1 / 35

SECOND EDITION

SECOND EDITION. Introduction. This overview contains information that: . Explains the basic functions, dynamics and ballistics of the crossbow;. Reviews the experience of states in which the crossbow has been adopted as an archery game management tool; and .

LionelDale
Download Presentation

SECOND EDITION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SECOND EDITION

  2. Introduction This overview contains information that: • Explains the basic functions, dynamics and ballistics of the crossbow; • Reviews the experience of states in which the crossbow has been adopted as an archery game management tool; and • Compares crossbows to other archery equipment. 2.

  3. National Percentage of Bowhunter Participation * * • Total hunters 2001 2005 2006 • Total hunters 13,034 14,570 12,510 • Bow & Arrow 3,070 3,250 3,501 • Percentageof Bow hunters of Total Hunters: • 23.5% 22.0% 28% Sources: US Fish and Wildlife 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting & Wildlife associated recreation – page 83 of 116 * 2005, 2006 US Fish and Wildlife: Unpublished 3.

  4. Minnesota Hunter Retention: Firearms/Archery Usage Peak at age 39-44 4. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DNR ELS Database, 2000.

  5. Power Stroke • The distance the string • travels: • Crossbows - approx 12” • Vertical Bows - approx 20” to 22” 12” Power Stroke Crossbows require a heavier draw weight to generate the same energy that propels the arrow downrange. 20” Power Stroke 5.

  6. Arrow Trajectory(@ 300 ft/second) 6.

  7. High Performance Crossbows vs. Vertical Compound Bows - FPS & Energy * Fastest Vertical Compound Bow ** Fastest Crossbow (Difference at 50 yards: 12”) 7.

  8. High Performance Crossbows vs. Vertical Compounds BowArrow Trajectory (Total inches of drop.) * Fastest Vertical Compound Bow ** Fastest Crossbow (Difference at 50 yards: 12”) 8.

  9. High Performance Crossbows vs. Vertical Compounds BowArrow Trajectory (Total inches of drop.) E = MC x 2 BASIC FOOT POUNDS OF ENEGRY ARROW CALCULATIONS Summary: Do to the similar shooting characteristics of a vertical bow as compared to a crossbow, over the range that deer are shot at, means hunters using either a vertical bow or a crossbow have relatively equal changes to hit the deer due to the equipment. Key X 30” Compound 350 Grain 300 FPS O 20” Crossbow 432 Grain 300 FPS 9.

  10. Safety – Violations – Success Rates SAFETY - Since Ohio first legalized crossbows in 1976 through the 2003-04 season: • * 19 accidents involved crossbows - 15 were self-inflicted. • *12 accidents involved bow – 7 were self-inflicted • VIOLATIONS - During a five- year period in the 1990’s 633 hunting implements were seized by wildlife officers. • 95% were firearms – 2.7% were vertical bows – 2.2% were crossbows • SUCCESS RATES - 2001-02 Hunting Season shows harvest percentagefor crossbows hunters was 15% with vertical hunters also having the same 15% success rate. 10. Source: Ortman, W. M. (2007). Archery incidents in Ohio, 1976-2006. Unpublished data, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio.

  11. Crossbow Hunting Season Expansion Evolution of Crossbows in the US & Canada • A 30 year time line States where crossbows are legal in all or part of Archery Season are shaded green. 12.

  12. Crossbow Hunting Season Expansion Evolution of Crossbows in the US and Canada 30 yrs ago Ohio Arkansas Ontario 13.

  13. Crossbow Hunting Season Expansion Evolution of Crossbows in the US and Canada 30 yrs ago Ohio Arkansas Ontario 20 yrs ago Wyoming British Columbia N.W. Territories Nunavut 14.

  14. Crossbow Hunting Season Expansion Evolution of Crossbows in the US and Canada 30 yrs ago Ohio Arkansas Ontario 20 yrs ago Wyoming British Columbia N.W. Territories Nunavut Since 2002 *Indiana Georgia Alabama *Maryland Tennessee Virginia Pennsylvania Kentucky Florida South Carolina Louisiana Quebec • * Crossbows legal for part of the archery season 15.

  15. Crossbow Hunting Season Expansion Evolution of Crossbows in the US and Canada Crossbows legal in Urban Areas. Handicap permits total over 67,000, out of the 1,000,000 hunters in 2006.* TODAY Crossbows Legal In All or Part of Of Ohio’s 325,000 hunters, 140,000 hunted with crossbows during the 2006 hunting season. ** Crossbows Legal During Gun Season, for Elderly or Handicapped Crossbows use Significantly Restricted * 2006 US Fish & Wildlife Survey page 104 – table 56 16. ** Source: Napier. T.L. and C.T. Smith. (2006). Ohio hunter participation rates. Unpublished data, Ohio State University, Columbus.

  16. Crossbow Surveys and Studies • New Jersey Hunter Crossbow Opinion Poll • Cornell University/Kentucky Crossbow Survey • Georgia Wildlife Harvest 2003-2004 Crossbow Discussion 17.

  17. N.J. Survey 18.

  18. Cornell UniversityKentucky Crossbow Survey (2005) Respondents were asked if they would support or oppose expanding crossbow season from its current time frame to a time frame that runs concurrently with archery season. • 63% supported crossbow expansion • 25.3% opposed crossbow expansion Source: Cornell University Crossbow Study Pg 23 of 43 Note - The Cornell University is based on completed surveys from 3,240 hunters and 360 landowners. The report was conducted for Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources. 19.

  19. Cornell UniversityKentucky Crossbow Survey (2005) Reasons for opposition Source: Cornell University Crossbow Study Pg 27 of 43 20.

  20. Harvest of Wildlife in Georgia2003 – 2004 Crossbow Discussion Harvest of Wildlife in Georgia 2003-2004 Crossbow Discussion* • 13.5% of respondents previously used crossbows under the handicap rule • 31.1% of respondents had no prior experience using archery equipment for hunting - approximately 6,900 hunters • Success rate for compound bow hunters + .51 deer per hunter • Success rate for crossbow hunters + .49 deer per hunter • Estimated increase in archery hunters + 9,300 • Approximately half (46.4%) of new archers using crossbows were over 50 year old. • Note – Crossbows placed in archery season during 2002-03 season. Source: Nick Nicholson, Senior Wildlife Biologist, GA Department of Natural Resources 2003 – 2004 Crossbow Discussion Pg 3 of 4 20.

  21. Georgia Archers Hunters Age Analysis Figure 1:Age Structure of 2003-2004 Georgia Crossbow Hunters Usage Peak at age 40 -44 Figure 2:Age Structure of 2003-2004 Georgia Vertical Bowhunters Harvest of Wildlife in Georgia, Crossbow 4of 4 21.

  22. BY STATE • Georgia • Virginia • Maryland • Tennessee Crossbow Statistical Information 22.

  23. Georgia Deer Harvest Summaries

  24. Virginia Hunter Participation Note 3 – In order to compare 2008 to previous years Archery totals, the 16,133 Combo Licenses need to be subtracted from the Crossbow total which makes that total 83,108 as compared to the 103,072 as shown. FACT A Net increase of 6.9% participants in 3 years. See note 3 24. Source: VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Reproduced with permission from Carman Houston, IMS Department.

  25. Page 25

  26. Maryland – Total Harvest Comparison 2005-2006 Maryland Annual Deer Harvest Report Season 05/06 06/07 07/08 Bow 21,382 21,991 22,064 Crossbow 3,174 3,342 3,585 Total 94,052 91,930 92,208 Harvest Source: Maryland Department of Natural Resources – Annual Reports 2005 - 2008 Page 26 Source: Maryland DNR. Written and Compiled by the Deer Project Staff: L. Douglas Hotton, Deer Project Leader. Maryland Deer Project 2005-2006 Annual Report Table 21

  27. Tennessee – Harvest Comparison • Prior to 2005, Gun kills were a combination of both modern gun and muzzleloader ** Prior to 2005 Archery kills were a combination of both modern archery and crossbow. • Summary – It would appear a number of vertical bow hunters converted to crossbows and when combined with new crossbow hunters resulted in a two year period of a total archery hunters increase of 4.1% 2.2% 3.0% Crossbow Percentage of total harvest Page27. Source: Big Game Harvest Report 2006-2007, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Technical Report 07-01 Management Issue

  28. WISCONSIN PARTICIPATION Note: Age 65 is the first time all hunters are allowed to use a crossbow during the full archery season. The archery classification shown includes both vertical bows and crossbows. . Source : Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2008 Page 28

  29. Statewide Harvest By Method - Arkansas Table 2A 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Method Vertical Bows 6,232 8,720 7,793 10,614 Crossbows 2,946 4,374 3,650 4,608 Muzzleloaders 10,992 18,248 13,911 24,851 Modern Gun 86,965 100,115 103,641 122,673 Entire Season 107,135 131,457 128,995 165,663 ____________________________________________________________________ Total Archery 9,178 13,094 11,443 15,222 Vertical Bows 6,232 8,720 7,793 10,614 Crossbows 2,946 4,374 3,650 4,608 % Total Harvest %Total Harvest %Total Harvest %Total Harvest Total Archery 8.6% 10.0%8.9% 9.1% Vertical Bows 5.8% 6.6% 6.0% 6.4% Crossbows 2.7% 3.3% 2.8% 2.8% Increases 05/06 v.s. 06/07 +15.5% +24.9 +26.5% +20.7% Source: Arkansas Game and Fish. 2003-2004 Deer Season Summary. Page 7 of 28. Arkansas Game and Fish 2005-2006 Deer Summary. Pages 8 and 10 of 40. Page 29.

  30. Ohio 2006 Hunter Survey 730,000* *Total greater than 325,000 due to hunters hunting with more than one weapon during hunting season 78.4% of Ohio Hunters hunted with Archery equipment in Fall 2006; 255,000 of 325,000 paid hunters Page 30 Source: Napier. T.L. and C.T. Smith. (2006). Ohio hunter participation rates. Unpublished data, Ohio State University, Columbus.

  31. OHIO DEER HARVEST BY WEAPONSUMMARY 2004 -2008 2004 – 05 2005 – 06 2006 – 07 2007 – 08 TOTAL % CHANGE TOTAL % CHANGE TOTAL % CHANGE TOTAL % CHANGE Gun 123,041 5.9 116,517 -5.3 137,242 N/A 121,183 -11.7 Crossbow 35,729 21. 5 33,658 -5.8 38,489 14.4 42,292 9. 9 VerticalBow 24,897 17.6 26,432 6.2 29,423 11. 3 36,347 23.5 Archery 60,626 19. 9 60,090 -0. 9 67,912 13. 3 76,639 15. 8 Combined Total 216,443 9. 4 209,513 -3. 2 237,912 13. 3 232,854 -1. 9 N/A# -Bonus 2 day Gun season added in 2006 – 07 season Total* totals do not equal since all forms of hunting are not shown, such as primitive and special hunts. Source: Ohio Division of Wildlife, Annual Deer Harvest Report Summary of 2004 – 5 , Pg. 2 Table 1 Summary of 2005 – 06 , Pg. 2 Table 1 Summary of 2006 – 07, Pg. 2 Table 1 Summary of 2007 – 08, Pg. 2 Tale 1 Page 31

  32. Page 32

  33. Page 33

  34. Cleveland Metro Cleveland Metro East Akron Ohio Urban Unit Deer Harvest 2007 By County, By Weapon 34.

  35. “For the 8th consecutive year vertical bow hunters have set harvest records and the annual increases have been enough to push the total archery harvest to record-status each year as well.” “Crossbow hunters also set a record this year by harvesting 42,292 deer, nearly 10% more than last year.” Source: Summary of 2007-08 Ohio Deer Season, Waterloo Wildlife Research Station Publication 304 (R508) Page 3 of 18 Page 35.

More Related