Nope, but if its not the norm, then its sure notvalid using it in this conversation. Just an opinion. Can't believe you can't see it.

You've said something to me a while back about traditional being no more difficult than a compound if the animal is within 20 yards. Well, that might be true... If you are patient enough to hold off with the compound and wait for the deer to come to 20 instead of zapping it the first time it gives you a broadside at 40. But this is something different... taking a seldom seenincident like that and using it for a basis to say traditional is no more difficult than compound?

True the traditional bow is an advantage in that kind of situation (unless you shoot your compound barebow and fingers just like it were a traditional bowand thenthe compoundhas the exact same advantage) but the average bowhunter might never see that kind of thing happen in the woods! It's a pretty rare thing, and even more rare that it was such a great animal. That's like saying someone survived falling 20,000 feet from an airplane without a parachute and survived, so parachutes are no advantage!

I grew up shooting a stick bow. Killed many small game animals with that stick bow. ThenI got a recurve, back then it was like getting a compound bow. Those recurves were the ticket back then (some of the older guys will know whatI mean).Then I got a compound and I still prefer a compound. I can still shoot a recurve or a compound without sights.I just like the precision of a compound with sights. I don't buy into the "Indian Did It This Way" thing soI have to do it. Those Indians used guns when the could get them too. I am a hunter and will take game in an efficient legal manner. I am not saying traditional shooters are not efficient enough to take game properly, I just prefer to do it with a compound bow.

What's not valid about it? Do you think it's isolated even tho it's not the norm? Don't you think it happens that a guy using "modern" equipment gets busted when he's trying to anchor in when a traditional guy would have already have had his arrow through the deer? That makes "traditional" gear easier. Let's talk about that. That has some normality. It's just as valid as saying traditional gear is a harder hunt, keep in mind HUNT! That's been the discussion all along, not traditional isn't harder to shoot, it is but not a harder hunt.

I agree AP, very much so but bc said about norms and in most polls, the majority of deer are taken 20 yards and in.

I threw up my own experience of missing a buck at 16 yards, I'm here to tell you that I could have hit the damn thing with traditional gear so why would traditional gear have made that hunt "harder"? That's all I'm asking and I'm yet to see a valid reason.

I'm not talking that a compound "can" give you more yardage options, to some, not others so again, harder or easier for whom, only the proficient right? Isn't that what were really talking here? The best of the best against the best of the best, then yes, traditional is a harder hunt because of yardage limitations but

bc, is that a norm, I ask an experience traditionalist such as yourself.

What if we take the two guy scenario away, Rob?

Now we don't have to worry about whether one learns faster than the other to become proficient. Same guy......let's use Matt/PA for the example. Which hunt do you think he'd say was "harder"?

Ah Jeff, coincidence that you post that after I posted what I posted at the same time.

What can I say....I'm as smart as you.

[8D]

Don't insult yourself Jeff. [8D]

Wow, was at work for 8 hours and this thread is on page 15! I didn't read them all. I plan on taking big game with traditional equipment some day, but I won't be using my handmade broadheads tied on with dried deer tendons or fletching made the same way. Kudos to anyone that does though.

Bowhunters.......we are a fascinating bunch.