send letters for crossbows in NY

[SteveB]

Geeesshh.

Motorcycles have motors.

Bicycles do not.

Jet skiis have motors.

Canoes do not.

Chainsaws have motors.

Buck saws do not.

Guns have gunpwder.

Bows do not.

Seeing a pattern here?

Thanks for answering the NYB question.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So, should Motorcycles be allowed to compete in the Tour De France race, since both have two wheels, a seat, handlebars, and carry a rider.

Jet skis must then certainly be allowed to participate equally with canoes, since they both have a hull, seats, and are both a watercraft that carry people.

Chainsaws ought to be allowed to participate in lumberjack competitions against buck-saws since both...Have a handle, and a blade with teeth that are used for cutting wood.

I'm not an NYB member, just a bowhunter with common sense.

And for the record, in case it was missed in my earlier posts..I'm all for the handicapped being able to use one if they cannot physically draw a bow.

Is it all about competition to you with the oposition to the crossbow? based on your comment it seems like it is. A book buck taken with a corssbow would not be elligible for P&Y...but them neither would most of the higher let off compounds that most of us use.

To look at your first comment I don't think they should compete in the race. They should however be allowed to enjoy the same roads throughout that beautiful country a recreational manner.  Same for the jet skis. they are used on the same body of water as the others you list for recreational purposes. For the chain saws please see my  first biking comments.

I think this post really speaks to the ones that find problems with your oposition. It seems to be based in competition and not what is best for the sport. I honestly believe that anything that puts more of us hunters in the field for tha maximum amount of time and allows the highest level af participatio only moves us to a stronger position for maintaining our priveledges.....with in the confines of the management plan and laws. I believe DEC/Leg. will make this move in teh next few years...especially if they can find a way to make a few bucks off it

[SPIKER]

Geeesshh.

Motorcycles have motors.

Bicycles do not.

Jet skiis have motors.

Canoes do not.

Chainsaws have motors.

Buck saws do not.

Guns have gunpwder.

Bows do not.

Seeing a pattern here?

Thanks for answering the NYB question.

Steve..you are correct in your assessment that each item I mentioned has a motor, but the point was that difference makes it superior to it's unmotorized counterpart, even though they share many of the same features.

Have you seen the self cocking xgun? That's just one step away from a moter driven cocking system...it utilizes CO2 as of today.

Now, you inserted the guns have gunpowder, bows do not line.

Ok...so that would make the x gun the lesser weapon to the gun, making it eligible for use in the rifle season according to the law in NYS.

But, it does not qualify as a lesser weapon to the compound, or trad bow, making it currently ineligible.

Xgun technology has not even begun..in 5 years they will be lighter, faster, smaller, longer range weapons that will rival even some firearms in killing ability.

Have you seen the Spitfire 175gr?

It's just the start.

And yes, I did answer the NYB question. Thanks for alerting me to their presence, I will be researching them to possibly join.

[nyantler]

And I'm sure they will make a crossBOW bolt travel 2000 fps... just like a rifle : 

[SPIKER]

And I'm sure they will make a crossBOW bolt travel 2000 fps... just like a rifle :

Come on now..but I do appreciate your capitalization of "bow" to answer my misuse of the word. ;D

[nyantler]

well from what you were saying about the future evolution of the crossbow thats what i thought you were getting at... it is kind of ridiculous isn't it? 

[WNYBuckHunter]

The size of crossbows in the future comment is just irrelevant. NY and other states where crossbows are legal have minimum and maximum thresholds for crossbows. If they dont fit within them, they are not legal, just like any other hunting implement that doesnt meet its designated requirements.

There are also laws of physics that you just cant get around with bows, no matter if they are vertical or horizontal. Thats part of the reason why they created guns as a more efficient way of killing in the first place.

[arrowflinger]

Crossbows have been shooting arrows with a string for 2500+ years.

Guns and gunpowder are 400 years old.

Compounds are 40 years old.

I suppose the significance of this will be lost to a couple here.

How old are compound crossbows (by far, the majority sold) spin Doctor?

(Perhaps the significance is lost, to a couple here.)

[arrowflinger]

Is it all about competition to you with the oposition to the crossbow? based on your comment it seems like it is. A book buck taken with a corssbow would not be elligible for P&Y...but them neither would most of the higher let off compounds that most of us use.

Totally False.  Shame on you.

Bucks taken by Fair Chase with any compound would qualify for the book.

NO crossbow buck would....nor should it.

PLEASE....stick to the truth, or drop out of the discussion.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Is it all about competition to you with the oposition to the crossbow? based on your comment it seems like it is. A book buck taken with a corssbow would not be elligible for P&Y...but them neither would most of the higher let off compounds that most of us use.

Totally False.  Shame on you.

Bucks taken by Fair Chase with any compound would qualify for the book.

NO crossbow buck would....nor should it.

PLEASE....stick to the truth, or drop out of the discussion.

              4. Effective January 1, 2004, animals taken with bows have nominal percent of let-off greater than 65 percent shall be listed with an asterisk (*) in the Records. It is recognized that variations in draw length and/or draw weight can affect the percent of let-off on compound bows. For these reasons minor variations in let-off are acceptable.

Prior to that any taken with over a 65% let off were not eligible

I was wrong...you get in now....just have an astericks like the steroid using home run hitters...lol

[nyantler]

he probably thinks that is irrelevant Culver

[WNYBuckHunter]

LMAO, didnt he say he was somehow associated with P&Y?  ;D

Regardless, hes now professing to know what hes talking about and got schooled again. Hilarious!

[arrowflinger]

LMAO, didnt he say he was somehow associated with P&Y?  ;D

Regardless, hes now professing to know what hes talking about and got schooled again. Hilarious!

Wow.  You are a bad one, willing to twist truth at every turn.

Please point out how what I said was inconsistent with Culvercreek's post.

[WNYBuckHunter]

For someone saying others need to stick to the truth, you dont seem to mention any astricks or that the rules changed. Someone as good as you should be pointing out all of the details, dont you think? Or are they irrelevant to the conversation and will be ignored?  :

[arrowflinger]

He said that "the higher let off compounds that most of us use" would result in record book being ineligible for the P&Y record book.

That is patently false.  They are indeed eligible for the book.  It doesn't matter if their is an asterisk, or if and when the rules were changed.

He misrepresented the P&Y stance on compounds.....I corrected it with the truth.

If you guys would present the truth in the first place...I would not need to correct you so often.

[WNYBuckHunter]

You forgot the details, someone of your grand bowhunting standards should be more detail oriented. The astricks does matter or they wouldnt have it in there.

[arrowflinger]

Keep spinning, dude.

Any buck killed in Fair Chase with a compound that meets or exceeds the minimum score is eligible for the book.

That's the bottom line.

A buck in the book with an asterisk is still IN the book.....right?

You are too funny, trying to salvage some sort of victory from a crushing defeat.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Oh please, you havent defeated anyone. Ive just been seeing if I can get you to respond for a while now though. Thanks for playing lol.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

He misrepresented the P&Y stance on compounds.....I corrected it with the truth.

I did not misrepresent the truth and I resent your comment that I intentionally posted incorrect information. I was wrong and I admitted it. The books are not important to me and I do not follow the rule changes since I would never enter a buck for the book. My experience that led me to comment that was my last purchase of my compund where the dealer I was purchasing it from made it clear that the bow I was buying would make any book buck ineligible and showed me the rules. I bought it anyway. I have 2 bucks that would have made the book for P&Y and you know what....they aren't in there.

You seem to whine and cry about how others on here are talking to you but I have never made an agressive or derogatory comment to you. Yet you seem to take an agressive and posturing position. It has happened twice in your comment to me. It is hard to take someone seriously when they come across like a spoiled, silver spoon in mouth, little brat that can't get their way.

[arrowflinger]

I did not misrepresent the truth and I resent your comment that I intentionally posted incorrect information. I was wrong and I admitted it.

Yea, sorry it came across that way.  I did not take it as though you intentionally misrepresented the P&Y position on compounds, just felt it necessary to correct the misinformation, even if unintentional.

Your buddy WNY came in to try to make a mountain out of a molehill, escalating the conversation.  It is obvious that there are 3 procrossbow folks who are intent on discrediting the messenger, rather than discussing the message.

You are not one of them, and I appreciate your polite discussion. 

[SteveB]

It is obvious that there are 3 procrossbow folks who are intent on discrediting the messenger, rather than discussing the message.

Actually all 3 have made excellent, factual points on the "message".

Everyone one of which where dismissed or ignored.

[Dave]

Guys I am new to this discussion, but I look at it this was. I am not for the use of a crossbow for the following reason. This bow season I saw two nice bucks and they were about 50 yards from my stand and I just watched them walk away toward my neighbors property. It was two separate occasions when I saw the buck.

If my neighbor had a crossbow he could have taken these deer no problem at that distance. So I am at a distinct disadvantage. Close but no cigar. That's not fair!!!!!!!!!

Dave

[SteveB]

30 yds and under is my limit with a recurve.

Definately at a distinct disadvantage over someone with a compound.

And a crossbow has no better ballistics or killing power then a compound.

With your reasoning, my neighbor should not be allowed to use a compound?

[arrowflinger]

Actually all 3 have made excellent, factual points on the "message".

ROFLMAO......If you do say so yourself.

[arrowflinger]

With your reasoning, my neighbor should not be allowed to use a compound?

Always dragging the perfectly legal and acceptable compound into the discussion to muddy the waters.

Shameless diversionary tactic.

Why not just discuss the admissibility (or lack thereof) of the crossbow on its own merits?