davidmil

I don't believe I said killing was the only thing. I said it was our ultimatepurpose for hunting. If you don't need to kill to have a successful hunt, take up photography. Heck, I won't even shoot a fox or cat or things like that because I don't eat them. A lot the same people that say it's the journey have posed with their pictures of some varmint fox.. a.k.a. squirrell out of season(clearly a violation of your lofty standards and the law) say my idea of hunting is warped. I don't need to kill a squirrel out of season to feel prouder of some shot than I was when I last shot a buck. I'm just putting it to the bottom line. I never said I didn't have fun without killing. I never said I have to kill. Especially to the point that I'd hunt cages or barn yards.
That is such poppycock. As I've stated, I started with recurves before a lot of you were born. I remember going hunting for 3 or 4 years with the bow and never seeing another bowhunter. Old timers will tell you, that's the way it was back in the 60s and 70s. Big Red I really doubt you're as perfect as you think. I on the other hand am legendary.
Some of the same people that find my idea of "We hunt to Kill" offensive and say "I don't get it".. just don't get it. On one hand they will puff up and say "I killed a squirrell out of season with my long bow. I'm so proud of that shot". Well good for you. Explain that to your sons.

SaskBushMan

I think you need to go with what interests you more bow styles are fun no matter what way ypu look at it both have their advantages and disadvantages. you can't let anyone tell you what is better or what is more accepted because imo nobody has that right. In my response to some previouse posts yes if it wasn't for the compound and all its bells and whistles as well as advertising and sponser the sport of archery as a whole would be in big trouble. And as far as a hunt being unsuccessful because you never came home with any game in your pick up I think is not the way I look at it, I feel that just getting out in the woods and maybe finding a new scrape or rub ao finding a new spot to sit or just seeing game is a very successful hunt and well worth the trip and to me is not just a walk in the woods, and I won't have to explain this to mykids beacuse I believe that my kids will feel the same way as they well join me on my hunts and sharethe samesatisfaction I get being in the woods.
Good luck to all in what ever you do.

PSEMuzzy

Whichever the hunter is more comfortable with. Myself I prefer a compound.

Double Creek

Dave,

I read my post again and realized that it may have had a touch of elitism in it.... I'm sorry for that, as I did not mean to tone it that way...... All my best friends are compound hunters and I was myself for almost 20yds....I think some people are just more passionate about the sport as a whole and some are more passionate about the kill......It's 2 different views points, neither one being wrong or right IMO..... My post was simply a reflection of how I feel about hunting.... How going traditional changed ME...... I also realize that not all compound hunters are obsessed with the kill.... They simply choose the weapon they wish to hunt with, for various reasons...... They may be a tech junkie... They love pinpoint accuracy... They don't have the time or dedication to become proficient with trad equipment....... That's all good..... You get out of life what you put into it.....

BobCo19-65

But from your posts killing is the only thing that determines whether a hunt is successful.

Please don't include me in your word "our". It's the pursuit, preperation, and experiencethat gets me going. The hunt brings me closer to nature, myself, family, and god. Killing is just a small part of the hunt.

Sylvan

I'll have to side with davidmil regarding what successful hunting is. Ultimately the goal of hunting is to take game. No one would argue that you have to kill something to have had a wonderfull time in the woods and I think just about everyone would agree that the actual kill is only a tiny amount of time spent out of the entire hunting experience. I think the problem here (IMHO) is that some confuse succeeding at having a great time/experience with succeeding at the entire hunting experience. I don't think they are one in the same. As davidmil said, ultimately the goal is to kill something and by definition if that is the goal then you have failed in that goal if you don't do it at some point. If your goal is to just have a good time then of course you can succeed in that regard without killing something but of course then you must admit that your goal is not to succeed in a complete hunting experience but rather a partial one. Do you have to kill in order to have had a good time? Of course not, in fact if I didn't have a good time on my outings that failed to result in the taking of game I wouldn't hunt anymore. But I just don't think it's reality to claim to be a successfull hunter if in the end the freezer is empty. I wouldn't consider you to be much of a pilot if you did everything but land the plane and I wouldn't consider you much of a hunter if you did everything but kill the game you pursue.

With regard to compound or recurve. I killed my first deer with a recurve in 1968 and didn't start hunting with a compound until 1980. Is it more challenging with a recurve? Certainly. Which do I enjoy more? Well all things considered, I'd have to say the compound. I'll emphasize FOR ME! To me the weapon I use is only part of the equation and I suspect it is only part of the equation for others as well. How big a part I'm sure varies hunter to hunter. I recommend giving both recurve and compound a fair shot and deciding for yourself.

BobCo19-65

Sylvan, I think you made a good post. Not argueing with you, just discussing. But does a complete hunting expereince (in your words) = a kill. Not for me. I can have a complete hunting expereince without the kill.

But my goal is not to put meat in the freezer. I can do that more successfully using other methods.

If you consider me a hunter or notdoesn't matter to me. Of course, I am attempting to kill the game I am in pursuit of, but if it doesn't happen, it's still OK with me.If it did make a difference to me, I may inclined to shoot at animals, I usually would not take shots at.

Double Creek

Sylvan,

I think some of "our" points got lost in the paragraphs of previous posts...... When I go hunting, I want to kill something...... The kill in and of itself doesn't make or break the hunt for me..... But have no doubt, my intentions are to kill...... I think what we were trying to say isthat we have selected a weapon with far less capabilities than the compound, b/c for many of us, the kill isn't as important as the entire experience..... The kill is still part of it, but not the key stone........We value the hard work and dedication required to become profficient with the weapon.... We have earned the right to make the shot through many hours and thousands of arrows loosed...... The arrow's flight is actually part of us and not some mechanical device..... My brain determined where to hold the arrow, not some 10 pin sight...... It's a different state of mind..... I want to feel like I made the perfect shot, not the engineer for xyz bow company.....

Talondale

Great post Sylvan. Nicely worded. I think a lot of the arguement is over semantics. I agree that if you are a hunter the ultimate goal is to make a kill of some kind, at some point. Your motive for that kill may/will vary. Some people restrict their goal for the kill toa specific type of animal that fits some self-imposed criteria, others are more opportunistic. I think the confusion comes in when people think of one instance rather than the experience as a whole. If I go out one day, or even one season,and don't kill anything is that an unsuccessful hunt? In one regard yes, since I didn't fufill my ultimate objective, but in other ways no, I succeeded in other goals (enjoyment of nature, safe outing, ethical practices, quiet time, fellowship) they just all didn't combine with the final conclusion. We are not merely killing, but neither are we merely passive observers of nature, we are active participants. So it would seem that some are discussing with one event/outing in mind, while othershave in mindthe practice of hunting as a whole.

I think the arguement parallels fly fishing. Fly fishers love the whole experience involved with fishing not just the catch. They enjoy the preparation, the application, and the catch. Is it just catching a fish? No they could do that more proficiently by using a net. But it's the experience as a whole, including the hooking up with a fighting fish.

Sylvan

I'm not arguing either. I actually understand and even agree with nearly all you've said. It's really just down to the details of the words we are using that I disagree a bit. So to answer your question, yes, to me part of hunting is killing the animal that is pursued. So if there is no kill then the experience is by definition incomplete. Certainly someone who has never killed a deer can not claim to have experienced all of deer hunting.
I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was speaking generically. I've read many of your posts and I know you to be a dedicated and successfull hunter by any definition. I should have said
"I wouldn't consider one much of a hunter" rather than "you much of a hunter". And I agree with you in that I don't care what anybody thinks of the way I hunt or feel about hunting either.
It's OK with me too. But if I am as you say "attempting to kill" and I fail in that attempt then again by definition I did not succeed.