harps4590:
You did a fine job of expressing your perspective. And to paraphrase your point- although many of us consume what we kill, most of us do not hunt to survive as Mesolithic man was forced to do. Following in the footsteps of Pope, Young, Bear, Hill, et al, we originally chose to walk this path for the challenge. At least we originally used the notion of this SELF-IMPOSED CHALLENGE to convince wildlife agencies to give us significantly longer hunting seasons than those who chose to hunt with less challenging weapons. With regard to this pursuit of CHALLENGE, the recurves and longbow I shoot today - high tech glue or not - are no less CHALLENGING to shoot than bows used thousands of years ago.
Left unchecked, "Degrees of difference" most often have the effect of taking us further away from our established goals. I believe that all too often, bowhunters forget - or worse, enter the woods without ever knowing - what that original goal was. If someone truly believes that cams, cables, triggers, laser sights and 85% let-offs, (which is really just a way to reduce the CHALLENGE and effort associated with physically holding the full weight of a bow by 85%, isn't it?) are "degrees of difference" that are good for bowhunting, in my experience there is no convincing that person otherwise.
I often wonder how many bowhunters would be in the woods today if the non-traditional bow was never invented?