My knowledge of Crossbows amounts to this, it shoots short lil arrows, it's a real pain to "cock", and they seem to ruff-up the feathers on almost as many people as the great .270 cal. for Elk debate.

My Bow hunts are between the Deer and myself and nobody else. It makes no difference in my Bow hunt if the guy down the road is using a cross bow or even a firearm.

I find it hard to believe that THAT many more people will be in the woods just because they have allowed crossbows to be used. More than likely the same number of hunters will be in your area reguardless of whether or not crossbows are allowed.

Personally I hunt with a compound and there are still debates about compounds vs recurves, more rightly so than if crossbows are "Archery" or not. I have no desire to hunt with a crossbow as my hunts are for my enjoyment and challange and, believe me, my compound gives me a-plenty of a challange. However I see no problem with someone else using one if they so desire.

As to the Question.......I dont know cause I have never hunted or practiced with one so I dont know if it would give me an unfair(?) advantage over a compound or a recurve.

My vote...mabe

I agree completely, JTapia. I hunt with a muzzleloader. This crossbow vs. other debate is much like the traditional vs. inline debate among muzzleloaders. Personally, I don't care. I use a traditional muzzleloader because that's the hunting experience that I want. I could not care less if the guy in the next canyon over is using an inline, though a lot of muzzleloader hunters seem to get awfully worked up about that.

I voted no. It's almost unanimously agreed that the learning curve to become proficient with a crossbow is far less than that with "conventional" bows, even with all the bells and whistles.

I think that Sask (no bias intended - lol) handles this appropriately by allowing crossbows in the muzzleloader season (after bow, but before rifle) but not archery.

No offense Saskie, but I don't think that "difficulty" is an adequate test for determining whether something is or is not in an equipment group. I agree that learning to use a compound (and certainly a recurve) are harder than learning to use a crossbow, but I don't see how that applies to whether it is or is not a piece of archery equipment.

For instance, a scope makes it much easier (less difficult) to consistently hit a pie plate at 200 yards over iron sights. However this doesn't mean that a rifle w/ a scope is not a firearm.

When I compare crossbows and compound bows, to me it seems they are sufficiently similar to be considered archery equipment. Both roughly have a max effective range of around 40 yards, both use double limbs, both shoot arrows, both require the hunter to be an effective stalker. Both are a one shot situation, true you might get a second shot off with a crossbow, but you might also get a second shot off with a bow.

Everybody knows my view on this issue