RE: The proposed use of the crossbow in New York State to take fish and/or wildlife.

There has been a considerable debate and a great deal of controversy during recent years over the proposal(s) to legalize the use of the crossbow for the taking of fish and wildlife in the State of New York. The New York Conservation Officers Association (NYCOA) has been actively participating in this debate. At the Association’s regular membership meeting held on February 7, 1996 in Whitney Point, N.Y., the NYCOA members in attendance passed a resolution asking that the President appoint a committee to address this crossbow controversy. The committee’s task was to study the issues, research the facts and publish a document outlining the position of the New York Conservation Officers Association. This paper is the result of that committee’s work and represents our official position on the "legalization of the crossbow" in New York State.

Discussion of the crossbow issue often becomes heated and emotional between those with opposing views. One of the reasons that this issue has an effect on the emotions is that it touches on the tradition and history of hunting in New York State. The implement in question, the crossbow, holds no place in our traditions or past practices. It is not part of the evolution of hunting in our state, nor probably any other state. We are not seeing the improvement or modification of a traditional hunting implement such as occurred with the longbow giving way to the compound bow, or the muzzleloading firearm gradually replaced by today’s modern rifles and shotguns. What we are seeing, instead, is the attempt to introduce an entirely foreign implement that is not an improvement on any hunting implement of traditional use. What we are seeing is an attempt by an industry manufacturer to also manufacture a market for its product. You cannot sell very many crossbows if there is no need for them. A need must be created.

And, how do you create that need? Well, there must be a payoff, a reward or a benefit to be gained. It is suggested, for instance, that you would have the ability to take game more efficiently or with reduced effort. This benefit would be realized by having the crossbow legalized for use during special archery seasons. It would take considerably less preparation, practice and skill for the crossbow user to pursue game than it would the traditional Bowhunter. The difference is almost comparable to that between the use of a rifle or shotgun and the use of the longbow or compound bow.

Another payoff or benefit claimed by the crossbow proponents would be the ability to harvest more game. This advantage would come if the crossbow proponents were provided with a special crossbow season in which additional deer could be taken. The coinciding benefit, they claim, to the regulating agency, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, would be increased revenue produced by the sales of additional special permits under either or both of these circumstances.

It is also suggested that the disabled hunter would benefit, because the crossbow can be drawn with less effort and does not have to be physically held in the cocked position by the user.

In areas of high human population, where deer numbers conflict with human habitation, they suggest we would have an implement that could be used to reduce the deer populations.

These alleged benefits are the foundation of the crossbow proponents’ cause. They maintain that, by legalizing the use of crossbows for hunting in New York State, we would realize all these benefits. The fundamental flaw in their argument is that these benefits can be realized without the introduction of the crossbow into hunting. The position of the New York Conservation Officers Association is that any, or all, of these benefits can be achieved without a new hunting implement.

 (Crossbow proponents claim that legalization of the crossbow will raise additional revenues for our fish and wildlife programs in New York State.

NYCOA: Surely, the implementation of an additional "special season" for the use of crossbows would generate revenue. Of course, it is not clear how much revenue would be generated.

In a Cornell University study entitled: "Evaluation of Proposals For Changes In Deer Hunting Regulations", it is revealed that "Hunters did not generally support use of crossbows". In fact, when asked about the use of crossbows during the regular firearms season, only 24% of hunters said their satisfaction would increase if crossbows were legalized and 51% said their satisfaction would decrease. Additionally, the "Executive Summary" states, " the only feasible mechanism through which deer populations can be managed on a statewide basis is harvest of adult female deer by hunters participating in the state's deer management permit (DMP) system."

In regulating big game hunting seasons, the NYSDEC juggles many factors. They must take into consideration the size and health of a species’ population within defined geographic areas, the biological dynamics of the species, and the concerns of sportsmen and those of the general public, to name just a few general issues. With the growing problem of deer overpopulation in many areas, additional revenue for fish and wildlife regulation would be achieved by working within the established hunting seasons and providing for increased take limits. An initial method of addressing a number of concerns in one step would be to modify the current big game licensing scheme for New York State residents. If New York residents were afforded the same opportunities that non-residents currently enjoy, several benefits would result. Resident hunters would enjoy increased opportunity to participate in big game hunting. Instead of taking one deer during either the special archery season or special muzzleloading season, they would be eligible, through the purchase of separate licenses, to take a deer in each of those special seasons. So we would see increased opportunity, increased harvest, increased satisfaction of resident sportsmen and increased revenue from the sale of additional licenses.

Allowing the use of those same, special licenses during regular seasons, subject to regular season regulations, would provide even further opportunity for the resident sportsmen. The increased opportunity would insure higher harvest rates in those areas where wildlife populations are a serious concern.

Another option available for consideration would be the issuance of second tags to hunters who take antlerless deer during the special archery or special muzzleloading seasons. This would give the hunter incentive for active participation in deer management and provide additional opportunity and increased revenue at the same time. Another option we feel worth looking at would be to make additional antlerless tag(s) available "up-front" when wildlife population levels dictate such a move.

Any of these options would generate additional revenues, improve wildlife population management, and provide additional recreational sporting opportunities. Crossbows are not needed to accomplish any of these goals.

(The crossbow faction claims that crossbows would give hunters who have "dropped out of hunting" a reason to return to the active hunter ranks.

NYCOA: We can find no evidence that leads us to believe that the reason someone has turned away from hunting, either big or small game, in New York is because they couldn't find an implement to their liking and that the crossbow is the answer to their problem. Nor have we been able to find an instance where anyone gave up hunting because they could not legally use a crossbow. Of course it is quite probable that both these situations actually exist, but only in a few isolated instances. That the introduction of crossbows would initiate some mass revival in hunting by the return of significant numbers of "non-hunters" simply defies logic.

(Other grounds for the legalization of crossbow use by their proponents are that crossbows offer another hunting implement that could be used in areas of high human population where increasing and expanding deer populations have created conflicts.

NYCOA: Areas of high human population in New York State are either closed to hunting by state or local regulations (local regulations generally govern the "discharge of bows or firearms), or are already open for big game hunting, only during the special archery season or a regular season that is specifically designated as "bowhunting only". The special archery hunting areas in the vicinity of Delmar (Wildlife Management Unit 4J) and suburban Rochester (WMU 8C) are already open to "bowhunting only" during both the special southern zone archery and southern zone regular big game seasons. Special hunts in some state parks, county parks, and areas like Howland Island are considered "special archery hunts." The Suffolk County (WMU 1C) and Westchester County (WMU 3S) regular deer seasons are open for bowhunting only.

The proponents of the crossbow have tried to deflect the opposition to their proposals by maintaining that they do not want crossbows to be designated for use during "special archery seasons". They have usually proposed their use in separate designated crossbow-only seasons, or in conjunction with firearms seasons. If this is the case, then of what possible use could crossbows be in areas of high human population where regulations already provide for the use of bowhunting only?

(Another argument by the crossbow proponents is that their use would offer a challenge during all seasons, other than the special archery seasons, and promote extended archery seasons that would also include the use of crossbows.

NYCOA: These two alternatives have some very fundamental flaws. First, they are predicated on the belief that the crossbow is and can be looked upon as archery equipment, or that it can be viewed as a bow in a conventional or traditional manner. It also assumes that the extended seasons would be for both conventional archery gear and crossbows.

The International Bowhunter Education Program is a program designed and administered by the National Bowhunter Education Foundation to train bowhunters throughout North America and the world. The IBEP program manual states: "A bow used in bowhunting, as recognized in hunting with the bow and arrow, and as included in the conservation law of most states and provinces, is described as hand-held, hand-drawn, and hand-released, with nothing attached to the bow to allow the bow to be mechanically held in a drawn and cocked position. Therefore, the crossbow is not a bow and should in no way be considered for use in any "bow hunting only" season. The NBEF does not offer an educational course for any hunting device except the bow and arrow, and recommends that if states and provinces approve the crossbow for hunting that its use be restricted to the firearms seasons."

A question that arises is that if crossbows are allowed in any season, who will instruct crossbow hunters in safety measures applicable to these devices? Certainly not any IBEF instructors. And, with the widespread opposition to the use of crossbows among the ranks of sportsmen, it is unlikely that many firearms instructors would be willing to include crossbow instruction in their courses.

Our hunter training programs need more volunteer instructors not fewer. Above all, the participating instructors all need to be supportive of a given program and be enthusiastic about its content. In our opinion, crossbows and the unquenchable controversy that surrounds them will only be detrimental to our sportsman education program.

(Crossbow proponents maintain that crossbows would bring more disabled hunters, young hunters and older hunters into the field because of their ease of use.

NYCOA: When a thorough examination is made of the numerous options available to all hunters in New York State, anyone would be hard pressed to conclude that any type of hunter or group has any less opportunity than any other. In fact, no season is discriminatory in and of itself. Any eligible person, who follows the established guidelines and regulations, may participate.

What keeps surfacing among the arguments to legalize the crossbow is that this weapon, because it can be shot like a rifle, held in the drawn and locked position, and released by a trigger mechanism, is easier to master than traditional archery equipment. They claim that these crossbow attributes would be advantageous for those who do not have the time, or who cannot make the commitment to the work it takes to become proficient with a conventional bow, and give them the chance to participate in, what the crossbow proponents have termed, a "discriminatory season". Their reference to special archery seasons as "discriminatory" appears to be in direct contradiction to their proclaimed desire to "offer a challenge during all seasons other than the special archery seasons".

Hunting with a bow and arrow requires commitment, dedication, specialized skills and knowledge. Among our concerns is the possible proliferation of these implements among those that do not have the time for traditional equipment. Without the necessary skills and expertise, opportunistic crossbow users may not be as successful as they should be at clean kills or at retrieving wounded game. The crossbow proponents suggest that special "archery only" seasons are too challenging for many who cannot make the commitment to gain the skills necessary to become accomplished bowhunters using conventional or traditional bowhunting equipment. They maintain that the crossbow would allow these individuals to shoot an animal with an arrow in spite of the fact that they lack the commitment or expertise for traditional bowhunting. Promoting this mentality can be damaging to our hunting traditions and our sporting future. This is inviting further criticism from those factions opposed to hunting in any form, and providing new arguments for their arsenal.

And, is this how we want our youngsters encouraged to think? Should we be promoting the concept that, in hunting, it is perfectly acceptable to take the path that requires the least effort? This is not an acceptable method for enticing more young hunters to the sport. We in the New York Conservation Officers Association believe that our young hunters should be instilled with a commitment to their sport. We are opposed to any compromise of standards or ethics to get more hunters of any age into the field.

The claim that crossbows would provide any additional benefits for disabled hunters in New York State is completely without substance. New York State has always been in the forefront when it comes to the concerns of hunters with disabilities, and NYCOA has always been supportive of these efforts. Since 1986, hunters who qualify have been able to receive the special "Handicapped Archer’s Permit". This permit allows a hunter to take big and small game with a bow equipped with a mechanical device for holding and releasing the bowstring. To qualify for this permit, the applicant must be permanently, physically incapable of drawing and holding a bow as the result of a physical handicap or disability. This permit, in essence, allows conventional archery equipment to be modified to include some of the convenience of operation of a crossbow. The modified bow is actually easier for the disabled hunter because it is much easier to draw and lock than a crossbow. Conventional bows rarely have over 70 pounds draw weight, while a crossbow would have to be 130 to 150 pounds draw weight to function with equivalent energy transferred to the arrow. We encourage anyone who thinks they meet the criteria for this permit to apply for one.

NYCOA also supported legislation that produced the "Modified Crossbow Permit". This permit allows a person, who is permanently, physically incapable of arm movement sufficient to release a pre-drawn bow, to possess afield, for the purpose of hunting big or small game, a crossbow equipped with an apparatus which permits the release of the string by means of such person's discharge of breath. We supported this legislation jointly with the New York Bowhunters and members of the handicapped hunters’ community. The permit allows hunters, who fit the definition of physically disabled under this legislation, to use a crossbow fitted with a special breath tube release. This permit has been in use for a number of years by disabled bow hunters in New York State.

What this means is that disabled hunters in New York State have no need for the legalization of the crossbow for them to enjoy their sport. Their needs have already been met. Noteworthy in this effort is the New York Bowhunters organization. The members of this organization have been instrumental in the development and promotion of hunting aids for disabled archers. It is this organization that, today, still does more to help physically challenged archers in New York than any other group we are aware of.

With legislation that provides additional opportunities in the form of special permits for the disabled, there must be very specific criteria for permit qualification and continuing oversight in their issuance. There has been documented abuse of these special permits by people who do not qualify for them. Pennsylvania, in 1990, began allowing the use of crossbows during the archery seasons by hunters claiming disabilities. The proponents of the crossbow predicted that "a few hundred" permits would be issued and have very little impact on the archery seasons. The issuance of these special crossbow permits has increased to the point that several thousand are now issued each year. Over 20,000 crossbow permits have been issued since this program was instituted. This raises a question of whether there are that many physically handicapped bowhunters in Pennsylvania. Or, is their system, designed to assist those truly in need, being abused by those without any legitimate need? And, how is it possible that this number of crossbow permits is not having a significant effect on the "archery only" seasons as projected by the crossbow lobby?

Disabled hunters in New York State simply do not need the crossbow to accommodate their needs. Their needs have been met and the addition of crossbows would only introduce some of the complications and problems that Pennsylvania is now experiencing.

(Does the crossbow portray the image that we, as sportsmen, want to project to the public?

The crossbow has not enjoyed a very positive image since its first use many centuries ago. There is a large faction of the general public that is strongly opposed to hunting in any form. The New York Conservation Officers Association is concerned that the introduction of the crossbow in any season in New York will provide the anti-hunting groups with further momentum for their cause. We feel that the use of the crossbow would only draw increased criticism from those organizations already questioning the fairness, ethics, or sporting nature of the modern hunt. Animal rights groups are opposed to the taking of game in any fashion, and they are ardent and powerful. They have had much success in recent years in bringing to an end many hunting and trapping rights that have been enjoyed for decades. Giving in to the campaign of weapons manufacturers by opening the door to the use of the crossbow, not only opens the door to other exotic weapons, but also weakens our defense of the ethical sport of hunting.

At the request of the Professional Bowhunter’s Society of Terrell, North Carolina, the prestigious consulting engineering firm, R.S. Marlow & Associates of 12503 Chapel Bell, San Antonio, TX 78230, conducted a comprehensive technical study. The purpose of the study was to address the questions surrounding the use of the crossbow for hunting and the claims being made by the crossbow manufacturers. A brief look at that report is warranted.

In the report prepared by R.S. Marlow, P.E., RSMA Project No. 87-0109 completed in 1987, which has come to be referred to simply as the "Marlow Study", a brief history of the invention and use of the crossbow is given. To quote from that report: "Greece and China hold conflicting claims to the invention of the crossbow. In 400 B.C. the Greeks invented a crossbow like catapult. Chinese accounts place the crossbow in battle at approximately 341 B.C. and bronze release mechanisms for crossbow-like weapons have been found which date to 200 B.C. It was probably used in England by Norman invaders in 1066. Herman Cortez and his armies carried it to North America in the 1500's. The crossbow was used continuously for warfare from the 13th through the 17th centuries in Europe. It was the weapon of choice throughout this period for France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Only during the 14th and 15th centuries in England did the longbow assume a position of dominance." The report continues: " The advantages of the longbow as a weapon of war were its light weight, simplicity, and economy of construction, its vertical use which allowed for tight formation of soldiers favored by England during the period, and its rapid firepower which allowed it to shoot 5-6 arrows in the time a crossbowman could shoot one. The advantages of the crossbow were its greater accuracy and power, and the fact that it did not require as much strength, skill, or practice to manipulate as the longbow."

"For warfare, the longbow was used primarily as an artillery piece and required only that the archer be physically able to pull the bow back and launch an arrow at roughly a 45 degree angle into the air. It was designed to shoot a 36-inch arrow ("cloth yard shaft") by drawing the string to the breastbone and elevating the bow. If the archer was also required to be accurate with the weapon, this added a further advantage for the crossbow since a crossbowman could be competently trained in about one-sixth the time as a longbowman." According to a reference in the Marlow report: (Wandras) "The crossbow was abhorred because of the terrible carnage that it wrought. It could pierce a tree trunk at 600 yards. It tore through armor as if it were lace." Tests of medieval bolts by Purdue University support the possibility of a 600 yard range for some bolt designs."

The entire history of the crossbow is very interesting and can be obtained by researching the reference materials noted in the Marlow Study. For our purpose, at this time it is only significant to note that handheld crossbows reached draw weight poundage of as much as 2,000 pounds! A crossbow of 1200 pounds draw weight was tested with a 1313-grain bolt and it was found to shoot up to a distance of 460 yards. The average military crossbow of the time probably fired a bolt up to a distance of 370 to 380 yards. According to one reference, Payne-Gallwey, a crossbow of this specification, if "aimed horizontally at the forehead of a man standing at a distance of 50 yards, the bolt would not strike lower than his chin." He further describes the average crossbow of the time as 330-350 pounds in strength and having a "point-blank" range of 60-70 yards.

It should be noted that because of its destructive power the crossbow came under scrutiny even in the 12th century, when the 2nd Lateran Council put a ban on its use in place. Pope Innocent II reaffirmed this ban at the end of that same century. Conrad III of Germany also banned its use in 1138.

What must be kept in mind is that the draw force of crossbows during this time was only limited because of the limited metallurgy of that period, which prevented the heavier bows from adequately accelerating the bolt. The most obvious question now is, "What are we capable of doing with modern metal, engineering, and technology in relation to what was being done as far back as the 12th century?" We believe the answer is very obvious, and it is only the manufacturers who have limited themselves so as to not draw more criticism about the effectiveness of the modern crossbow. But, what will happen if they are legalized for hunting in all jurisdictions? We are inclined to believe that, should crossbows achieve widespread legalized use, we will see a proliferation of vastly more powerful weapons for use in the field. One manufacturer is currently advertising its latest product, a crossbow with 185 lbs of draw weight, capable of propelling a bolt at over 300 feet per second. That is more than twice the power and speed of the average compound bow. Interestingly, the Chinese invented a repeating crossbow that was capable of shooting 10 bolts in 15 seconds! Just what would we be capable of today?

Summary

The New York Conservation Officers Association was founded to promote "Conservation for Future Generations". With our commitment to ensure that future generations of New Yorkers will enjoy an abundance and variety of wildlife, we promote an adherence to the highest levels of outdoor ethics and sporting methods, and encourage respect for our wildlife and other natural resources.

We believe that management of our wildlife resources should be based on sound biological principles, population dynamics, and sustained yield principles. We feel strongly that this management should not be influenced by the profit margins of industry.

We, as officers sworn to protect our state’s wildlife, have concerns that poaching trends may be influenced by the legalization and advancing technology of crossbows. Because of this advancing technology, Ragnar Benson, the most well-known, self-proclaimed poacher on the North American Continent, has embraced the crossbow. Benson, the author of "Survival Poaching" and "Hardcore Poaching", has now published a book about the use of crossbows for various purposes, including the illegal taking of game. It is inevitable that, if crossbows come into widespread use, their use for poaching will become a problem for us to contend with. The proponents and manufacturers of crossbows have always maintained that the crossbow is not an effective implement for poaching, and that it would never gain prominence for that purpose. We, of course, disagree. The only factor that has prevented the crossbow from becoming a significant problem for wildlife enforcement officers is that not many people own them. If their use becomes legal, and ownership increases, we are certain to see their use also increase for the illegal taking of game. We would agree that the crossbow is not the most effective implement for poaching. However, when the violators consider the fact that their chances of getting caught will be considerably reduced because no shots will be heard or reported if they use a crossbow, they are certain to take up its use for their illegal activities. Why should this type of person have any concern over the fact that they may wound a few animals before they are able to take one into possession? When the chances of discovery have been almost completely negated by not using the traditional firearm and relying on the silence of the crossbow, the poacher may confidently continue to take additional shots at game that has been missed and remains undisturbed. If they hit and wound an animal and it runs off, they can simply continue their search for another victim until they are successful, because no concerned citizen will hear any shots to report to the authorities. The poacher would not be best served by the most efficient weapon at his disposal, when another best reduces his chances of being caught. Taking this into consideration, the crossbow could readily become the most effective poaching implement.

We will continue to oppose any legislation aimed at providing the use of the crossbow for disabled hunters, because this is nothing more than a ploy by the crossbow proponents to get their "foot in the door". We will, instead, continue to support efforts to educate the public about both the Handicapped Archer's Permit" and the "Modified Crossbow Permit". The needs of the disabled hunter have been met in New York State, and we encourage anyone meeting the qualifications, to apply for these permits. They may also qualify for the "Non-Ambulatory Permit", and should give it consideration also. We will also continue to support and encourage the New York Bowhunters in their efforts to assist disabled hunters so that they may be able to continue to enjoy their sport.

Our membership will continue to encourage the review and consideration of all options to increase revenues for the Conservation Fund. We will support those proposals that provide the most recreational opportunities for the greatest number of people based on sound wildlife management principles that protect our resources for future generations.

Options that should be considered include, as mentioned previously, the provision for increased bag limits on deer in those areas necessary. This would provide increased revenues by requiring sportsmen to purchase additional tags for the opportunity to take additional deer, utilizing the seasons and implements already in place.

We support the concept of separate licensing for bear hunting by resident sportsmen as has been implemented for non-resident sportsmen. We are currently providing the opportunity to hunt bear free of any additional fees, when a resident hunter buys their big game license. The bear must be recognized in New York State for the trophy big game animal that it is, as has been done in most states and provinces on the North American continent. Other states and provinces realize considerable revenues from promoting their bear hunting opportunities. The bear in New York State has been traditionally handled as a nuisance animal and little, or nothing, has been done to promote its real value as a renewable resource.

There are other options available to our agency to increase revenues that need to be considered beyond the big game programs. NYCOA recommends that the visible fishing license be adopted in New York State. Many jurisdictions use this concept and it has been proven to reduce license related violations and increase revenues generated by the purchase of more licenses. California experienced a significant revenue increase with the initiation of their visible fishing license program. More than a million and a half dollars of increased revenue were attributed to the use of this program within the first three years of its implementation. Violations involving fishing without a license were reduced to about half what California’s five-year average had been prior to the program.

New York State’s fee for its turkey license remains at $2.00, the same price it has been since it was first issued. Since that time the seasons have been expanded across the state and the bag limits have increased significantly. This has increased, dramatically, the sporting public’s recreational opportunities and done nothing for the revenues from the program. We see an opportunity here for fee increases that would be readily supported by the sportsmen of our state.

There are many options open to the NYSDEC that would be supported by the public and increase the revenues to the Conservation Fund. Serious consideration needs to be devoted to these options. We do not need to embrace the desires of the crossbow manufacturing industry to generate revenues for our fish and game programs.

In conclusion, a restatement of our fundamental objection to the legalization of the crossbow is warranted. We are adamantly opposed to the introduction of this weapon into any hunting season in New York State. If the use of the crossbow for hunting in our state is legalized, a door is opened for other manufacturers or special interest groups to lobby for the introduction of their exotic weapon of choice for hunting. For example, there are a tremendous number of people in this state that legally possess assault weapons. If they began a campaign to be allowed to use those weapons for hunting, what basis would we have for objecting to this idea? We would have sacrificed any reasonable objections by condoning the legalization of the crossbow. If an implement like the crossbow, primarily a weapon of war, can be justified as a legitimate hunting implement, why not assault weapons, or any other exotic implements that modern technology might produce?

We need to draw the line, step back and regain some perspective. We need to reflect on what hunting is all about. We need to remember that we have developed the rules and regulations that govern hunting to perpetuate a sporting ethic. We promote the concept of "fair chase" in our pursuit of game, and firmly believe that the pleasure is in the hunt, not in the killing. It is not necessary that we embrace every new technology that comes along to give us greater advantage over our quarry. We should maintain a firm hold on our traditions and our "land ethic" by challenging our own abilities and skills in the outdoors. This is what hunting and sportsmanship is all about, not using every available means at one’s disposal to reduce game to possession.

We, the voting members of the New York Conservation Officers Association, are, and shall remain, committed to the opposition of the legalization of the crossbow for hunting in New York State.

Revised and Updated 2/10/01