Recurves are more difficult to shoot well, and many love the challenge of shooting them. I do. But that's not an excuse for taking shots outside one's 100% effectiveness distance. At the same time, we have to remember that Bear and the others of his time were trying to prove big game animals could be taken with bows and arrows, trying to get archery seasons established. The only way they could do that was to put arrows in the air. And, to do that, they did take shots (body angles and distances) we would consider unethical today. However, don't judge the ethics standards of the past by today's standards.

Honestly, in a number of ways, I consider a recurve or longbow superior to the compound as a hunting tool. Especially a compound that's shot with sights. Sights confine the shooter to holding his bow perfectly perpendicular, where a stickbow can be canted to get clearance for the limbs. They take extra time to stabilize the sight picture and sometimes sights cannot be seen in lighting conditions where the animal is plainly visible. Even shooting my compound without sights, I can not get a shot off as quick with a compound as I can with a stickbow. The breakover slows down my draw and disrupts my aim.

The big plus for the compound is I am deadly to 30 yards with it, vs 15-20 yards with the recurve. That extra 10 yards adds a lot of territory to the area I can effectively cover. Another plus is I can handle a good 15 pounds more draw weight with it than I can with a stickbow.