A friend of mine have been having an ongoing discussion for years now; he is of the opinion that the wounding rate of traditionalists, in his personal experience, which he will readily admit is limited, is much higher than that of modern compound bow shooters. I bought a recurve bow about 3 years ago, and I am sad to say I have not done much hunting with it secodary to my having not enough time to become, in my mind, proficient enough to go after whitetails because I never seem to be able to get out of the hospital in time to shoot. But one thing I have noticed in my recent experience with traditional shooters, who do hunt, is that these people, although I respect them a great amount, are not on a level of accuracy that I would feel comfortable loosing an arrow at an animal. I truly am drawn to the sport of traditional bowhunting: one because I love simplicity, two because the equipment just has an allure all its own, and three because I have the utmost respect for those of you that can consistently, cleanly, harvest animals with a stick and string. But are modern traditional hunters more "sloppy" than the hunters of yester year? Did Fred Bear and Paul Schaffer wound very few animals? I know you guys have seen some of the modern "hunting" videos showing poorly hit animals that the crews do seem to find; you know there are many others that are not found. What has been you all's experience with the amount of animals wounded and lost with traditional equipment compared to modern? Do you believe that there just might be a lot of traditional hunters who don't realize their own limitations with the equipment?
thanks to all,
fd
I have not harvested a critter with my trad bow yet, but i hunt with a few fellers who have. I have tracked with them on several occasions and it seems to be divided. Bad Shots happen...simple as that! I have hunted for almost a decade now and have harvested at least 1 deer ever year with my compound and have only lost 2 deer (one i found but the yotes got it before i got there, the other we never found). One of the guys i hunt with actually bought me and my bro our first compounds-and that same year he switched to shooting his recurve religiously. This past year he wounded a deer that was never found with his recurve. Is one better than the other? well i have my answer, but yours might differ.
Won't judge others, but my experience is that with my compound I could miss with the best of them.
Each of us must find our own limitations and that may mean keeping shots under 10 yards for a while. With practice most trad archers get proficient out to 20 yards, a few much further.
I met a guide at the trail head in Oregon a few years back when going in to elk hunt. He was coming out for supplies. He told me one of his hunters had missed a bull with all 5 arrows at 60 yards that day. I hunted 8 days and shot one arrow at an elk - 8 yard shot, I bet you could have made that one count too.
Pick up your recurve and hunt hard, keep your shots real close and enjoy the experience even if you don't get an opportunity to shoot (or miss) a whitetail this year.
As for the question of hunters of the past wounding less game I would say False. Many of the shots they took would be considered unethical by todays standards. Different time and way of thinking.
The problem underlying most bad shots is a matter of shooting outside of you efficiency in terms of distance and shot setup. This problem is not a respecter of equipment but is instead cause by lack of self discipline. That being said poor hits will happen and you must except that if you are going to pursue game.
Having a tracking dog for years, I was called out by many compound guys to recover their poor shots. It ain't about the bow. I always felt that the traditionalist worked harder at the game. Many ( not all) wheel guys get ready the weekend before, some have not shot all year if ever. Walmart is full of guys buying off the rack just days before a hunt. I would suggest you get new friends, they seem to be messing with your head. I have taken some 60 deer with Trad equipment and lost some. But never with a dog
Check out an article by Roy Marlow in the Dec./Jan. 1996 issue of Traditional Bowhunter titled "Traditional Wounding Loss." He sites a couple of very well done research studies that show that compound shooters with the most gadgets -- sights, releases, etc. -- wound the most deer, followed by compound shooters who use fewer gadgets, i.e., no release. Traditional bowhunters wound proportionally the fewest deer. The studies he sites also found that compound shooters also kill more deer than traditional bowhunters. The conclusion the researchers draw, from shot distance and other data, is that compound shooters take more questionable shots at longer distances. Those shots result in more kills per hunter, but also more wounding. As always, it's not the weapon, it's the person using it.
I don't buy into that line of thinking. Bad hit's happen, regardless if your using a curve-compound or a rifle. Most folks get some type of rush (aka;buckfever) when deer are within bow range and everyone reacts differently. Some collect themselves and decide to take the shot or pass. Some can barely keep the arrow on the rest as they raise the bow and pluck and pray. These folks need to spend more time in the woods. The more time you spend hunting, the more you understand how to hunt. I too have lost deer early on. I now know that if I drop a string/hammer on a deer, it's going in my freezer.
JL
A hunter has to know his limitations. I'd like to think/believe that traditional bowhunters keep the shots at game C-L-O-S-E. Mistakes happen because we are human. That's where tracking skills come to play. Gonna ramble here a bit more.
If you are accurate at ten yards, have the confidence to hit your mark at that distance, then be in the woods hunting. JUST DON'T SHOOT PAST TEN YARDS. Isn't that what archery is all about? Gettin' Close?
... mike ... :archer: ...
The guys I know and hunt with have a high success rate and very few wounded unrecovered deer.They practice alot and have good equipment thats tuned properly with well matched arrows and razor sharp heads.They Know when to shoot and when not to and know thier effective range and stay within it.I cant speak for anyone else but thats my personell experience with the dedicated traditional bowhunters hunters i have hunted with.
Most guys I know who shoot traditional do so with high standards and know exactly how to use thier equipment and what range they are effective at and have the restaint to pass animals when things are not looking very good for a successful outcome.
i have not seen any traditional hunter yet that i would characterize as a slob hunter or an arrow flinger.Alot of them are conservationists and belong to organizations like the Rocky mountain Elk foundation,Ducks unlimited, pheasants forever etc. and have a high regard for nature,the land and the animals they pursue and have a deep bond with it.
Some i know wont shoot more than 15 yards and prefer less.They stay within thier comfort zone as anyone should whos gonna bowhunt.Others i know are crack shots at 15 to 30 yards and do to their shooting skill obviously can shoot at game at longer ranges and its totally within reason to make that choice.
I dont believe at all that "alot of traditional hunters dont realize thier own limitations with thier equipment"absolutly not!Not in my experience.
I've lost 2 with a compound over 15 or so years. I have lost 0 with traditional and so far I'm 5/5. I have to admit that the two I lost with the wheels were at 40 and 45 yards. The longest I have killed with a recurve is 32 yrds. the rest were 20yrds and under.
I feel more comfortable with my silvertip curve than the wheelie bow. I do not know why. I can shoot to 25 yards accuretly(sp?), but also with the compound I could shoot much further on the range but still in the woods I would not shoot past 25 yards.
I think a bad hit is a bad hit, no quantitative data comparing the two? Just opinions. I will keep hunting the curve,
Love the trad and am confident in my ability, to 25 yards. I think the one thing is that trad does take more practice, you have to be dedicated, a compound you can set up and be accurate to 15 yards in minutes, not much fun in my opinion.
You will get it,
J
Thanks for your input guys.
While I am sure there are some I have never known a "slob" traditional archer - the discipline required to be a traditional archer seems to limit their numbers. However, there are substantive issues that exist between ethical hunters as to what consitutes an ethical shot. For instance, within the last couple of weeks there was a thread here on whether or not a frontal/front quartering shot was ethical. To generalize that very involved thread - the responses were in two camps - those who thought there were times that frontal shots were OK and those that thought they were never OK. Even though I don't know any of the people on that thread personally, I will bet my next paycheck that every person on that thread believes, strongly, that they are an ethical hunter.
For me - know my limitations, know the limitations of my equipment, know my prey and never take a shot outside those 3 intersecting sets of boundaries is Rule #1. Catch 22 to Rule #1 states that "stuff happens" - the deer jumps the string, I simply miss the heart, the wind gusts as the shot is released, an "invisible" branch deflects the arrow, and so on. When (not if) a bad hit occurs - I am obligated to do everything possible to recover the game animal. To date, I have. I pray I will continue to do so. More practically, I practice, improve my weapons, and study my prey rigorously so, at least, I have a better understanding of my boundaries.
I am familiar with the studies that Orion has written about. And yes, I believe the facts, also given a McAlester study mentioned in TBM a few years ago, That Traditional Bowhunters actually had the fewest crippling losses.
I also agree with what JL states as well. Stuff happens.
THis is actually a huge issue for me internally. I come from a long history of compound shooting with no losses. Misses early on, lots of em, but no wounds & lost. Last season was the 1st picking upa trad bow in over 20 years. I missed a do at 14-15 yds, my max at the time, she ducked.
This year I am headed to the woods with a better feeling bow, much more confidence, but I still have that what if in the back of my head. I KNOW when I released the arrow on a deer with my compound, it was going to be dead. No matter how much I practice, I still have that "what if" question with my trad bow. Maybe I just need to finally down one and get past it. I'm not worried that I'll take a shot beyone my means, 90% of my CP shots are between 12-13 yds. We'll see come this fall.
If his experience is limited then why has he formed an opinion?
That's something like saying " all pygmies are nose pickers" when you've never been near a pygmy.
Kind of short on cognative brain cells to form a firm opinion on a subject you know little about.
Ray,
I've seen alot of nose pickers but never a pygmy nose picker. I be they would have a terrible release.
Know your limitations...practice...practice some more...I've only been hunting with a stickbow for a year and a half...after twenty with a compound...I don't feel handicapped having a stickbow in my hand, Still been able to put meat on the table...just have to hunt harder...use the old brain a little more...most of the stickbow hunters I know are KILLERS...I don't know if they pick their nose or not...
David
an experienced compound shooter can put arrows fraactions of an inch apart from one another at a target. A traditional shooter can typically put them in a five in diaameter circle. Both are good enough for hunting. But thats just s target. Hunting has a way of manipulating circumstances
You have to get past that rybo. I know this can be taken a lot of ways but they don't live long anway. You should be certain at some range. Stick to that, get a couple of kills under your belt and do the best that you can to trail them up.
no doubt one hair my first loosed arrow was less than 15yrds a head shot no recovery no blood no nuthin. I felt like S4!t for days took me a while to get over it too... practice practice practice now I'm a killer and this oct gonna fill my card again! Oh Yah. :pray:
Get close, have confidence in yourself. Percentages are shot selection and concentration. Do bad on one or the other, no matter the distance, and the outcome will be the same. No gimmees bowhunting, thats golf.
last season waas my first with a trad. bow. had a doe get 4 yards away and i passed on the shot. now would i do that this season.... no.... but last season was my first and i didnt fully understand how my bow would react with even the smallest leaf in the way(that was the main reason i past on that does a few leaves). like every one else above has said know your bow, know your arrows and the way they fly, and most importantly, know yourself. other than that, get out there. by the way, my range is not much more than 15 yards. thats close enough
QuoteOriginally posted by futuredoc:
A friend of mine ... is of the opinion that the wounding rate of traditionalists ... is much higher than that of modern compound bow shooters.
Tough subject.
Saxton Pope felt that archers had a better recovered-to-wounded ratio than hunters who used firearms.
As I understand the situation, bow hunters continued to turn-in better kill rates than gun hunters until recurves became very popular. The situation got even worse when compounds entered the field. (I think Ashby cited wounding rates under 10% before the advent of compounds and as much as three times that in recent years.)
Part of the reason was thought to be the popularity of lighter and faster arrows -- although it's not clear whether reduced penetration or increased tendancy to attempt longer shots is the culprit.
The compound hunters I talk with report quite a few misses; a lot more, it seems, than the longbow hunters I know. The guys using longbows and heavy tackle seem to recover their deer. Perhaps they're taking fewer shots.
I'd be interested in seeing reliable numbers...
I'm with most others in agreeing that bad hits happen we don't want them but things happen. Not just with trad gear though. I was watching primos' show today and a guy missed an elk at 18 yards with a wheelie bow. Let me restate that he missed a broadside standing still elk at 18 yards. I'm not putting him down at all but this if nothing else proves that misses aren't limited to sticks and strings.
Bill
I don't think bad hits are as big a reason for lost animals as people not knowing how to track. I hear on every site how guys have gut shot animals and not found them. I have yet to loose one, not that I've had a bunch of gut shots (5 outa prolly 50+ animals) Thats just me though.
I'm sure most everyone knows my take on this subject, and not nearly everyone agrees with it. None the less, here it is.
I don't care how good a shot one is, or how hard one tries, bad hits are going to happen. When things go badly, the bow one chooses to use makes absolutely no difference at all. The things that do matter are the skills and knowledge of the hunter himself (as gehrke145 states) and the arrow he or she chooses to hunt with.
I bowhunted for 24 years without keeping any kill records; but I do have them - in painstaking detail - for the last 26 years. Across those last 26 years, with traditional archery gear, I have a big-game wound-loss rate of 0.638%. Don't misread that. It is ZERO POINT 638 PERCENT; or an equivilent wound-loss rate of 6.38 animals per one-thousand HITS.
The actuality of the numbers is four hit and non-recovered big game animals against 623 hit and recovered big game animals; regardless of the reason for non-recovery. One of those four was purloined by other hunters, and three simply went where I could not follow (one into a deep water swamp and two into uncrossable mud flats). Nonetheless, and allowing no excuses whatsoever, those four animals I did hit and I did fail to personally recover. They were wounded by me and not recovered by me. They count as wounded and lost; and that is as it should be. No 'assuming' that a hit animal is going to fully recover from a hypothetical 'non-lethal' hit just because we didn't, or couldn't, locate it.
I'm absolutely convinced that the major reasons for the high wound/loss rate(s) consistently shown by the many studies of bowhunted game are: (1) the arrow setups most commonly used by bowhunters and (2) the skills and knowledge of the hunter(s) involved. Those two reasons are closely interrelated, and some might reverse the order of the two; and I certainly could not say they were wrong, Regardless of the order of reasons, neither are insurmountable obstacles.
For years I did terminal ballistic studies on rifle bullets. My traditional archery wound-loss rate is LOWER than that for the animals I've taken with firearms. It is also lower than that of any of my friends, acquaintances or hunting partners who use compound bows. That's not putting any of them down. That are all learning and getting better by the year. My own wound-loss rate wasn't all that great during the years I was learning "how to hunt".
It's up to each hunter to look after out sport. Bowhunting is essentially a one-on-one exercise; hunter verses the quarry. We each make many, many choices that directly affect our individual success rate; and we each must live with each and every one of those choices. It is each hunter's responsibility to educate himself and act accordingly. That's something that can never be cured by a law written on a piece of paper. WE EACH ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PASS ALONG WHAT WE KNOW TO THOSE THAT FOLLOW IN OUR FOOTSTEPS; AND THAT TOO IS BEST DONE ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS.
It's all up to each of us. We must each do our own part. Hunting is, and always will be, personal; for however long the right to hunt survives ... and that depends on US!
Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow
I have no clue about anyone but myself but my recovrery rate has been a lot higher since I started shooting stickbows.Mostly I contribute that to stickbows being more fun to shoot so I shoot more often.The other is the simple fact I continue to gain experiance each day I hunt and learned over the years sometimes it is best not to shoot.I kill on my own terms now when all the cards are stacked in my favor instead on just trying to fill tags.jmo
I have to agree with Dr.Ashby.....
Unfortunately "Bad Hits" DO happen. They happen with bows (both traditional AND compound) and also with guns. Over the years I have also seen a fair share of GOOD hits on deer where the animal was not recovered right away,but found several days later hideing in a blowdown,thick brush,and even one found in a little "cave" under an overhanging piece of rock ledge,and one in the hole left by the roots of a toppled tree.
If you think a buck can hide while your hunting him,just think of where he's going to try and hide AFTER you hit him!!!!!
I HONESTLY believe that NONE of us are so caloused as to just fling arrows at deer,then only make a "half a$$ed" atempt at recovering one after we do hit something.
We all try our best to make the best shot we can.....then follow the trail untill the end.....
But, sometimes.....the trail is empty. Not by our own fault,but through fate.
All we can do.....is the BEST we can.
I firmly believe that ALL of us do our absolute best. If we didn't,I don't believe that we would be hunting.
As far as hunting ethics... i feel that traditional hunters win hands down. A lost deer doesnt always mean a "bad hit". It is our responsibility as bowhunters to do everything possible to minimize bad hits..Bad hits do happen with guns, compounds, and tradgear... If you've practiced enough, took a responsible shot within your range, and gave a valid effort to recover the animal. That is all that we can do..... A loose projectile doesnt guarantee a dead animal...So at sometime even the best shots or hunters will not be able to recover an animal. At that point , you go home play the scenario over and over , go back out look some more, and if you arent able to recover. Just remember ...nothing goes to waste in nature... Get back out and go hunting and fill the freezer.
All the studies have shown that recovery rates are the same across all weapons used for hunting. Every group has those that range from very proficient to folks who need more practice/experience.
I have been a compound hunter for 17 years prior to switching over to traditional only, and I have lost a few animals using my compound. I have yet to take a shot I was " comfortable" with my recurve. I personally feel that no matter how you choose to hunt, SHOT PLACEMENT IS SHOT PLACEMENT. It is ultimatly up to the hunter to put the shot where it belongs. A recurve, longbow, selfbow ect.. Will kill just as fast as a rifle,compound, or shotgun... Put the shot where it need to be period! Just my .02
Ray... Oh no! I think I'm a pygmy!! :D
Compound shooters take a lot of Hail Mary shots a traditionalist wouldn't !
Doc, I agree, Bad hits do happen, bad luck happens. What I meant earlier is that the hunter needs to work hard to eliminate as much of the potential for a bad hit on their end. As in, becoming as good a shot as possible, and knowing what kind of shots your are competent in taking, proper shot angles, proper equipment, etc. This goes for any weapon. Even if you could hit a 3-d target in the eyeball at a hundred yards with a bow, bad hits still happen. Game animals aren't made out of foam, they tend to move around a bit. Limbs get in the way, rain washes away blood, arrow/broadhead failure. Stuff happens. I've shot many deer in the last twenty years(most with compound). I recovered all but one. I can attribute that record to some great shots and some even greater tracking(yes, there were a few bad hits, remember stuff happens). Tracking game is often overlooked as a needed skill. I was fortunate to learn how to track from a couple of men who treated every animal as if it were a world record. They were relentless trackers. Its something everyone should try to become proficient at. There are some good books out on the subject. Wounding and loss will never be eliminated, but it can be greatly reduced.
David
I agree more with Ed's thoughtful piece.
People are people. Equipment notwithstanding. Some folks are more reckless. I've known guys in "rifle camps" upstate that shot across a valley and the buck didn't fall down with their high power rifle, so they 'assumed' they missed--and didn't "follow the shot".
If the camp didn't require we all go back there to check, I didn't return to hunt with that camp. Guess what, I no longer hunt "rifle camps". Do the math.
People are different. You have folks who are less devoted in any weapon group. I will let my own prejudice come out and say that from my years in traditional, I find that the "ethics" (attitudes, dedication, morals, whatever you call it) toward doing the "right thing" at all costs, seems to follow traditional archery.
I would guess those that take the "easy way out" aren't inclined to go to the trouble of "doing it the hard way" that trad equipment seems to conjur up.
I want to believe that trad hunters try harder to be good, take closer shots, and do their best to track and find hit game.
Having said that... I have not found that trad hunters (that I've hunted with) are that much better at actually tracking wounded game though! I don't see a major difference from the general hunting public with other weapons among when it comes to wounded game tracking skills. Like every thing else, some are better and can unravel a trail and some trad hunters, not so much.
That alone might be one area of our sport of trad hunting that we leave out of our emphasis of development...
We don't see many threads on how to become a better wounded game tracker, but lots on how to improve our shooting, our equipment choices, etc.
Our next frontier? learning to track wounded game?
I've seen poor shots recovered by a group or an individual with great tracking skills...and I've found bloated critters with great shots in them, just someone wasn't good at tracking.
I'm not bad, but I would welcome as much input on how to track wounded critters as we all share here on every other aspect of equipment and shooting!
Afterall, it's not lost till you can't follow the track and find it...might THAT be the big variable?
Everyone can, has , or will make a bad shot. It's just part of the sport and a fact that we cannot argue.
I hate generalizations made about people based on their equipment. I shot a compound for 20+ years before I picked up a trad bow. Am I magically a better person for doing so? No, the same dedication, ethics and morals I had then are still with me.
I think it's like anything else. One gets back what they put in to it. Those that put countless hours towards learning and mastering their chosen tool will have better results then someone that does not, regrdless of the tool mastered
It simply all comes down to Numbers and probabilities.
100 traditional archers shoot at a buck at their comfort level ~ 15 yards
and
10,000 compound archers shoot at a buck at their comfort level ~ 28 yards.
The numbers will always show that compound archers wound more deer due to the sheer unbalance of number of hunters. Throw rifle hunters into the mix, and ofcourse they will wound the most.
But the thing that is the only measureable variable is the percentage of trad archers wounding, compared to the percentage of compound archers wounding. I would venture to say that the percentages are probably quit similiar.
Simply due to the fact that there are people that shoot traditional that will only take a 15 yard and in shot due to a 98.65% hit rate on the target bag. Do I feel comfortable shooting at 20??? ofcourse... but my hit percentage on the target bag is only ~ 85% at that distance. Are there people out there with trad equip that don't gauge their Yardage to Hit percentage... ofcourse, and do they shoot at distances that their percentage is less than stellar... ofcourse.
The example above relates to compounds, cross-bows, rifles, and even shot-guns while small gameing.
How do you increase your chances of not wounding an animal? I am a firm believer that if you hunt from the ground, you should practice shooting from your knees/seat. This applies to treestands as well. Practice how you hunt. Take 10 arrows a day and shoot at a certain distance. (cold, not warming up) Keep a rolling average of your Vital Hit Percentage, and if you are not keeping a 95% or above, you have no business taking the shot in the woods.
Now the unexpected always happens like many have said. This past season I missed two of the largest bucks I've seen in the woods back to back days. One from the ground at 10 yards (He jumped my string) and one from a tree-stand at 15 yards (shot under him). I was very very fortunate to have 2 clean misses.
Did I practice every single day for those shots... yes. And did I hold a 95% shot rate or above on both scenarios... yes to the ground buck. I barely practiced shooting from a stand during the off-season and I definetely should not have taken the shot. Emotions, Excitment, and overwhelming desire to make up for the previous days miss all weighed in me taking a shot that I had no business taking. I was 2 inches away from having a wounded buck on my hands. But you can bet the bank that I will never again take a shot in the woods that I KNOW I can make 95 times out of 100 or more.
All-in-all, we as hunters have the ability to increase our odds of success over failure with practice and a concrete gauge to make and educated decision as to which shot is feasable for the hunter, equipment, and situation.
cnphg: In the studies I referred to, the wouldning percentage is not similar. High tech compound shooters had the highest percentage of wounding, followed by finger shooting compound shooters, followed by traditional hunters. These aren't my opinions, these are facts.
I can't help but wonder about the accuracy of these studies/surveys, etc. No one ever asked me(or anyone else that I know or have ever met) about our kill/wound ratios. It doesn't surprise me that a study published in TBM would show that traditional archers have a higher kill:wound ratio. I'd bet the survey results published in another magazine(say Bow and Bowhunting) might be different if that magazine catered to compound shooters.
Not trying to be a smarta**, just saying that I don't put a lot of trust in such studies. Coming from the medical field, I can tell you that you can manipulate a study to reveal whatever results you want(ie. to sell whatever product you want)
I'll bet that the study was based on the "honesty" of those surveyed. That in itself makes the results unreliable.
Just something to think about.
the first year I hunted with a gun I saw a hunter shoot at a herd of about 50 deer. He shot and shot and shot.. and after the deer ran off the 'hunter' turned and walked away. I asked him if he was going to look for blood trails; and he said 'kid- this is a 7mm - it will drop a deer in its tracks- and none fell'.
I went to where the deer had been and tracked down a half dozen deer to where they fell.
I do not know about miss rates- and hit and loss rates.
If a deer is out there 40 yards; and you shoot at it; the chances go down you will see a hit- compared to an up close shot. So; we are looking at most studies that do not number arrows and inspect them before and after a hunt.
So; we don't know if a person said he missed and actually hit an animal - and we only hear if they 'hit and lost' one.
Then too; for some it is better to hit and have the animal get away; than to miss.
Even if they missed.
Point is we are not out there to miss or lose animals we shoot at. It happens- I am not an exception to the 'hit and loss reality'.
But I am not out there to wound; I am out there to kill an animal quickly. I think the vast majority of all hunters are.
Not every basketball goes through the hoop; not every football pass hits the target; not every golf shot is a hole in one.
Antihunters hit animals with their cars; and they had no intent to injure or kill- but they do.
For all of us; some days are diamond; and some days are stone.
Thanks for all the replies guys. I have to agree with PSEman that, I have my doubts about any studies conducted and the numbers that are quoted thereafter, especially in something that would have to be retrospective such as gathering data from different types of hunters with different weapons in uncontrolled conditions.
Ray,
Thank you for your response. I must say that this fellow, with his limited experience, is a good friend of mine; he does have limited experience with traditional archers also. However, we all form opinions based on personal experiences no matter how limited. If you are robbed in a parking deck you don't return 14 more times to the same spot to see if it happens again so that you can make informed decisions based on numerous trials; no you make an assumptions, limited as it may be, that you won't return to that spot if possible during an hour that puts you at risk. I realize this situation is abstract, but I am sure you understand my point.
My friend is drawing conclusions based on his experience witnessing the shooting of several "accomplished" tradtional archers: one who has been very successful at traditional archery competitions and another who is a well-known writer in the traditional column of one of, if not the most, popular bowhunting magazines in the world.
Thanks to everyone for you help.
fd