I love the way skeet and Adam Helmer like to think for me. They have neatly put me into THEIR OWN PERCEPTIONS of things because I might in fact disagree with them, which I have yet to state my own preference because no one has asked it.
Further, I like that because Easton Aluminum, some couple of magazines and a camo manufacturer SUPPORT BOWHUNTER EDUCATION, that all of a sudden there is a conspiracy. I wish people would stick to the facts instead of making **** up.
For the record... and its really apparent that neither SKEET nor ADAM HELMER actually did any research into the NBEF or IHEA nor the sportsman's alliance, yet they have both attributed to me positions that neither can point to in that no one has asked me what my position is on any of this, and that the positions that I have stated are those of the organizations responsible for making the recommendations to most if not ALL game departments.
It doesn't matter WHAT YOU THINK Adam in that a crossbow is more bow than muzzleloader. Nice try. I think that both you and SKEET should do some research first.
Since when can a bow be fired with one hand? Since when can you draw a bow with a crank without expending more than just a few ounces of energy? Since when can a bow be held indefinitely without mechanical aid... These are the criteria for an archery season in most if not ALL states.
Two. You say that a muzzleloader doesn't shoot a bolt... that is only because you would choose not to. I have seen more than one ramrod make it downrange... some with phenomenal accuracy as well.
A cross bow is powered by bow limbs. That's true. But that doesn't by itself make it a bow an arrow by definition. It remains cocked mechanically. So to does your muzzleloader. A bow, by definition requires two hands.. one to hold the bow, and the other to draw. A bow by definition may not use any mechanical aid to maintain full draw. That is the definition of a bow. No matter how much one tries to bastardize this with ones own yearnings, you have to lobby the game departments, the NBEF and the IHEA in order to change the definition... no matter how much you want it to be so.
Because a crossbow can be cocked and held mechanically, and for some reason actually looks more like a firearm than a bow to most observers, and has the characteristics of a firearm which the bow does not, game departments relegate it to a firearms season. That really is the end of the story.
Getting back to the reliability factors between muzzleloaders... and getting back to the quote one of you said about patched round balls not being fired out of an inline, never mind that the statement itself is flawed, what does that have to do with anything?
A crossbow and a bow have really no similarities other than the bow limbs and theoretically the bolt. Its not drawn the same, fired the same, not carried in the field the same, and looks more like a rifle to the untrained eye and if one is without counsel asked... does this look more like a bow and arrow or a rifle.. will in well over half the time (probably better than than 80% is more likely) will tell you a crossbow looks like a rifle.
So.. game departments wanted to accomodate, put the crossbow in with muzzleloaders or short range weapons... what is the problem with that?
Muzzleloaders... they ALL load from the muzzle do they not?
They all require a separate source of ignition do they not?
They all have locks, stocks and barrels... do they not? Tell me.. what makes the inline different in function than a flintlock or caplock?
I say again... if a crossbow can be equated with a bow by you folks, then a flintlock should be equated with a single shot centerfire... and it is a much more related piece of equipment.
And lastly... before you both start attributing things to me, you better ask me first. Something both of you seem to have ignored, though I repeatedly referenced that fact earlier... obviously you two are too busy making up my mind for me.
Aloha...
