Crossbows take another step forward

[Dan Salmon]

You are making sweeping assumptions when you say:

"The nearly 20,000 gun hunters that opted out during this last gun season because the population was too low".

How do you know that the economy didn't prevent them from hunting?  Family responsibilities?  Work?  Military?  How many that bought a license last year possibly died within the year or were ill and not physically able to hunt or relocated out of state and opted not to return to deer hunt?

Retch you're loosing credibility quickly and now starting to pit hunters against themselves is exactly what we've been pointing out.  We don't need to worry about PETA or HSUS as much as we need to worry about our so called protectors from within our ranks.

Maybe it's time to reassess what the true goal of WBA is, a special interest political lobby or a Pro-hunting Group?

[Wolf River Hunter]

Is there any data out there to support the idea that crossbows would have a dramatic effect? At least one member of the WI DNR thinks it's just a social issue, from JSOnline:

Jason Fleener, assistant deer biologist for the Wisconsin DNR, said the department was neither for nor against expanding crossbow use.

"From our perspective, it's a social issue and not one that would affect deer harvest," Fleener said.

I've tried to find any kill data on crossbows vs compound bows and the only thing I could find was from a study in Ohio a few years back that said the success rate between the two was nearly identical. Logic would seem to indicate with a more efficient weapon and perhaps more hunters in the woods there would be a noticable effect. Maybe that is offset by a lower wounding rate? I guess logic would also indicate with a more efficient weapon there will be less poor shots and less wasted animals.

[j3cub]

As usual the debate on crossbows gets off track with name calling and other diversions.

Allowing crossbows is about personal choice. The vertical archers want the personal choice to use the bows of their choice, people who like crossbows want the same right. This is not China or Russia, this is America!

Crossbows allow more people to hunt. There are all kinds of reasons we make personal choices and may want to hunt with the crossbow. We don't need people like Wright Allen telling us what we can and can not do. Wright Allen should take care of Wright Allen and let the rest of us make up our own mind.

Crossbows are a reasonable accommodation for those who have physical issues and may not feel they can use a vertical bow successfully. I am not just talking about the "approved disabled". Did you know in Michigan the vertical archery opponents of crossbow inclusion wanted to increase the disability required to get a disabled permit in that state? That's right, they were so worried that crossbows would get a foot hold into their state that they were willing to take away the right to hunt from the most handicapped. The Wright Allen's of the world say: 'weaker individuals and women can use 30# bows', find, but I don't see Wright Allen using a 30# bow himself. If you are a woman member of the Wisconsin Bowhunters, this should make you madder than hell.

Crossbows will have no more impact on deer numbers than compound bows have. But if you are worried, ban compounds too! But, be ready to loose about 95% of your membership since about that percentage of WBH's membership uses compound bows. While we are on this subject, why the disconnect. Remember when the archery community had the great debate about traditional equipment v. compounds? Back then those who supported compounds said inclusion of compounds into the archery season would be good for archery. THEY WERE RIGHT. Archery numbers grew, more people became involved, and it was a win, win for everyone. Now you say, the crossbow, which has the same success rate as compounds, will now destroy the the archery season in Wisconsin, but it has not done so in the other seventeen states where they are allowed?

Archers as a group are getting older, much older, and they will be leaving the sport if they are not given "reasonable accommodation". Data from many states show this to be true.

Young people have problems with weak bows. Yah, that's right, weak bows are so slow and weak that many deer are injured and run off rather than having a humane kill. That's a great way to start a young person off in hunting! Crossbow use can solve that problem. Start them off with a crossbow and when the kid gets to around age 17, they can switch to vertical bows. We know from data from Ohio this is what happens and it works!

If you are a WBH member, you are loosing members too. Why? Maybe you are turning away potential members. Why are you always following your most radical members? Maybe you should be asking yourself the question: Who are we... do we support archery and hunting or are we an anti-hunting group? What is the difference between PETA and the Wisconsin Bowhunters? Just a matter of degree. PETA wants to ban all hunting, WBH only want to ban hunting by those who want to hunt with crossbows during the archery season. No matter how you look at it, you still want to ban a type of hunting.

Maybe we should call the WBH, mini-peta.

[wisbooner3932]

ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon

You are making sweeping assumptions when you say:

"The nearly 20,000 gun hunters that opted out during this last gun season because the population was too low".

How do you know that the economy didn't prevent them from hunting?  Family responsibilities?  Work?  Military?  How many that bought a license last year possibly died within the year or were ill and not physically able to hunt or relocated out of state and opted not to return to deer hunt?

Retch you're loosing credibility quickly and now starting to pit hunters against themselves is exactly what we've been pointing out.  We don't need to worry about PETA or HSUS as much as we need to worry about our so called protectors from within our ranks.

Maybe it's time to reassess what the true goal of WBA is, a special interest political lobby or a Pro-hunting Group?

 
You beat me to the punch on that quote, but I agree with everything you said.  Retch, I was against crossbows during the archery season but reading all of your posts is starting to become annoying, and thus my opinion on the matter is changing slowly.

[umpiremark]

If it's Retch Sweeny on this site or Rancid Crabtree on bowsite.com's Wisconsin forums or whatever handle on a ton of other sites, or the real liason for the WBH association, I think it's fairly simple that now the regular posters on here have a pretty good idea what he and the WBHA are all about. There's not one thread of evidence anywhere that shows that the WBH have done anything for the Wisconsin bowhunters, that hasn't benefited themselves (WBH) first (and foremost).

They are a political activist group that raises money and heavily lobbies lawmakers for their benefit - albeit their ideals - only.

I hope that people around Wisconsin - bowhunters in particular - do their own research and make their own conclusions about just what is the WBH association and what - if any - benefits are derived from having them the "voice of bowhunting."

Although my conclusions as stated above, are quite harsh, these are my personal opinions. But do not be swayed by the rhetoric; research and conclude on your own, please.

So long Retch, Rancid, Ron, whatever ... you've been busted on here ... buh-bye now.

[Bob Stout]

ORIGINAL: umpiremark

So long Retch, Rancid, Ron, whatever ... you've been busted on here ... buh-bye now.

I'm happy to see Retch, Rancid, Ron whatever... is being found out. 

[retch sweeny]

Jcub3, you too have a great deal to learn about rights. You apply the word incorrectly when you speak of hunters desire to use a crossbow in WI. If it were a human right or a constitutional one, we would not be having this discussion and you and other crossbow hunters would be out there with bowhunters. When you speak in terms of comparing your "Want" for crossbows with places like China and Russia, I know that in the arena of ideas, you came unarmed. Think about this from the frame of mind of a legislator.

Bowhunter numbers in WI are NOT on the decline. In fact its the exact opposite. Bowhunter numbers in WI are strong and moving steadily up. What in that need fixing?


Gun deer hunter numbers are dropping in WI. How does inserting crossbows in the archery season in WI increase the number of gun hunters in WI? Answer: It doesn't and it is not intended to. How does getting gun hunters to cross over to kill more deer during an archery deer season help bowhunters and the archery deer season when the majority of hunters are complaining about the herd being too small? WI hunters are looking to kill fewer deer and asking the DNR to issue fewer tags. If bowhunters are already bowhunting but convert and become crossbow hunters, what deer herd issues is this solving and is there any monetary advantage to doing so?


Nobody is excluded from participating in the WI archery deer season unless they choose not to be. WI is not suffering a lack of recruitment and retention in people wanting to participate in the WI archery deer season. That is because nobody is excluded. This may be why the majority have opposed full intrusion every time they have been asked. State policy makers ponder all these points. The laws are great in WI as they stand. Where is the need to change statute? If your answer is because "I wanna" your going to have a hard time getting the 33 and 99 (that know the constitution and bill of rights) to agree with you. They want to know what the public wants. The info available tells them where the public stands on the issue every time they have been asked. They will ask if there is any data showing a majority opinion in favor of crossbows. What will you answer that with? Lawmakers want to solve problems and make the majority of folks happy. Where is the fixing in this?

By the way for those interested in "Finding out" more about me. Send me an email. We can chat. [;)]


http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/curre ... I&start2=B

[j3cub]

As usual RC your logic is impeccable. We are truly blessed to have you around to teach us poor souls about the Constitution and the rights of man. I am sorry that I even suggested that you show no sensitivity to others if they have the audacity not to agree with your view of rights, meaning, our way or the highway.

Sometime I worry about you. You spend so much time on web sights fighting the brave fight, I wonder if you have time for your family?

Maybe you should take a vacation. Go SCUBA diving. Spend some time in the islands.

Anyway, I want to thank you again for helping me get my mind on the right track.

You are wonderful!

Thanks!

[retch sweeny]

Thanks for the kind words but they are not my view of "rights". That was determined a long time ago. Most folks know nothing of constitutional law and the bill of rights and think they have a right to everything simply by virtue of wanting it. I'm just glad I am able to help folks out before they get too far off track thinking they can simply create a "right". Its funny when they start to demand something they view as a right. Its sad when folks think they are speaking of what they think is a right when in fact they hope to create an entitlement.


You are not entitled to hunt with a crossbow unless you are handicapped or over 65. I am entitled to hunt with a bow by virtue of buying and approval from the state to hunt deer with a bow. You hope to change that. I see nothing wrong with you seeking change. A majority of the 33 and 99 will have to be convinced that the law needs changing and that there is good reason to do so.