Anyone following Pennsylvania hunting issues knows that any change, regardless of size or importance, can be cause for controversy.
So when the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Board of Commissioners made crossbows legal in the state’s archery seasons, there was no doubt the resulting storm would reach epic proportions.
Ease of operation, improved accuracy, increased range and lack of preparation are all arguments used by many archers against the inclusion of crossbows. However, many older archers may recognize these arguments as the same ones used when compound bows were first legalized. At that time many traditional archers refused to recognize the compound bow as an acceptable device for archery hunting, citing ease of operation, improved accuracy, increased range and lack of preparation as reasons to ban compounds from Pennsylvania’s archery seasons.
Comparing arrow speed, range, use of mechanical releases, ability to hold for a shot and shortened learning curve, modern compounds have more in common with crossbows than traditional recurves and long bows.
My archery hunting career began with a Bear Kodiak recurve bow with no sights, no release, no drop-away arrow rest. Regardless of how much I practiced, there was always a need for more. Later, switching to a modern, well-equipped compound bow, made practice a lot easier and often within a short period of time my shooting improved to the point where I was ready to hunt. Although I have only taken a few shots with a crossbow, I am certain it would shorten a hunter’s preparation time even further.
The same thing can be said concerning accuracy. While my recurve offered excellent accuracy at 10-yards and would allow shots at deer out to 20-yards, the modern compound effectively doubled that, allowing me to precisely place arrows at 20-yards and extended my hunting range to nearly 40-yards. The crossbow allows very accurate shots at 30 yards and may in some cases allow accurate shots at game out to 40 yards.
Any shots beyond that with either a compound or crossbow would be unethical in all but the most competent hands. The distance an archer chooses to shoot at game has more to do with ethics than the type of bow.
Another often stated difference is the compound bow’s need to be drawn in the presence of game, while the crossbow remains loaded and ready to fire throughout the hunt.
Thinking back on several deer I spooked while drawing my bow, I can attest to the difficulty of avoiding the sharp eyes of a white-tailed deer. However, the compound bow’s vertical profile closely matches the hunter’s outline, allowing some degree of concealment during the drawing process. On the other hand, a crossbow’s wide, horizontal limbs are more difficult to conceal when raised for a shot. Is it an even exchange? Probably not, but it remains a consideration.
In addition, no one complained about drawing in the presence of game when groundblinds became a popular option for archers.
To me, whether a hunter chooses a long bow, recurve, compound or crossbow, the hunt is the same from scouting deer sign, to picking a stand, to choosing when and where to hunt on a particular day. Once in the treestand or groundblind there is no difference between these bows until the last few seconds of the hunt. In the typical archery hunt, the difference between the type of bow used comes down to a few seconds at the moment of kill. Everything that comes before and after remains the same.
As the fastest growing segment of the sporting community, archery offers an excellent opportunity to help recruit new hunters and retain current hunters. The NASP and other such programs focusing on recruiting young people are excellent examples of the power archery can have on our future.
(Ralph Martone writes an outdoors column for The News.)
