RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

Come on now Stealth...ya didn't have to go turning this into a compound vs. traditional argument. ;)

...and what is with the Brother Bear logo. You a big fan of the Mckenzie brothers?
:D

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

I honestly think if you're a good hunter... Luck plays only an occasional roll and maybe not always a good one. Normally it his little to do with the outcome.

If you're a wannabee.... you count and pray on luck.

If you have NO clue.... lucks about all you got.

Shooting skill is a small part of the picture. The best shots are probably seldom the best hunters.... but they sure can maximize their opportunities.

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

Sorry davidmil, but I think hunting is all about luck. I'll try to explain this, but it all boils down to being in the right place at the right time, which is another way of saying being lucky.

(I think a really interesting thread here would be a study on this issue. Ask the following questions in a poll on here: How many days did you you hunt last year? What state did you hunt in? What age buck did you kill?
Then if we got a large enough sample size, a real stat cruncher - I could do it in a pinch - could run some correlations.)

Anyhow, I'll bet my newest set of thermal longjohns that such a study would find a monster correlation between the most successful hunters and the guys who spent the most time out there. In short, these guys are maximizing their luck by spending lots of hours in the woods, rolling the dice a lot. If you gotta roll snake eyes to win, who are you betting on - the guy who rolls the dice once or twice, or the guy who rolls it twenty or thirty times?

Suppose the best hunter in the world sees a P&Y buck every 20 hours he's in the woods, and a novice hunts the same woods but only sees a book buck every 100 hours, both hunters are still playing on luck, it's just that the good hunter is playing at a higher level of luck than the novice. Back to the dice illustration, the good hunter wins every time he rolls '6' and the novice only wins on snake eyes. Does it make the game not a game of luck because the good hunter is essentially playing by a different set of rules? I don't think so.

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

For the most part I don't think being in the right place at the right time on a consistant basis has very little to do with luck.

If it where luck they would both see deer the same amount of time:eek:

Rolling dice thirty times is easy. It ain't luck that gets a working man up at 3:30AM every day off he has for three months to sit in a tree.

The top pros in any sport will probably be the ones who practice and work the hardest. Same thing for hunters.

I consider luck a non factor - I have had just as much bad luck as I have good - I call it a wash. The only thing left is what knowledge, preperation, and determination you bring to the table.

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

For someone to say that them killing big deer has nothing to do with luck.... GET OVER YOURSELF. Last season i shot a 170 class buck... I was lucky. I put my buddy on that stand for 3 days, and he saw only one buck and that was a 3 1/2 year old 10 pointer at over 100 yards in a field. He didn't want to hunt the spot the following day so I did, shot the buck 5 minutes after daylight. Was it not luck that that buck walked by that mourning and not the mourning before, yes its luck. I do beleive in improving your luck (Stand placement, shot placement, concealment, getting in and out without spooking game...), but there is still lots of luck involved.

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

ewolf,

I think the word that you are overlooking is "consistently"!

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

Sure is...Good luck for you.......Bad luck for your friend;)

Again luck is a wash - whats left - two determined hunters with a good stand setup:)

RE: Are they mutually exclusive?
 

As far as the "techie" side of things, I cannot see any link between that and the level of hunting competence.

For example, some guys just drive their vehicles, others insist on knowing about and tinkering with the systems within. The point is that some people are simply more inclined to learn about the dynamics of the bow (and arrow, etc) itself. Naturally they tend to be more "hands on." How can that be linked to hunting skill?

If you tune your equipment, and I have a highly competent pro-shop tune mine, do we not wind up with two tuned bows? What happens in the woods thereafter is an unrelated matter.

Great topic, silentassassin.