Big Uncle

I have been reading about the negative impact that the Ravin advertising is producing. Although nothing is yet official, Wyoming is debating banning crossbows from the bow season. The commercial showing 100 yard target shooting and the phrase "your next rifle" are making some important folks reconsider their use.

Crossbows do bring more hunters as they can be used by people physically unable to use a more traditional bow. New hunters are a very good thing. However, companies claiming ranges much in excess of traditional archery equipment certainly contradicts the original concept that crossbows do not give anyone an unfair advantage.

Of course no one including Ravin is recommending using a crossbow at such extended ranges for hunting but this is giving fuel to the anti-crossbow crowd's position. It is very easy to imagine people using the new breed of crossbows to shoot at game further than any reasonable person would.

Oldtimr

When you pay for advertisement that shows 100 yard shooting with a cross bow, they are tacitly recommending shooting at those distances.

rockport

but not at live animals.

Ravin should be able to advertise the capabilities of their products without being responsible for idiots not knowing how to hunt.

The whole thing is really kind of silly. I can shoot targets at 100 yards with a 20 year old Horton crossbow, a $250 centerpoint crossbow, and my $400 Barnett crossbow. Being able to hit targets at 100 yards with a crossbow isn't new and does not require a Ravin crossbow. Hell I can hit targets at 100 yards with my compound bow.

Oldtimr

I don't doubt you and many others can do that. But make a bad hit on a target no harm no foul. Make a bad hit on an animal because you shot at it from distances that shouldn't be shot from is another story. Knowing human nature, and I know you do, we all know there are enough idiots around who would take those ads in a way that would transfer the targets to animals in their tiny little minds. You are correct, the company can't be held responsible for what morons do, however I don't think it was smart to use advertisements for a crossbow the company knows people will be hunting with to show it shoots flatter than other brands of crossbows and not expect people will want to take those long distance shots at animals, they should have anticipated it. We have people now that takes shots that exceed either their or their equipment's ability at animals. I think they should have been more responsible in their advertisements and at least made a point at the beginning of the ad and the end of the ad saying do not try this on live animals

Big Uncle

The problem of guys shooting too far is not the issue that is currently drawing focus of the Game and Fish decision makers. They are looking much more closely at the advantage that crossbow shooters would have in the archery season. Ravin's marketing will be believed by some of them and as a result it is entirely possible that all crossbow hunters will suffer as a result.

There are people that do not want crossbows to be allowed in archery season and Ravin's chest thumping may be their downfall.

Oldtimr

Not so sure your take on it is correct Uncle. I think the game agencies envision people shooting at deer at ridiculous distances and wounding a lot of deer, they can'r just prohibit one brand of crossbow so they are thinking about prohibiting them all. Most of us here know that there really isn't that much of an advantage for a good crossbow shooter and a good compound shooter, but when the crying starts about the perceived advantage fr cross bows, there is a knee jerk reaction from the agencies and rather than do some investigating of the facts,they cave to the squeaky wheel..

Big Uncle

I have read about it in newspapers, bowhunting sites, and the Commission's release. It is currently centered about the "unfair advantage" aspect. I think it will morph into a discussion about long range wounding whenever someone comes up with any data, or the HSUS types get involved.

Here is a sample: https://www.bowhunting.com/blog/2018...ing-harm-good/

Oldtimr

I understand what you are saying about the reason for Wyoming's consideration. The article you posted pretty much supports what I said and that is it is irresponsible not to include in the advertisement that shooting at animals at one hundred yards is not responsible and should be reserved for target shooting. From the article you posted:

When we asked several crossbow manufacturers whether or not hunters should be attempting 80 and 100 yard shots on game animals with their bows, the answer is always “no”. Manufacturers claim that while their bows are more than capable of shooting accurately as these distances they do not recommend shooting animals that far – for all of the reasons that we already know. In short, there’s just too much that can go wrong under uncontrolled circumstances when shooting at live animals. When pushed on the issue manufacturers fall back to their recommendation of shooting at long distances for fun or “recreational” purposes. However in all of the advertisements we saw and read, there was no mention of “recreational” shooting. Advertisements clearly aimed at hunters draw no line between what should be done on the range and in the field. That’s left for the individual to decide on their own.

The unfortunate thing is that we live in a world that doesn’t read past the headline. When hunters see headlines that include “100 yard accuracy” or phrases like “Your next rifle” they simply assume that hunting at these distances is acceptable, and even encouraged. Few stop to think further on the topic or research why they should or should not be shooting animals at these distances. This is leading to the creation of an entire generation of crossbow hunters with ill conceived notations of what their effective hunting range is, and may even be hurting the future advancement of crossbow inclusion into archery seasons.

For the record I think Wyoming is making its self look pretty silly buying into the unfair advantage nonsense and Ravin could do its self a lot of good by making sure its adds emphasized not shooting at game at long distances instead of just paying lip service to it when specifically asked.

Big Uncle

I agree that the advertisements should be very clear about the responsible use of the product as it applies to hunting range.

The local shop was trying to advise me about choosing between the new R20 vs the newest Ten Point offering. One of them said the R15 is good for100 yards and the R20 is good for 200 yards (a joke I think).

My use would be mostly for spot-and-stalk hunting in Wyoming. I started doing some homework and have decided to wait until the dust has settled.

rockport

I just don't agree with this logic. It is Ravins job to advertise what their product is capable of not police ethics. If your taking 100 yard shots with archery equipment that is on you and only you IMO.