I am seemingly addicted to challenge and when not challenged by something I get bored quickly. Two things have never let me down with regard to challenge and thusly have both held my interest for many years….bowhunting big game and running ultramarathons. Which brings me to a question I get asked often, which is tougher? Bowhunting or running extreme distances in the mountains. It's tough to answer but I'll try. With running "all" you must overcome is yourself. If you keep pushing, for miles, hours and days, you'll be successful. In bowhunting you must also overcome yourself, while oftentimes in mountain solitude, subjected to harsh weather and unforgiving country and also get within bow range of a mature animal that is very good at staying alive, has avoided more lethal predators than man, survived unrelenting weather and calls that unforgiving country that has broken down many good men…home. And, once in bow range you must deliver an arrow with precision taking out the beast's vitals. Once he is down, the animal is processed and packed off the mountain, which can be a daunting challenge in and of itself. It probably sounds like I'm leaning towards bowhunting being the greater challenge? Perhaps. But in bowhunting one isn't typically pushing to the depths of their physical, mental and emotional ability for multiple days on an unhealthy level sleep/rest. The ultra challenge won't allow adequate rest but you must push anyway. The weakest body parts for a 200 mile runner is from the neck up and the ankles down. Runners hallucinate, get dehydrated and undernourished, question themselves and their purpose and are forced to run on feet that are swollen, blistered and sore. I remember saying I can't walk, but I'm going to run 100 more miles. So, ultras are tougher then? The answer…I don't know, but I do know I love both disciplines for the challenge they offer. I also like that the chances of getting rich or famous from either is remote so if you do them it's simply because of passion. Thoughts?