In the early 1990s, many computer programmers found themselves under attack by what they saw as a new threat: Microsoft Windows was entering the average household at an alarming rate, and they realized early that many lay people would soon be able to perform tasks programmers had spent years mastering. This threat was an insult to them, and it proved to be only too accurate when suddenly people could easily create their own web pages that previously took hours to program. Even the accountants and attorneys began feeling the impact of this evolution as people began drawing up their own legal documents and using tax preparation software.

Yet today it would be difficult to find anyone that would suggest that the competition created by the introduction of computers and software was not positive. Instead of losing their jobs, programmers found themselves hired more frequently as the market demanded. In fact many of the early Windows users, their curiosity peaked by ‘tinkering’ at home, switched professions and themselves became programmers. Finally, who can argue against a $200.00 laptop or the evolution of the internet?

Today, I see much of the same attitude being displayed by the archery community toward the introduction of the crossbow in state hunting regulations. One only has to visit some of the discussion boards on the internet to see that some people are so sensitive over this issue that an impression of elitism prevails. Some professional archery publications are so inducted into this mindset that they refuse to print articles that even argue both sides of the subject. Instead this ‘us versus them’ mentality is allowed to fester among the archery community, and this is far more dangerous, in my opinion, than the passing of a state law allowing a different type of bow.

Interestingly enough, the compound community appears to be the loudest in their opposition to crossbows. Never mind that crossbows have been around almost as long as traditional bows and much longer than compounds. Those who were the victims of such criticism themselves, with the introduction of the compound bow, are often the aggressors in these arguments. Many of the traditional shooters detest both types of modern bows but have more recently set their attacks on the compound community aside in order to concentrate on the crossbows. We will forget, for the moment, that none of these archers seem to have a problem setting aside their bows after the season ends and reaching for their favorite firearm in order to continue to hunt. Anyone who has been involved in any type of archery is well aware of the fact that, first and foremost, it is a perpetual game of trade-offs. Each type of bow carries its own advantages and disadvantages. The crossbow is wieldy and slow to cock. It is also difficult to maneuver through the woods. The compound bow, while relatively light by comparison and far more maneuverable, does not have the option of using a scoped sight or a conventional trigger. Nor does it have the ability to stabilize itself against the shooter’s shoulder prior to a shot. This makes the learning curve to shoot a compound bow higher. Some would say the crossbow is also slow to shoot compared to the compound bow. Of course, these same arguments can be made by the traditional camps against both of the other bows. The traditional bow sacrifices speed and power but gains over both the compound and crossbow in areas of versatility and low light shooting conditions.

The list, of course, goes on and on and this article is not meant to be a laundry list of differences in archery equipment. The point is that there is no ‘be all, end all’ in archery. Neither the cross-bow nor the compound bow can eliminate all of the problems with a traditional bow, because for each problem it would appear to correct it brings a new problem of its own to the table. I believe that there is no need for any of us to fear the type of bow our neighbor uses even if that neighbor is in the next tree. For every perceived advantage that his equipment gives him, he has other disadvantages that are not so evident. To argue otherwise displays a lack of knowledge of archery or at least little consideration of the true effectiveness of each bow. How many modern bow hunters feel the need to keep a second arrow handy just in case they miss on the first shot? I suspect it is not many, as few of these hunters have ever been granted a second shot at an animal they just missed. The compound bow and crossbow, while fast, are also noisy by comparison to the traditional bow and even more so compared to the primitive bow. However, to a traditional bow hunter, this second shot presents itself so often that many of us already have a back-up arrow out of the quiver and ready to go. I think we can agree that this is quite an advantage over any current modern technology.

I am a bow hunter and while I’ve never so much as held a crossbow, I’ve used every other type of bow. I make my own self-bows, own a compound bow and, until recently, hunted primarily with recurves and longbows. This is my personal choice, and I criticize nobody else for making different ones. For me, when I look at a crossbow in a magazine, I cannot help but be impressed by its design. Provided that it is legal to hunt with in a given state, I would be interested in seeing statistics concerning the increase of bow hunters since its inception. I very much doubt that any new crossbow hunter would take long to begin looking at other types of archery, assuming they enjoyed their time in the woods to begin with. I suspect that it is simply a matter of time before many of today’s modern archers become tomorrow’s traditional shooters, just as many Windows users craved even more knowledge in the IT field. I personally began shooting a compound bow but soon found myself exploring other types of bows out of curiosity.

One of the common reasons given by traditional hunters for hunting as they do is that they wish to hunt the way their
ancestors did. They want to connect to that primitive and genetic sensation of the hunter-predator without a lot of modern
technology getting in the way. Words like ‘fair chase’ come up often in these discussions, but did our ancestors really
have our own limitations and ideals placed on them as they struggled for survival? For a moment, let’s look at the reality that our ancestors faced, as history teaches us. Most traditional hunters equate ‘ancestors’ with the first Americans. I
suppose some might think of the English longbow user, but I think for the larger hunting community, it’s the American Indian. I know I find myself imagining this stoic person creeping silently through the woods in his loin-cloth, carrying his
carefully crafted bow, and stopping every few steps to look at a new animal sign. Is this reality though, or is it simply an image placed in my mind by television and novels?

The Native Americans lived in a very different world than we do today. The reality is that if we truly hunted as they did, we
would be locked up pretty quickly by the nearest game warden. Native Americans were known to hunt by torch light, an early version of spotlighting. Another tactic was to enlist the help of the entire village, including women, children, and dogs, to perform drives while the hunters waited at the other side of the woods to shoot whatever ran toward them. Shot placement on the animal was not a large concern for the American Indian either and there are drawings to prove it. Early paintings show them shooting prey in the hindquarters from horseback.

The recovery of animals was not paramount as there were always ‘nonhunters’ (usually women and children) who
could be tasked with locating the wounded and dying animals regardless of how long this might take. Native Americans also drove herds of animals over steep cliffs where they would fall to their deaths, never shooting an arrow at them. Tag limits simply meant packing up the entire village and moving to where the hunting was better. I don’t know of anyone who proposes that we follow these tactics today.

My main point is that our ancestors relied on hunting to eat. It was a brutal existence in an unforgiving world with no grocery store waiting for them should they come home empty-handed. They did everything in their power to lay up food for
their families before each winter. Efficiency and quantity was the order of the day. So is it fair to compare our present to a romantic past that may not have existed? Certainly the Native Americans hunted alone but, just as we do today, they were most likely looking to supplement what they already had as opposed to relying on this tactic for the bulk of their needs. Most of us can attest from our own success rates that we would be hard pressed to store up a winter’s worth of food with our current methods.

Rather than attack each other for the type of bow we use, we should embrace each other as fellow archers and instead attack those in the world who would take it all away from us if they could. I mean the antihunters and the so-called environmentalists. The reality is that we will lose our rights as bow hunters carrying any kind of bow the same day that the hunting community no longer generates enough revenue for the states (money talks!). This of course would be in the form of low permit sales, a.k.a. fewer hunters. You only have to look as far as Europe to see how blessed we are to live in a country that allows bow hunting at all to realize how truly petty these harbored differences are.

A frontiersman is rumored to have commented on the proliferation of repeating firearms that suddenly began to appear during his own generation. He said that if this weapon (the gun) was not controlled, it would mean the extinction of every animal on the planet. Thanks to tag limits, hunting seasons, and careful management (which are all furnished by the hunting community’s dollars) animals are thriving as well or better than they ever have. Neither the crossbow nor the compound bow will change that. At the end of the day, all the best a crossbow can do is to give someone the confidence to enter the woods and try hunting for the first time. The possibilities that this device offers are endless. Suddenly, small children (regardless of age) can hunt with their fathers and not have to worry about pulling 40 pounds on a traditional bow. Older people, no longer physically able to pull a traditional bow, can be reassured that the animal will not suffer for their own ailments. The simple truth is that no matter what you carry in your hand it is only as effective as your own hunting skills allow it to be. A new hunter sitting in a tree with a crossbow is certainly not a threat to me or to any of the excellent hunters out there that I have had the privilege to know.

Every archer that picks up a bow has a different expectation of what that weapon will provide for them. As long as this is the case, we will never agree on every aspect of archery. All of us lead different lives, some more hectic and time constrained than others. Would any of us really deny our neighbor the ability to hunt with us, using a crossbow, simply because he does not have the time or desire to shoot a traditional bow every day?

On a personal note, I have found myself questioning my own beliefs in this area. I began to realize that I was beginning to buy into the elitism that so permeates much of the traditional communities today. It wasn’t until I started writing this article that I asked myself, ‘What is the difference between fiberglass and metal cams?’ Is there anyone who honestly believes, that given a choice, the American Indians would not have chosen our modern bows over their own? You only need to look at how quickly they adopted the use of the rifle. Certainly they altered them, removing parts that they saw as unnecessary and shortening stocks so that they were more convenient for use on horseback, but adopt them they did.

The reality is that only primitive archery could be considered ‘traditional’ in the truest sense of the word, and yet it is the traditional community that seems the most eager to lead the fight against any modern bow. Historically, our modern traditional archery will be nothing more than a transitional phase between primitive archery and present day compounds and crossbows. What other ‘traditional’ sport or lifestyle only dates back to the 1950s? Primitive archers have centuries of history to draw on for the claim of traditionalism. Modern traditional communities have Fred Bear and Howard Hill. Great people, no doubt, but both shot fiberglass bows.

Regardless of what you shoot— crossbow, compound bow, traditional or primitive—I say, ‘Welcome.’ I would be proud to share the woods with any of you. Our common love of the outdoors, wild game, and hunting far outweigh any differences in ideology and equipment. I hope that you as the reader can come to the same conclusion yourself. I can think of no better way to grow our own favorite archery communities than to be inclusive and welcoming to all rather than exclusive and judgmental.