Elkcrazy8

ArthurP
Yes, there are many traditional shooters out there that get their elk every year, you are correct. However a guy like myself who has the occasional flyer and cannot be sure that he will hit an elk hard every time with a recurve or barebow, would be unethical if he hunted with a bow he was not proficient with and should use sights even(Ah! theres that word again). I would much rather hold back at 80% than 65%. I have killed many elk over the years and have taken a few hunters on their first bow kill. Yes you do need to hold back for longer periods of time while hunting elk with a sighted compound. I actually practice this way at the range. An elk can pinpoint your exact location from several hundred yards. It is now second nature to load up when the bull is commited to coming in. When I was a field editor I spoke with many people on this topic and many have agreed. The number one reason that an elk within bow range is not killed is because the hunter has waited too long to draw, I have seen it time and time again ,first hand. Robinhood is valid in his point. The elk I took last year waited about 45 seconds to give me the perfect shot. And when it did, the arrow hit home and punched both lungs. Hunting open lodgepole is a different environment. With a bull in front of you there is never usaully the opportune moment to draw. Yes a recurve is a good bow to hunt with if you are a decent shot and wait for the close shot. And I beleive that they are effective, the best in some cases, In the right hands. But for those that aren't proficient enough they too can be the poor choice. As for the 80% being harder to shoot I would say for some yes , but then again recurves are hard to shoot for some also. I know that I can shoot an 80% as well as a 65%. So why woudn't I want a bow that would give me the edge in these situations. The 80% rule for Idaho has my vote. Hey Arthur, maybe we can get rich off an over and under bow? Without sights of course.[8D]