But that statement is too generic. Why even include the weapon in the statement? The "hunt" is finding the animal. You don't need a weapon for that.

Traditional Archery:

Throw a baseball (with all your fingers)at a target and see if you can hit it...


Compound Archery:

Lay the baseball in a pipe....line your sight up with your target....hold on the target for much longer.......make sure everything is aligned....and push the button....with your sight on your target........

The human eye has variation...unless your Fred Bear, Gean Wensel, or Ron La-clare shooting aspirins out of the sky.....and you wake up....shave....toss 50 arrows in a straw bail......and goto work..... traditional is harder........

I would toss some cedar in a hay bail in the AM if I could kick this red wine habit and get up earlier....screw it.....I'm gonna wax my string on my Hoyt and kiss my osage stick that hangs polished on my wall....

read this over and over and think about thowing a baseball (traditional)....and then ....what I stated for the compound....pause and just think about it for a moment........think about it before you rush off to research that rifle you bought on the other forum.....

I get that.

Let me put it this way.

I can have my son.....who's never shot a scoped rifle....proficient enough to shoot a deer with it at 100 yds in minutes.

I can have him shooting groups of 9" from 20 yds in ......well....he was doing this the day he got his first compound.

He shot at my 2' x 2' with my longbow from 10 yds......10 arrows.....and hit it, once.

It's just leaps and bounds above (becoming proficient) anything else mentioned here (re: weapons). I'm still working on it.

AH Grasshopper, two people with the same practice regimate and shooting abilities with two different weapons does not quarantee and easier nor a harder hunt, it's about getting the animal to said yardage, not the weapon itself. Self imposed yardage limitations differ from archer to archer and I know some traditional archers who won't hesitate to shoot out to distances that some compounders won't so again, I ask you this, whose hunt is harder?

Why do all our analogies always come back to baseball?

There's a thread starter..

So your allocating how long it takes one to become proficient with a weapon to how hard a hunt is. Some pick up things quicker than others. So with your example above, if it takes me longer to learn how to shoot (weapon of choice) than it takes you using the same weapon and we both kill a deer at 10 yards, my hunt was much harder than your hunt?

We just disagree, Rob.

I see what it takes to get to the point of being ABLE to hunt with a hunter's weapon of choice and I take that into consideration......and you want to put them at full draw.....and dismiss everything prior (and correct me if I'm wrong).

Just a difference of opinion. I can live with that.

I will post it again.........


I think the "hunting the hard way" analogy also includes the dedication it takes to become a good shot and then the experience it takes to maintain that form at the moment of truth....

Technically, I agree with you Rob, the hunt itself is no different.....

For the most part it is all about the shooting.....

I'm not dismissing everything prior, that's the shooting part and "traditional" is much harder than "modern". The hunt doesnt' change either way.

If your strictly talking limitations in yardages and time practiced to get to the result of a kill, I again ask, if both a new compound user and a new traditional shooter practice the exact same amount of time and have the exact same self proclaimed yardage limitations how can anyone say that one way is a harder hunt than the other?

We're not going to see eye to eye on this one. Trust me!

I don't think you're giving the difference in the difficulty (between the two weapons we're "really" talking about.....compound v. trad) its' due. Just my opinion.

No biggie, though.....