with their point person.

[Cold Weather]

I really don't think the PBS is very effective.  It's pretty hard to ban a bow just because you don't personally like it.

[JJB2]

Cold Weather, ban a bow?  I don't think that's what we're talking about here.  It's not a bow.

[JCJ]

[Cold Weather]

JJB2

a crossbow is a bow.  It's a type of archery equipment.

btw..the US Government says its a bow-crossbows are taxed on the archery BOW category.

because it is archery equipment and indeed a type of bow-its very difficult if not impossible to present valid arguments against it.

I think the major point here is that archery and bowhunting are recreational activities.  People participate in them for enjoyment.  Some like to participate in the sport with stickbows-others with compounds-and others with crossbows.

And, some like to use all of them.

I personally do not care what people choose archery equipment wise in the field-as long as they abide by the game laws.

[dnovo]

Sorry Cold Weather, the government says a lot of things we know aren't true. Anything with a shoulder stock and a fixed trigger is not a bow.
And we aren't against people using them, just not in our hard earned archery seasons.

[JJB2]

CW, no just because "bow" is in the name does not make it archery equipment.  It is by design, a gun that shoots little darts, takes minimal ability or practice to become proficient with and creates distinct advantages over archery equipment (trad or compound), by being able to be held in a cocked position and shot with a scope.  

Our US gov't categorizes them the way that they do because of the lobbyist dollars the ATA and NACF spend cumulatively to create the "archery" association.  The potential revenue pool to manufacture the crossgun would not be worth their time without that association.  This has been a long range strategic objective of the ATA manufacturers - get em into the state archery seasons and then cash in at the registers.  No one's gonna buy em if they can only use them during firearm or special weapons season.

[Steve H.]

PBS didn't form the NABC.

[JJB2]

Steve, I posted the same topic on the PBS website and Tim Roberts (who Greg Darling had put me in touch with as the point person on the anti-crossbow activity) said the PBS is working with those organizations under the NABC umbrella.  Perhaps "formed" was the wrong word choice but as I understand it the PBS's activity is being focused toward working through the coalition.

[Cold Weather]

Originally posted by JJB2:
CW, no just because "bow" is in the name does not make it archery equipment.  It is by design, a gun that shoots little darts, takes minimal ability or practice to become proficient with and creates distinct advantages over archery equipment (trad or compound), by being able to be held in a cocked position and shot with a scope.  

Our US gov't categorizes them the way that they do because of the lobbyist dollars the ATA and NACF spend cumulatively to create the "archery" association.  The potential revenue pool to manufacture the crossgun would not be worth their time without that association.  This has been a long range strategic objective of the ATA manufacturers - get em into the state archery seasons and then cash in at the registers.  No one's gonna buy em if they can only use them during firearm or special weapons season.

that's very interesting but really untrue.  There is no such thing as a "crossgun"-the word does not exist in any dictionary.

the word "crossBOW" however does.

I was just reading Petersen's Bowhunting Magazine-and there was a crossbow article in there.

I was also just reading the latest issue of ARROWTRADE and there were articles on crossbows as well.

I recall reading a book called The Archer's Digest-and there was crossbow articles in there as well.

does it have advantages?  all bows have advantages and disadvantages.  Granted, it is easier for a first time person to learn to shoot-however all top scores are recorded with compound bows.  It's disadvantages include it is more awkward to carry in the field and slower for a second shot.

one of the great advantages of a crossbow is it allows those of slight build who may be confined to use equipment of modest draw weight/performance (women, kids etc) to use equipment where there are no physical limitations.  It's more humane in the field.

the crossbow dates much earlier than firearms-over 2000 years-so claiming it is a "gun" is impossible to support.  Further to that, they are not regulated by the ATF.

Currently, crossbows are allowed in WY, OH, GA and others-in Canada ONT, BC, and QC and there are just no delerious effects to the archery seasons so claims by PBS etc just have no merit.

Really, the claims are much similar to when compound bows began to make inroads-claims they weren't bows-would destroy archery seasons-too easy-etc..

I really find it odd as an argument-the claim of no skill would be used.  First of all-there is no demand of skill to get a bowhunting license.  I used to work as an archery tech for a large outdoor store-saw people all the time who would come in-go bowhunting-who had zero skill.

I've seen traditional archers who bowhunt who frankly can't hit a bale of hay at 20 yards.  

there are lots of "bowhunters" out there-both compound and stickbow who lack any dedication to shoot with any degree of consistant accuracy.  If you doubt me-just go to your local archery shop that has lanes and watch people shoot.

I went over here:

  http://usarchery.org/search?q=crossbow&x=9&y=9

this organization oversees archery at an Olympic level-and when I typed in "crossbow" in the search engine I got hits.      

the National Bowhunters Education Fund has an addendum to crossbow hunting:

 http://wyomingcrossbow.wordpress.com/news/nbef-releases-todays-crossbow/

and  http://www.crossbowusa.com/About_Us.html

 

compete at many local and regional tournaments, an Indoor and Outdoor National Championships, the World Archery Festival in Las Vegas, the NFAA Indoor National Championships, the WAF Archery Classic, and the International Bowhunting Organization 3D World Championships for sport crossbows.

a crossbow isn't a bow-yet they are at the World Archery Festival-the NFAA championships-the IBO????? etc...?

I could go on-but rather than argue an crossbow isn't a bow-which is baseless-I think we should allow others-and give them the respect-to choose what they feel is best for them.  They give you the respect for you to choose what is best for you.

[dan d]

JJB2,
  Good luck with your mission, I watched it shoved down our throats here in Michigan.

 I was goin to say more, but I guess that would be politics and tradgang frowns upon politics. And I don't mean choosing sides, I mean big money getting it's way, not the citizens vote.

Dan

[Stringwacker]

Just because it's called a crossBOW no more means it a bow than a seaHORSE is a horse or a groundHOG is a hog. It's just a name given to the weapon in history lore because as it was said, guns weren't invented. What else would they have called it in that time period? Had it been invented last week it might have been called a crossgun...but what's in a name anyway as the weapon is still the same weapon regardless of the name assigned to it.

The real issue with a crossbow isn't it's effect in and of itself. Rather, it's a symptom of a need by wildlife agencies to provide more choice to promote revenue, higher harvest, and participation. Unfortunately, it becomes the first step in a broadening arena of choice that not only includes crossbows; but also black powder rifles and firearms. "Choice" is not the sole domain argument of the crossbow advocacy and in that fact is where the devil lives. The crossbow may be argued NOT to have have caused the shortening of an archery season through it's harvest impact; however it cannot be said that crossbow legalization hasn't predated the abbreviation of archery only seasons by the 'choice' advocacy. There are cases where crossbow legalization was followed or legalized in conjunction with increased black powder dates in formerly archery only season structures. The same theme of "choice and participation" were used to include black powder weapons in formerly archery only seasons. Virginia and North Carolina come to mind as quick examples based on my understanding of the issue. The crossbow is just a first (but important) step in the blending and shortening of archery only formats...particularly true in areas of expanding herds and lower hunter numbers in general such as in the southeast. In as much it serves as a conditioning step for future change.

Ironically, the increased participation reasoning often used to promote the weapons legalization is not always true. The states of Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama have less participation in archery seasons today than they did pre-crossbow legalization just a few years ago. In the case of Tennessee and Alabama both states archery particpation went down the very first year of crossbow legalation! The state of Georgia barely missed that ironic distinction as out of nearly 100,000 archers, crossbow legalization increased that states archery sales by 671 license...barely over 1/2 of 1% in the first year of crossbow legalization. Losses started occuring in the third year of legalization in Ga and at one point participation was down over 30% from it's pre-crossbow numbers!

As far as allowing youth and individuals of slighter build to participate in archery formats....all I can say is that my on son was only 9 when he killed his first deer with a 33 pound compound. This from a kid that was never big or strong enough to play any school athletics. I have a hard time buying into the disenfranchised argument from my own frame of reference.

As far a the degree of skill (or lack thereof if that's the case) required to shoot a crossbow, I will let that lay. However, I think any legimate archery weapon should at the very minimal require an archery skill set to shoot it. Is there any archery skills (either basic or advanced) required to shoot a crossbow? I'm not aware of any.

[JCJ]

"The states of Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama have less participation in archery seasons today than they did pre-crossbow legalization just a few years ago. In the case of Tennessee and Alabama both states archery particpation went down the very first year of crossbow legalation! The state of Georgia barely missed that ironic distinction as out of nearly 100,000 archers, crossbow legalization increased that states archery sales by 671 license...barely over 1/2 of 1% in the first year of crossbow legalization. Losses started occuring in the third year of legalization in Ga and at one point participation was down over 30% from it's pre-crossbow numbers!"

Is there research that can draw a direct correlation between the inclusion of crossbows in the GA archery season and the trend of decreasing archery participation that you indicate? Without such research data how can you be sure crossbows were causative in this impact?

As far as TN is concerned, in 2005 the same year crossbows were included in their archery season they also had a 35% increase in archery license fees. Do you have research that directly links decreasing archery participation to crossbows in TN? How did you factor out the impact of the increased license fee that was put into effect the same year? Is it possible that the inclusion of crossbows might have actually minimized the overall impact of the license fee increase?

I have contacted Don McGowan of the GA DNR and Daryl Ratajczak of the TN DNR about the impacts of crossbows in their respective states and neither indicated the availability of scientific, sound, statistically significant research data that would allow me to answer my questions.

If you have such data, I would appreciate the source so I can contact them and investigate further.

Thanks!

[Stringwacker]

Without research intitiated by the individual states in question, (not likely at all) cause and effect will be impossible to determine. While the cause and effect may be in question, the facts are clear that a reduction in participation did occur in direct contridiction to the crossbow's merit claims. A fact that was not only evident in the great state of Tennessee after a license sales increase, but also in the adjacent state of Alabama which did not have a license fee increase. Georgia did have a 'very slight' bump in the first year but the famed Nicholson report was documented in not the first year when such a cause and effect might have been more closely associated with it's legalization; but rather the second year which in the states trending pattern was an anomaly. It's just been my thoughts that to produce such a well circulated report that takes the second year of crossbow legalization against the first year of legalaztion is a flawed measurement as cause and effect is undeterminable. In some years
that followed, archery participation declined when overall hunter numbers increased. It's one of the more odd stats from that state.

While I cannot assert anything but the accurate  facts associated with the decreased participation in more than one state upon the weapons legalization, the facts are that at least in terms of archery growth the crossbow is a statistical dud... in at least a few states.

In contrast to the crossbow stats in Tn, Al, and Georgia which show declining trends, Mississippi during the same time period (a non-crossbow state except for WMA's) has shown steady archery participation and in fact a very slow growth during the same time period. Even I have to admit it all to be circumstantial but a reasonable person would likely conclude that while the crossbow in these states may not have hurt anything that can be directly linked to cause and effect..... it's likewise unsupported that it has met it's claims of participation growth & retention which is a very core aspect of the crossbows's legalization effort.

At the end of the day, I believe every hunter that purchases a hunting license has an equal opportunity. Archery seasons are open to all and the supreme 'choice' above all is the individual freedom to decide to make the personal decision of participation. "Choice" when defined as an individuals preference of weapon selection is a two edge sword; in that the basis of all special seasons (archery/black powder) owe their existence to government issued weapon restrictions. A person can't argue weapon choice logically when it's not universally applied to all users and weapon preferences. However, to do so moves you away from the archery only aspects of season allocations.

It's just a personal view point that I believe the compound bow was the great compromise in the sport that offered the sport to women, children and the physically weaker among us. I really don't think that has changed a great deal in the last 35 years or so.

[Al Dente]

Excellent points Stringwalker.  Crossbow folks do not want to hear that their SAVIOR is nothing more than a marketing ploy to decieve state game agencies.  Here in NY, archery license sales have been on the rise for the last several seasons, from 172,000 a few years ago to over 200,000 last year.

Also, in NY, a bow with a minimum draw weight of 35# is legal tackle.

Facts are facts, and the pro-crossbow sides does not rely on them, they tug at heart strings by parading wounded veterans to legislators.  The selfish, elitist bowhunters are keeping them from bowhunting with a crossbow.  Shameful to say the least.

It is unfortunate that media whores have succumbed to turining every page or video clip into into an opportunity to to push a product, regardless of its worthiness or the truth behind it.

The PSE Tactical Assualt Crossbow mounts onto the body of an AR15 which can pretty much robin-hood at 100 yards according to the rep, the TwinBow II can be cocked, reloaded and fired in 3 seconds, and the new Parker Concorde utilizes a Co2 cartridge to auto-cock it.  Where is the archery aspect in these products.  To go one step further check out the Airrow line of rifle barrels for a Ruger .22 caliber rifle.  You can shoot arrows from it once the barrel is installed.  I guess that's archery as well because an arrow is shot from it too.

But, I'm just a selfish, elitist, anti-hunting bowhunter who doesn't want to help the young, weak, female, elderly or disabled hunter out there.

The facts are there, the options are there, and the future is there.  Take an honest look and think if it really is archery or not, and what the agenda is.

[JCJ]

"Even I have to admit it all to be circumstantial but a reasonable person would likely conclude that while the crossbow in these states may not have hurt anything that can be directly linked to cause and effect..... it's likewise unsupported that it has met it's claims of participation growth & retention which is a very core aspect of the crossbows's legalization effort."

Mark:

That is a good honest assessment of what you can tell about the crossbows impacts on archery participation and and it's value as a tool in hunter recruitment and retention based on currently available data.

My guess is that in the future we may see survey work that will begin to reveal better and more accurate information about the impacts of crossbows on archery participation and it's value as a tool in hunter recruitment and retention.

If I were a betting person I would put my money on its role in the retention of older hunters (age 50 and older), particularly older existing firearms deer hunters who use it to go from one to two season deer hunters. But again, until survey research is done to discover the motivations as to why older hunters when given a choice, choose to use a crossbow, and the influence of this choice on their decision to continue hunting, we really will not know.

Take care,
JCJ

[Cold Weather]

Stringwacker

the crossbow was designed likely after the recurve/longbow.

man thought was there a better way to aim the bow, and to hold it at full draw.

the bow design is at least 2000 years old, and most likely much older.

are there "archery skills" to shoot an crossbow?  Well, you do have to judge distance but I will admit with the laser rangefinder it makes it real easy.  Still, for hunting the same challenges of getting close apply.

one interesting argument is that the crossbow is "about money".

if it's about money-then there has to be a DEMAND for the crossbow.

Now, I personally know one dedicated longbow archer-but he also hunts with an crossbow.

myself, I use traditional equipment, but also shoot compounds and the crossbow.  I guess I am just into all forms of archery.  

are there people who aren't dedicated an into archery who will take up the crossbow?  Yes, just like there are people who aren't dedicated who take up traditional bows and take up compounds.

every year, more and more states are allowing crossbows in the archery seasons and it will continue.  

I think that is great because more and more people will participate.

interesting enough, I thought of the first ever time I shot an arrow-and it was with a crossbow.  I was about 9 at the time, and went over to a friends house and they had a crossbow and let me shoot it.  I guess that first couple shots was what motivated me to be into the sport now for over 40 years!  My life long love of archery has taken me to events like the North American Longbow Safari, the PBS to see bows advertised in Trad Bow Hunter Magazine, plus tours of major archery companies.  I met Glenn St Charles when he had NorthWest Archery in Seattle..etc..

[Cold Weather]

Originally posted by Al Dente:
Excellent points Stringwalker.  Crossbow folks do not want to hear that their SAVIOR is nothing more than a marketing ploy to decieve state game agencies.  Here in NY, archery license sales have been on the rise for the last several seasons, from 172,000 a few years ago to over 200,000 last year.

Also, in NY, a bow with a minimum draw weight of 35# is legal tackle.

Facts are facts, and the pro-crossbow sides does not rely on them, they tug at heart strings by parading wounded veterans to legislators.  The selfish, elitist bowhunters are keeping them from bowhunting with a crossbow.  Shameful to say the least.

It is unfortunate that media whores have succumbed to turining every page or video clip into into an opportunity to to push a product, regardless of its worthiness or the truth behind it.

The PSE Tactical Assualt Crossbow mounts onto the body of an AR15 which can pretty much robin-hood at 100 yards according to the rep, the TwinBow II can be cocked, reloaded and fired in 3 seconds, and the new Parker Concorde utilizes a Co2 cartridge to auto-cock it.  Where is the archery aspect in these products.  To go one step further check out the Airrow line of rifle barrels for a Ruger .22 caliber rifle.  You can shoot arrows from it once the barrel is installed.  I guess that's archery as well because an arrow is shot from it too.

But, I'm just a selfish, elitist, anti-hunting bowhunter who doesn't want to help the young, weak, female, elderly or disabled hunter out there.

The facts are there, the options are there, and the future is there.  Take an honest look and think if it really is archery or not, and what the agenda is.

Al

as a supporter of crossbows and all archery I only rely on facts.

the PBS etc on the other hand...    

I have shot the PSE Tech 15 and it indeed does what is said of it.  I got 405fps thru the chronograph.

it is quite the product-but it too expensive for the masses.

it still remains though, a close range piece of equipment.

now, and this is interesting.  Saxton Pope wrote a book called HUNTING WITH THE BOW AND ARROW and there are numerous references in there to shots at game animals to 65-75 yards and shooting out to 100 yards.

in Howard Hill's HUNTING THE HARD WAY it is claimed that he shot at an elk at 200 yards.

now, I don't believe that anyone here would advocate shots like that, but just to make a point-which is the same point you make of the Tech 15..    

Regarding the other equipment-they use a bow to shoot an arrow-so they ultimately are archery equipment.

the exception being the Ruger 10/22 which uses a charge to shoot an arrow.