0
July 12
Restricting use of crossbows an on-target policy TOM VENESKY OUTDOORS
There are some things our state legislators should not do.
Raise our taxes.
Raise their salaries (at least not under the cover of darkness).
And tell us what can be defined as a bow.
I’m not going to get into the first two issues – this is an outdoors column after all.
But the last one is fair game on this page. Yes, the state House of Representatives is considering a bill (House Bill 965) that would include crossbows under the definition of a “bow.”
On the surface such a notion seems pretty harmless … pointless if you will.
But if the bill passes both the House and the Senate, there could be some major ramifications – especially after what happened during Thursday’s meeting of the Pennsylvania Game Commission board.
During the meeting, commissioner Ron Weaner made a motion to restrict the use of crossbows (the board previously voted to allow crossbows to be used during the entire fall archery season and two-day bear archery season) for the upcoming fall season.
Specifically, Weaner’s proposal restricts crossbow use to the first two weeks of the statewide archery season (Oct. 3-16) and prohibits them for the two-day bear season (disabled hunters with a permit wouldn’t be affected by the measure).
The proposal still needs final approval, but it makes a lot of sense. Nobody can say how much of an impact crossbows will have on the resource – deer and bear both. Until there is some indication, it’s best to take small steps with this than go full bore and worry about the impact later.
Impact.
There’s going to be one if full inclusion is allowed. Maybe it’s a hunch, but consider this: in the 2009-10 hunting and trapping digest, there are three full-page ads from crossbow manufacturers. Each full page ad costs $10,000. Apparently the crossbow industry intends on selling quite a few crossbows in Pennsylvania this year.
What if a deluge of hunters takes up crossbows this fall and ends up shooting too many deer?
Well, right now the PGC board would be able to alter the amount of days crossbows can be used to lessen the impact, if needed.
But if HB 965 passes, the board can’t make any season changes targeting crossbows specifically because they would now be considered bows.
So now what?
Well, if too many deer are being shot with crossbows, and HB 965 passes, the PGC can do two things – cut the entire archery season or cut antlerless license allocations.
Take your pick.
And it doesn’t end there.
On the same day the PGC board met, the National Rifle Association’s manager of hunting policy, Darren LaSorte, sent a letter to the House Game and Fisheries Committee urging them to support HB 965.
In the letter, LaSorte stated that including crossbows for the entire archery season is “biologically justified” and “will ultimately lead to improved hunter recruitment.”
Really?
Where are the studies that biologically justify allowing crossbows for Pennsylvania’s archery season? How many new hunters will crossbows attract to the sport?
And why does the NRA care so much about a bill that would define crossbows as bows?
LaSorte goes on to throw a few jabs at the PGC board, accusing them of playing politics for even considering limiting crossbow use.
“Pennsylvania’s hunters deserve much better,” LaSorte wrote.
He’s right. We do deserve better, and that’s why the NRA should stay out of the crossbow issues, let the PGC manage our wildlife and start thinking about the resource first.
Source: http://www.timeslead...07-12-2009.html
Edited by buckeye dan, 13 July 2009 - 02:02 PM.
(and there IS more such DATA again since YOU asked) 
