I've discussed this with some hunters here in Florida, where there's talk of allowing hunters to use the crossbow during our archery season. Some hunters are rabidly against it, others are unsure, and still others don't see anything wrong with it.

I confess that in the past I've argued otherwise in similar discussions regarding the use of modern inline muzzleloading rifles during muzzleloader season, but my reasoning was a bit different. That, and I've changed my thinking on some things during the years since. At any rate, I'd like to look at some of the questions regarding crossbow use and effectiveness, and present my own views on it, along with some good old-fashioned numbers. Looking at some of the main arguments against the crossbow seems like a good way to do this.

Crossbows Are Too Efficient
Some hunters say the crossbow is just too efficient a tool to be allowed in the woods alongside other bows, like recurves and compound bows. They point to other states, Ohio being a favorite because they have allowed crossbows to be used during their archery season since 1976. Looking at certain trends can be alarming, I'll grant -- if taken on their own, without any other information.

Some figures, presented by none other than a group calling itself
a "National Anti-Crossbow Committee," are obviously designed to frighten hunters into believing that the presence of crossbows in the woods will lead to a drastically increased deer kill, and cause them to believe that the resulting larger take will require a reduction in the length of the season, or decimate the deer population, or both. Below are some numbers as presented in one piece of anti-crossbow propaganda. They are said to be "statistics from Ohio DNR publication #166."

Yearly Harvest by Weapon Type

This certainly shows an increase in the number of deer taken with crossbows as opposed to other bows, but so what? What it doesn't tell us is how many crossbow hunters were in the woods vs. the number of other bow hunters. If more hunters use crossbows, then it stands to reason that there will be more deer taken with crossbows. Those numbers, however, are not included, and without them the crossbow can certainly be made to look like a much more efficient hunting tool than other bows.

The increase in the overall kill is not explained, either. Is it due to increased bag limits, more hunters in the woods, a longer season, bigger deer herd, or what? We don't know, and one can't logically assume it's attributable to the crossbow, since the take with other bows continued to increase as well.

In a more recent news release, found on the Ohio DNR's Web site and dated March 6, 2000, the numbers still reflect an upward trend in crossbow kill, compared with that of other bows. The 1999 season numbers say that 16,940 deer were taken by use of crossbow, while longbow hunters archers took 12,364. They also state that "More deer have been taken during the archery season with crossbows compared to longbows each year since 1989."

This certainly indicates that crossbows are a highly efficient hunting tool, right?

Well, maybe not.

I can see how anyone looking at the first two sets of numbers above could believe that the crossbow is a deer-slaying tool of the highest order, but a closer look reveals that, in the case of the state of Ohio anyhow, that's just not true.

More current information obtained from the Ohio Department of Wildlife (ODOW) for the year of 2001 says this:

"Of the 155,000 archery participants, 70,000 used a crossbow, 55,000 use a vertical bow and 30,000 used both. Of seniors who apply for and receive a free license, 4,000 used a crossbow, 1,000 used a vertical bow and 1,000 used both.

Success rates for 2001 were identical
for crossbow hunters and vertical bow hunters
 at 14%."

Identical success rates! I wouldn't have thought so, really, before reading the above statistics (which are, however, obviously estimates rather than hard numbers). I've never used a crossbow, but I've often heard that they give a huge advantage over other bows. I don't tend to believe everything I read or hear, and I figured the success rates were in fact much closer than the nay-sayers would have us believe... but to find that neither tool outperformed the other, well, that's a real eye-opener. The increased crossbow kill -- which concerns so many -- seems to be simply a side effect of more hunters using them in the woods.

A friend took some of ODOW's total kill numbers for the 2000-2001 season and went to work on them. Using them alongside the numbers listed in the quote above, he determined that something, somewhere, is amiss... the numbers don't reflect identical success rates, and the rates indicated are higher than the estimate above. He determined that the provided numbers indicate a 23% success rate for crossbow users and a 21% success rate for other bow hunters. This is more in line with what I would expect, that crossbows are more effective than other bows... but not by much.

I have drawn my bow and shot arrows at deer. I have held that draw for quite a while to do that before, too, and still made an accurate shot. I have missed because of a faulty swinging sight on one occasion, and on others because the deer simply jumped out of the arrow's path. Never has my drawing the bow been a factor in getting a shot at a deer. And crossbows are not any faster-shooting than compound bows, so a deer "jumping the string" is still a very likely scenario.

A crossbow holding its draw, while undoubtedly convenient, doesn't give it some magical deer-killing power -- it just removes one variable from the equation. The importance of that variable is debatable, as some believe that not having to draw with game nearby is a huge advantage, and others (like myself) don't see it that way. It gives an advantage, but how much of an edge does it really give a hunter? Not much if any, as shown by Ohio's numbers.

What if we agree that a crossbow holding its own draw does provide an advantage over other bows? It begs the following question: Shouldn't we all strive to do everything we can to ensure quick and humane kills for the game we hunt? I certainly think so. This point may not hold much water, though -- because calling the crossbow more efficient in the field (whether due to it holding its draw or for other reasons) is obviously questionable, as we've already determined.

Crossbow Hunters are less Dedicated
In what appears to be their self-righteous and divisive fervor, some crossbow opponents claim that crossbow hunters are and will continue to be "less dedicated" than they, the "real" bow hunters, are.

The owner of a well-known archery Web site had this to say about keeping crossbow hunters out of the woods: "I'd rather see less bowhunters of higher quality than more hunters of questionable ethics and experience." It is obvious that he is referring to crossbow hunters, and I have to wonder why he assumes that those hunters will, as a group, be any less responsible, less ethical, or less "dedicated" than he and his bow-toting brethren. In my opinion, that statement is self-serving and inaccurate.

The above stance is also bad for hunting, in that we observe someone who is considered a leader in the bowhunting community publicly stating his preference for the popularity of hunting to fall further, rather than being willing to share the woods with hunters who use a different tool. Elitist, divisive, and selfish all sound like appropriate adjectives to describe such a stance.

In the field in Ohio, the very state they hold up as an example of the evils of crossbows, the game managers of that state have indicated that its performance at taking game has been identical (or nearly so) to that of other bows. The so-called "less dedicated" hunters who use crossbows seem to be holding their own with their fellow archers. How can that be? I say it's because the nay-sayers are wrong, and crossbow hunters, like other hunters, have learned to use their tools well.

It's been more than a year since I last hunted with a bow. Here in Florida, our bow season is hot and sweaty and filled with biting insects, and I don't relish sweating (and swatting) in a tree as much as I used to. But when I do hunt with my old compound bow, I practice with it, so I can hit what I aim at. I hunt deer with a muzzleloader and modern rifles, too. It's no secret that I prefer guns to bows, but hey, I practice with my guns as well. If I used a crossbow, I'd practice with it, too. Every responsible hunter practices with his chosen tool(s), and the choice of hunting tool doesn't define one's dedication to hunting, as some seem to believe.

There is a lesson that is learned by living in this world amongst other people, and it's best learned early in life. There are, of course, many lessons, but I'm thinking of one in particular: Leave room in your view of the world for others, even when you feel that they "cramp your style." It's about respect for the other residents of this planet. Sadly, some folks don't follow this rule, and therefore refuse to bend for others, who do them no harm whatsoever. Are these really the folks we want deciding what tools we can or cannot use in the hunting woods?

"The Ohio statistics clearly show that bowhunters
 have become a minority in their own hunting season.
The gap worsens with each hunting season."

"Their own hunting season." ??
This is what it really boils down to, for some hunters.

I am ashamed to have such people in our ranks, folks.

They are afraid that if another tool is allowed to be used -- one that differs from theirs, though not as significantly as they'd like us to believe -- then they might just have to share the woods with other hunters. Heaven forbid!

Crossbows are labeled a "threat to the integrity of the archery-only hunting seasons." Integrity of a season? Further, anyone who would use a crossbow is called an "opportunistic hunter who lacks the dedication and commitment required to be a bowhunter." Folks like this seem to wear their selfishness like a badge of honor.

What they don't display are any facts to back up their claims that crossbow hunters are inherently undedicated or uncommitted. Their arguments come across as just so much slanted bluster, a scare tactic designed to anger bowhunters into protesting the crossbow based solely on the opinions of these writers. I prefer to believe that most hunters are smart enough to think for themselves, and that they should be armed with as many of the facts as possible, not just a few numbers designed to incense them and push them in a given direction.

Manufacturers are Pushing for This, Not Hunters
Another tactic is to blame crossbow manufacturers for increased interest in using crossbows during archery season. Supposedly these businesses are pulling strings and bullying our game managers. We're told that, "Fish and Game Departments are being blitzed by crossbow companies looking to expand their markets." No proof of this so-called manufacturer's "blitz" is offered, however.

In villianizing crossbow manufacturers, crossbow opponents seem to forget or ignore the potential customers of those manufacturers -- interested hunters, without whom crossbow hunting would be a non-issue. Conversely, no reference is ever made to manufacturers of other archery gear, who have an obvious stake in this matter (i.e. market share). It seems like just another attempt to rile hunters into opposing crossbows without presenting the facts for their consideration.

Interestingly enough, I have been told that in a resolution passed in June of 1999, "the Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization (AMO) recognize[d] the modern hunting crossbow as capable, challenging and appropriate hunting equipment, and recommends that it is up to each state fish and game department to determine who can hunt with a crossbow, what they can hunt, and in which seasons they can hunt."

Conclusion
In my opinion, the most conclusive evidence that crossbows can be successfully used alongside other archery equipment comes from the very state that opponents point to in warning... Ohio. There, hunters are actually preferring crossbows over other bows, but are experiencing the same (or very similar) success rate regardless of their choice of archery equipment. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

There has been no wholesale slaughter of the deer population in Ohio. Crossbow hunters are not wiping out the herd while other bowhunters languish and sing the blues. Each season, more deer are being taken, which means greater hunter success is being attained, and there's plenty of game for everyone. Folks who like vertical bows are using them alongside crossbow hunters, and both are enjoying success.

Considering the evidence, and the equally compelling fact that there are folks who would like to carry crossbows in the woods during archery season, I don't see any reason whatsoever to keep crossbows out of the archery season based on the arguments covered in this article. Other factors, such as possible effects on the deer population, must be considered in any given case, but that's another matter entirely.