ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
In doing so, a buck at 100 yards for both the bowhunter and the rifle hunter...bang hunt is over....bow goes without so the bowkill again, more impressive.
A buck at 20 yards...for a rifle...a gimme...for a bowhunter..hell I've missed at 16 yards...guess what I'm still impressed more when I see a bowkill...
Well, if we are going to compare apples to apples then why is the buck at a 100 yards a sure thing for the rifle? You practice all year and miss at 16yds but the gun can't miss at a 100 ydsbecause it is just so easy with a rifle, right? And then, if it were a muzzleloader or better yet a shotgun (can't use rifles in MD)how easy is that? See where I'm going with this
?
Bow hunting has its difficulties that make it much different than gun hunting but, depending on the gun, gun hunting has its difficulties that make its kills just as impressive. I am not trying to sway your opinion or anyone elses, I am just presenting a different opinion, one that thinks all hunting is impressive and doesn't need to denigrate one method to elevate another.
Jim Shockey only hunts with a muzzleloader but you would tell me that kandi kisky's bow kills are more impressive than his muzzleloader kills?