Arthur, thanks for clarifying where you stand. I don' t agree with your stance on compounds, but at least I can respect where you are coming from.

Hunting faces several challenges. Two of the biggest, in my opinion, are fewer place to hunt due to urban sprawal, and declining number of younger hunters. Compounds are not perfect, and are certainly easier to handle for a newbie than a stick bow. But the one thing that they do allow for is enabling newer hunters to be successful at a higher rate than they would be if using a traditional bow. Is that less " sporting" ? I don' t think so. What it does do is help to draw more hunters into the sport. We can argue about constitutes a bow until we are blue in the face; the fact is P&Y already did that. And according to them, xbows don' t qualify. What I don' t like about the let-off rule is that by P&Y' s own definition, a compound is a compound. But, now they decide that 65% is the high water mark. Why 65%? Why not 50%? Or 70%? Why make an arbitrary...and it is purely arbitrary...distinction like that? A hunter still has to draw the bow, turn while holding his sight on the target, and make a good shot. The fact that additional let-off might give a hunter an extra 8 or 10 pounds of relief while holding at full draw is not of great consequence, given everything else the hunter must do to harvest the animal.