Doc

Apparently this guy is functioning as a collection of new crossbow concepts. He is not coming up these ideas, but has caught the attention of a whole bunch of very intelligent and creative engineers who are very busy with all aspects of crossbow technology. These guys are not a bunch of dummies. I still thing the most impressive design was that original wooden full-auto proto type. Each one of these inventions shows the level of interest and the effort that is being put into the next-generations of crossbows. It is fun to watch the progress that these wizards bring to us.

So you honestly believe that because you scoured the entire site and found one sentence that could have been written more clearly, you are justified in condemning the whole organization. You apparently believe that by writing this sentence in that way, NYB will soon be inviting gunners into the bow season because it will "develop greater outdoor opportunity for all, as essential to character building and physical well-being". Do you really believe that? How about this: perhaps if you were a member, you could address this sentence that is so bothersome to you. You might even find the author and get him or somebody to re-write it.....lol. Or you can do as you are and sit on the outside whining and complaining about sentence structure. I would suggest that you are feverishly searching for straws to grasp. I detect a bias that runs so deep that no amount of logic will ever change your mind and I am truly wasting my time indulging in this minutia that you have dredged up. I have had similar conversations with anti-hunters that are so deeply invested in their positions that they cannot be reasoned with. Basically you have decided that bowhunters do not deserve or need representation. You are determined not to engage and resolve whatever issues you have with them and continue on with this kind of silly argument that has devolved into a ridiculous disagreement with a sentence. If the discussion takes a more reasonable and logical turn I may try to re-engage, but it has deteriorated to the point where I can no longer justify the time spent trying to convince someone who is biased beyond reason.

You would have to contact the author of that statement. I am simply stating that it obviously is not an all inclusive statement. That would be contradictory to their purpose. Do you really believe that that statement is also an invite to the all gun hunters to join in the bow season? See how you are now grabbing at straws trying desperately to support your anti NYB bias? Now you are parsing the mission statement ...to prove what, I haven't a clue. You keep on trying and maybe you will come up with something that actually makes sense. But my question to you is if this poorly constructed sentence bothers you so much, did you ever think for a moment that sitting outside the organization carping about the wording would ever get it changed? By the way, the advocacy organizations that you do belong to, do you agree with position and activity and statement that they make? Do you think that those who sit on the outside criticizing ever have any impact on the organization, or are changes made from within by members?

The following part of your response did not show up: Quote: "And before you try to disagree this is actually #5 on their mission statement. So I guess you are wrong about that too. To develop greater outdoor opportunity for all, as essential to character building and physical well-being." Are you trying to say that they do not do this? Does your reasoning then also include the fact that they do not offer to open up all of bowseason to guns to enhance greater opportunity for all? Do you really believe that there are not limits to this? Honestly, I have never seen anyone work so hard to come up with bogus reasons not to support a bowhunting advocacy group. Tell me, do you belong to any advocacy groups at all?

I thought I was quite clear when I said that it is not the place for NYB to take over the organization of dates of the youth gun. I am not disputing the fact that they did not take on the project of finding a suitable date for the hunt. That is not their purpose or responsibility. The name of the organization should make that clear. Look, you can whine and complain and make up whatever you want, but just because NYB did not come up with a solution to world hunger does not mean they are in favor of world hunger. Are they interested in youth hunting. As a matter of fact they do run the bowhunting version of a youth hunt. Are you aware of that or are you just cherry-picking those things that you think bolster your anti-NYB bias. But what you are refusing to understand is that NYB is for and about bowhunting. Their sole purpose is to protect bowhunting, not to organize dates for gun hunting events.

It was not the place of NYB to push FOR any date for a youth hunt. Their charter and purpose was and is to protect what is deemed by the membership to be good for bowhunting. They were trying to do their job. Let me take a moment to mention the reality that I will likely never agree in lock-step with everything that NYB does just as I don't agree with everything the NRA does or SCOPE or any of the advocacy groups that I belong to. I do not expect every one of these groups to agree with all of my stances, but I do understand the value of having representation as a political entity that overall does represent the welfare and political presence of activities that I participate in. I am not one to accept all the benefits and then turn around and whine about some position that I may not agree with, without even offering at least an objection. The proper response is to work from within to change those things that I do not agree with and support those things that I do agree with. I fully understand that there are well financed organizations that would do away with our guns and hunting and bowhunting that are well organized and working diligently every day to wipe out the activities that I am a part of. And I fully understand that to sit around and carp about certain individual stances without so much as a letter of dissention is something that is all too popular today.

Well not to get too far off topic, I do not assign the same level of danger to a squirrel hunter as I do to a deer hunter simply based on the size of the prey, and the potency and shot distance of the weapons used. And yes, we have always considered bow season to be "Our season". It was hard fought for by those who came before us and has always been considered worthy of preserving (until recently). Apparently the DEC considers bow season to be a catch-all for things that they can't figure out any other place to stick things. But to answer your question, there is a whole month of September when there are no bowhunters in the woods.

By the way, I probably would not only shoot a sleeping lion, but I would be bragging about my stalking skills with being able to sneak up without waking him up ....... lol.

In fact I do. My hunting is done primarily on state land and while I agree that the youth season does not seem to be participated in the way that advocates were indicating, the state parking lot still looks like there are some participants. Even where muzzleloaders are mixed in with bowhunting, I usually skip those opportunities. I really don't like intermingling bowhunting with any kind of firearms. That whole idea simply means that I would feel required to put down my camo and deck myself in full blaze orange. By the way, even though much of the gun season makes you wonder if there are any gun hunters out there , I still am dressed in head to toe blaze orange. So hunter density does not change my opinion of intermixing gun and bow. NYB had the same opinion. No one said that there should be no youth hunt.

There were plenty of bow hunters who were concerned about the safety of mixing guns with bows. Frankly, I still skip those days of bowhunting myself because I feel real nervous about going afield in full camo while there are deer hunters out there of any sort.

This term elitism. Are you crossbow advocates ready to accept that term thrown at you when the gunners start using it towards you as you try to keep them out of your season. After all you too are excluding people from that season. And so I would guess the elite moniker applies equally.

They were never against the youth gun hunt, just the location of the season concurrent with bow season. And by the way, as an aside for those that claim that guns will never take over any parts of bow season, let it be known that that move shows that the DEC has no qualms about introducing firearms into any part of bow season that they wish.

I agree with you that crossbows will continue to replace vertical bows as time goes on, but not for the reasons that you are thinking. Over the years that I have been in bowhunting, I have watched the evolution of bowhunters towards their sport. The season was established because some hunters wanted to put extreme challenge into their hunting, and wanted a season that accommodated that. From the day it was established, bowhunters have begun a campaign to eliminate that challenge. It didn't stop with the invention of the release. The old Allen Compound didn't satisfy the need to remove challenge. The new versions of compounds have not eliminated the need to remove challenge. And the current inclusion will not eliminate the quest for easier, more fool-proof, quicker versions of killing deer during bow season. But every technological move has been in the same direction. No one can dispute that. The compound and crossbow are just extreme examples of that. It has nothing to do with age or aching muscles, it is just a caving in to challenge and a quest for easier kills. More is coming and it seems much faster as engineers work more frenetically to push technology as far as they can. As the longbow and recurve have diminished, so will all forms of vertical bows. And so you are correct. The crossbow is the new generation of bowhunting that will replace much of what the old bow season was created for.

So when you label something as being "too far", I guess it is not so far that you would ever do anything about it, or actually take any real positions against it. Is that what makes it a mere "opinion" and not an actual "personal belief"? I am curious as to what about those features makes them "too far" in your mind. What makes the "repeating" feature disqualify that contraption as a bona fide crossbow for hunting? I'm just curious what crosses the line for different people.

So apparently anyone can make any "observation" that they want and it will not be considered to be a personal attack. So much for the term "personal attack". To my knowledge, NYB never stood side by side with any animal rights people and your claim is simply a false statement that I guess you hope strengthens your attempts to disarm and destroy bowhunter representation and advocacy. I guess misinformation is ok as long as you are the one spewing it. In terms of the DEC and legislators setting limits, the only advocacy group for that sort of thing is at a minimum crippled, apparently much to your delight as well as stated purpose of the animal rights groups. So technological advances will be set only by those with a financial stake in stretching those limits as far as they want. You know that if you and the others that had such horrible problem with the NYB had put your time and energy into joining and changing those views that you had difficulty with, perhaps you might have actually made the organization even stronger and suited to the needs that you felt entitled to. But how much easier it is to sit back and snipe at the organization until now we have no advocacy at all. But that would have meant putting your time and energy where your mouth is. You all have done the animal rights people a marvelous service. You deserve a big thank you from them.

Ha-ha-ha.... is that considered a personal attack? Sure sounds like it, doesn't it, Mr. Moderator. My point is that both you and the animal rights people seem to share the same goals of destroying organized archery. I mean it's not like you had any plans to replace the organization you are celebrating the destruction of. Your argument now has been clarified to apparently leave all hunting in a state of disarray and disorganization with no advocacy groups ("Special interest groups" as you call them). I am simply pointing out that that is exactly the stance that animal-rights activists have. By the way, I have not said anything negative about anyone having opinions. I guess the point I was making went over your head. I am simply disputing your idea that your lone opinion has any effectiveness in terms of regulating the features of any future crossbow designs, or any other useful ideas. When crossbow features cross the line, who is going to be the one to stop it? ....... You and your opinion?? Your lone opinion simply carries no weight with the DEC or any legislators without a well organized political body behind it. How do you think that NYB was so successful at holding off the invasion of the crossbow. They had you stopped in your tracks until you all finally formed a "special interest group" of your own. Your kind of "lone wolf" dissention will never have any impact on the evolution of the crossbow or anything that involves hunting. There is not one thing that has been accomplished for hunting that did not have an organization behind it and that includes every bit of the evolution and popularity of bow season that we enjoy today. I know you have the notion that all you have to do is will the technological inventions to stop where you want them to and somehow they will magically cease simply because they run afoul of your opinions. But seriously, without some governing body, pushing for the definitions of what goes into bow season in an organized fashion, the bow season will continue to lose its identity and those that are well-enough organized will simply shoe-horn their way in, with or without your consent.

And I guess you know what they say about opinions....lol. One thing that has always proven to be a universal truth is that opinions are great, but worthless as representation of anything without organization to convert those opinions into any defense of anything. If you are looking for individual opinions to protect anything about bow season....forget it. Yes they are a special interest group that were devoted to expanding archery hunting opportunities, extended seasons, and trying to preserve the identity of the season, and they did a damn fine job of that. Well, I guess you and the animal rights groups both got your wish. Now NYS bowhunting has no effective voice of protection. A great victory for those that want to see the sport plowed into the ground. So now bowhunters have no way to advance any bowhunting issues, or protect the bowhunting rights that so many have worked so hard to preserve. I guess that does make a lot of the crossbow enthusiasts happy. I know that PETA and a coalition of other animal rights wackos set out a goal to target bowhunting as a primary target of their efforts. Apparently they were not alone in their feelings about bowhunting. So now we have no organization to the sport and that seems to be ok with a lot of bowhunters. Kind of like those that own all kinds of guns but oppose the NRA. So next time you have a brilliant opinion on some bowhunting issue, who are you going to go to? Maybe a thread on this forum? Or how about sending a lone letter to some representative, or an e-mail or letter to your local DEC headquarters? I would suggest that you save your opinion because by yourself it won't be going anywhere......or any other advancements or benefits that we have all grown to take for granted because some organization that we never supported (and now celebrate their demise) worked diligently for on our behalf.

Marketing and business management is a science all its own with no guarantees. a product that one company fails at, will become the premier invention of another. I think we all understand that.

I agree! Ethics are a personal feeling that is dictated by individual backgrounds and attitudes toward hunting. Laws indicate what behavior you will get arrested for, but ethics are a code of conduct individually developed internally that form personal opinions on hunting activities. Some legislator or DEC desk jockey does not determine my personal ethics. Having said that, one of my big things in my ethics involves always abiding by the laws. I don't always have to agree with them, but I do my best to abide by them.

Where on earth do people come up with these screwball rules of ethics. How about you can only kill a lion that is charging you. That would make the hunt much more ethical .....right?.....lol. I can't Imagine someone who has executed a perfect stalk without waking the prey having any problems with finishing of a perfect hunt by dispatching the critter with a well placed shot. Are people imagining that wild animals go into a coma when they sleep? Really, what difference does it make in the quality of the hunt and the effort used between a sleeping lion and an awake one? I don't get it. Now if the lion is sleeping in a pen next to his pet dish full of milk........I'm sure I would have a problem with that.....lol.

I honestly don't think that even dyed-in-the-wool bowhunters can really establish a line that cannot be crossed anymore. The equipment used in bow season is measured against one standard now. That is, "Is there anything that will make killing a deer easier and with less effort"? If there is, lets stuff it into bow season. It's been that way for decades and is only getting worse. When the time comes that some of these wild contraptions become established, there will be nobody that can turn back the clock. The original principles that caused a small group of hunters to take up the bow as a super hunting challenge in their own season are long gone. It disappeared with the acceptance of the compound. It still keeps evolving into just another way to get a deer before the orange army takes its turn. Equipment be damned. That's not even a consideration anymore.

Well, I hope you are right, but I have seen absolutely no evidence of that kind of thing. Those of us who lived through the improvements of compounds have never seen any tech advancement halted by what you are talking about. You are viewing the subject like these kinds of decisions are yours alone. You have opinions and nothing else. But tech advances are going to go the way they have always gone. The only limitations that I have ever seen were legislated against because of the opposition to the crossbow. Those were inventions involving pre-drawing on bows. However, with the only organization that had adequate political clout to regulate such things being successfully neutralized, don't be looking for these tech limitations from them. So as I said before, "The genie is out of the bottle". And you can imagine whatever rules and regulations you want to, but there is no history to show that the brakes can any longer be put on any of this. You don't have an effective NYB to moderate equipment changes any more. The few limits that are currently on the books are a result of that crippled organization. And I wouldn't be looking for the crossbow organization to be against expansion of crossbow technology. So just who is it that is going to push these tech limitations. Yes even you may eventually get to a point where you are screaming, "enough is enough". But you will soon understand that there never is "enough". If you think that it is as simple as you declaring that there ought to be a law limiting what goes into bow season, you need to become a bit of a historian on how that stuff actually works.

Well, there you go......lol. There really is no end to any of it is there. I saw all the innovations to the compound bow, and they all just kept rolling through with only minimal conversation or legal limitations. There was no stopping any of it, and there will be no halting of technology here with the crossbows either. I'm just trying to look at these things with an eye of realism.

That simple...eh? You can say that after the extended battle to include crossbows into the bow season?

This guy seemed to be doing ok in the accuracy department. View the video