I’ve always wanted to play linebacker, my dream was to be Ray Nitschke and pound the crap outa Gayle Sayers. I learned very early that I didn’t have the physical ability to play that position or any other position for that matter. So then I wanted to be an astronaut. That wasn’t gonna work out either on accounta I can barely add 2+2 and come up with a reasonable answer. I guess I accepted my limitations and I didn’t expect either the Packers or NASA to lower their standards or make exceptions that would have made it easier for me achieve a bone crushing tackle on Mr. Sayers or to walk on the moon.
Some people just aren’t strong enough to draw a bow with enough poundage to make an ethical shot on a deer. Some people can work hard and build up their muscles and achieve that goal and some can’t. Should we make exceptions for them and allow them to use cross bows? I don’t think so. Some folks aren’t meant to be linebackers or astronauts and some folks aren’t meant to kill deer with bows. Perhaps they were meant to kill deer with guns. We are not all equal, nor should we be.
This then begs the question “Why should we let the disabled hunt with a cross bow?” I’m almost to the point where maybe they shouldn’t, but I’m not as uncaring as this post may make me seem, and I’m making a huge assumption here in that I assume the disabled cross bow hunter was a bow hunter prior to the disability so in that regard they have earned the right to continue on.
Let me use another sports analogy. Babe Ruth just got passed on the all time homer list by Barry Bonds. One cheated and one didn’t. Should their records be held in the same regard? No. Should a trophy buck taken with a bow, long, recurve or compound versus a cross bow be held in the same regard? No. With a bow, I pulled the string, I controlled all of the variables, and I killed the deer. With a cross bow you “load” it hours before a deer comes close, and when one does you point it and pull the trigger. The only thing similar to hunting with a bow and a cross bow is the time it takes to scout, set you location, watch the wind and your sent. On those I will stipulate they are equal.
A couple of generations ago we were at war with the Germans, Italians and Japanese. My generation has accepted these countries as friendly nations. A generation or so ago long bow hunters thought the recurve was going to be the down fall of archery. Then the recurve generation thought the compound bow was going to be the ruination of archery. Since then I think long bow hunters have accepted recurve hunters, have accepted compound bow hunters because we all have to pull the string, control the seemingly uncontrollable and make the shot. I personally have more respect for the long bow or recurve archer that kills deer ethically than I do a fellow hunter who has a bow with the latest gadgets attached. I respect them all, but it takes more to get the job done with a stick with or without the bendy parts.
What I’m trying to say is attitudes change when assimilation occurs, it is just that cross bows are too different to be assimilated into archery.
I don’t know beans about “The Books”. Are there separate categories for long, recurve and compound? If not then the method of take, that is which type of bow was used to kill the animal, should be listed.
I wrote this a few days ago and I have debated whether to post it or not. It is absolutely non factual, only emotional. I’m only trying to help explain some of the emotions behind the topic. As far as facts, well, when have facts ever won an emotional argument or even some court cases? Sometimes you just feel the way you do.
The ‘Bonker
