c903,

I agree with most of what you said. I started my bowhunting 32 years ago with a recurve. I killed many animals with it for 11 years, before I switched to a compound (the recurve broke). Killing animals never seemed very difficult with the recurve. Hit 'em in the lungs and they were dead. No fancy gadgets of any kind. Basically, a stick, a string and an arrow. I remember when I first put cat whiskers on the string. I thought that was high tech.

For me, killing big game hasn't gotten any easier over the years, but then I always approached hunting with the philosophy of, "He who gets closest, wins." Being a good shot never even occurred to me as being necessary. My first six animals were shot within 10 yards and after that only one was shot past 15 yards and that was an elk at 17 yards. With a compound, my longest shot has been 23 yards. How much hight tech do you really need if you're able to get close to your quarry?

If hunting ever turns into, "How far out can it be before I can't shoot?", then I'm likely to quit. That's the rifle game and I don't care for it. You see, for me the whole thrill is getting personal with the animal. I want to see it's breath, hear it's footsteps on wet leaves, and see it's nostrils move as it tests the wind. I'm most proud when I get a 3 or 4 yard shot. It means I did what I was supposed to do, which is become invisible to the deer. For me, the accuracy thing is only fun or necessary when I'm shooting at paper.

Maybe I could sum up my feelings this way. Given the choice between successfully making a 60 yard heart shot on a running deer or or getting a 3 yard broadside shot on a standing deer, I'll take the close shot every time. It's far more exciting for me to have the deer right next to me. Making a long distance shot gives me little thrill.