The use of crossbows for target practice and hunting has grown significantly in the past ten years. This could be due to a number of factors.
First, as more and more predators have been eliminated from the North American continent, the deer population has been significantly enlarged. In turn, state governments, as a matter of public policy, have been trying to encourage more folks to hunt. One may surmise, however, that permitting the use of crossbows would not only reduce, but destroy the deer population. This does not seem to be the case (although the data is limited). In Ohio, where crossbow hunting has been legal since 1976, there has been concurrent growth in both the number of hunters, and the deer population.
The Most Comprehensive Crossbow Data Available

Image by Capri23auto from Pixabay
The state of Michigan has the most comprehensive statistics on crossbow use. Michigan first legalized crossbow hunting in 2008, then commissioned a study to see the effect on hunters preferences through 2011. The report, authored by Brian Frawley and Brent Rudolph1)You can read the report here: Michigan Crossbow Report, provides some interesting takeaways, especially given that they had a survey population of nearly 1,500:
- Between 2009 and 2011, the proportion of archers using a crossbow increased from 19% to 37%.
- Between 2009 and 2001, the number of folks hunting during archery season (this is when hunting with firearms is not permitted, but using a bow [and now crossbow] is permitted) increased by 13%.
- Between 2009 and 2011, 25% of the hunters surveyed said that they had not hunted during previous archery seasons.
- For the same period, 19% of the people surveyed stated that they had never hunted with anything other than a firearm before crossbow use was permitted during archery season.
- Of the hunters surveyed, 88% said that the use of crossbows during hunting “met all or most of their expectations.”
- Of the hunters surveyed, 96% of those surveyed said they would use a crossbow again in the future.
There is no reason to believe that the statistics from Michigan would not be applicable to hunters in the other states of the union, as Michigan hunters do not have traits that differentiate themselves from other hunters. Correspondingly, it is reasonable to posit that if crossbow hunting continues to expand across the country, folks in other states would adopt the trends shown in Michigan.
The National Growth in Crossbow Hunting
Twenty-three states now permit crossbow hunting during all parts of archery season. An additional eleven states, including Nevada, permit crossbow hunting during firearm season (the part of hunting season where guns are allowed). An additional four states permit crossbows for at least part of the archery season. All in all, only one state (Oregon), has a complete prohibition against crossbows. It certainly seems the national trend is toward permitting more crossbow hunting and crossbow use.
But at What Cost?
The rise of crossbow use has come with a correlated rise in crossbow injuries. After a quick internet search, one will see that these product liability cases against crossbow manufacturers are popping up in venues throughout the country: From multiple reported injuries in Texas, to Florida, to Wisconsin, crossbow hunters have suffered severe injuries to fingers and thumbs from the (alleged) manufacturing defects of the crossbows in question. Even Clear Counsel Law Group’s own personal injury attorneys have represented people hurt by crossbows. One wonders if the crossbow manufacturers have accounted for the high percentage of firearm converts to crossbows without recognizing the difference in operation. 2)Note the 19% of people surveyed in the Michigan study that converted to crossbows once they were permitted to use them in archery season.
It is hard to say that the manufactures are not aware of the high conversion rate, as modern crossbows look more and more like rifles. Hopefully, more will be done in the design stage to prevent the rash of these injuries, especially as crossbow use continues to trend upward.
Footnotes
↑ 1 | You can read the report here: Michigan Crossbow Report |
↑ 2 | Note the 19% of people surveyed in the Michigan study that converted to crossbows once they were permitted to use them in archery season |
Online Comments and Defamation, Are You At Risk?
How safe is it to share your opinions online? Just because you see lots of other folks online stating things that look defamatory, does that mean you cannot be sued? First we will discuss what defamation is, how best to understand it in our online comment era, and finally, how Nevada law protects the rights of her citizens to express their opinions online.
What is Defamation?
Defamation is a false statement of fact that causes damage to another, usually financial or reputational damage. There are two types of defamation:
Slander: verbal defamation
Libel: written defamation
Written defamation, libel, includes what is written in print and online. Because we are concerned with online comments, this will be a discussion of libel.
Because libel must be a false statement of fact, if you can prove you were telling the truth, the libel case will not stand. This is an easy defense to a libel accusation. There is a second common defense to a libel suit, that the alleged statement was one of opinion, not fact. This is where things get tricky..
The Statement of Opinion Defense to Defamation
On its face, it seems that it would be easy to determine if a statement is one of fact or opinion.
For example, “Steven (not based on any real person!) is not nice to the people around him” is an opinion and therefore, not defamation.
“Steven stole $100 from a little old lady” is a factual statement, and if it were to cause damage to Steven’s life (like if you uttered this statement to Steven’s boss and he lost his job), then the statement could very well be libel.
Ok simple enough, right? But what if the statement is factual, but couched in the form of an opinion? “I think Steven stole $100 from a little old lady.” The law will not permit you to defame someone just by adding the “I think” qualifier; specific defamatory statements (expressed as an opinion) that caused harm for the subject of the statement could indeed be defamatory. It all depends on the circumstances (a la, you may need an attorney’s assistance at this juncture).
Now I ask you to consider our current age, where folks use many different internet forums (Facebook, Yelp, Twitter, just to name a few), to express their opinions not only about other people, but about the products and services of corporations. How do you think very wealthy corporations respond online comments they feel are defamatory?
Nevada’s anti-SLAPP Legislation
The Nevada legislature has passed a law to protect its citizens from Strategic Lawsuits to Prevent Public Participation (called SLAPP lawsuits). Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law is one of the most stringent anti-SLAPP laws in the country. A few highlights from the updated 2013 law:
A Potential Revision to the Anti-SLAPP law?
Before you close out this window and give a corporation a piece of your mind, know that there may be yet another change on the horizon. In late April of 2015, the Nevada Senate held hearing discussing Senate Bill 444, which would revise the current statute and possibly scale back the protections of the current law. The bill made it out of the Nevada Senate with an unanimous vote, and is currently being debated in the Assembly.
In the same way you do not evaluate the quality of a sausage until it has a casing, we will have to wait and see what becomes of Senate bill 444 before drawing any conclusions. Regardless, use prudence as you make your online comments; once submitted, you will not be able to prevent the consequences.