My point was simple--just because someone can hit a target (or not) at a given distance only proves one thing--they can hit a target (or not) at a given distance. It doesn't mean they won't take longer shots, running shots, bad angle shots; it doesn't mean they won't quit looking if the deer doesn't fall in sight; it doesn't mean they won't shoot at movement; etc.

I totally agree that one can be good at targets and at hunting. I know archers that are both, and I strive to be one myself. The fact is still the same--proficiency tests don't touch on hunting skill. I personally know at least two excellent archers who generally fall apart when strangers watch them shoot. Both are proven hunters also. One fellow I knowhas killed literally hundreds of deer with a bow, but he isn't impressiveon a 3-D range.I don't know of anyone that has come close to killing as many deer (not to mention other critters) as he has, and I seriously doubt he would pass the test.

All else equal, the compound shooter will generally have the advantage--but not always. I've taken a group I used to work with to my home range to prove to them that a trad bow isn't always a disadvantage, and heard of other situations. On my course (re-set the targets, so I didn't have an advantage of shooting at certain spots), from a tree-stand, I could out-shoot 4 or 5 (all that came over)of my compound-shooting co-workers. They weren't awful shots, there are just situations wherea trad bow has the advantage. I shoot a lot of all-traditional 3-D tournaments, and the shots are usually set in a hunting situation. A compound shooter wouldn't be able to make many of them.

Put us both on flat ground, standing straight up, in the wide-open, a decent compound shooter will wear me out. Let me pick the shots, or even take him with me to a tournament, I'll out-shoot him more often than not.

A fellow I hunted with in Canada had to pass on a moose because he was shooting a compound--equipment malfunction.Back when I shot a compound, I was in a situation where I could have killed a deer with a big rock, but missed (twice, clean) because I was relying on sight pins.

I have worked in and around compound shops, and have heard some real dandy stories of folks that have never shot coming in to buy a bow a week or so before a hunt. Set them up and put them on the range, they could hit the spot with minimal practice--that doesn't mean they would know the difference in shot placement on a broadside, quartering away, quartering to, etc. shot.

I'm not saying these people should be banned from the woods. My point, again, is that proficiency tests prove next to nothing when it comes to hunting. IMO it's a waste of time and money, and it's just as likely to keep a competent hunter out of the woods while letting an incompetent hunter in as the opposite.

Chad