# Proficiency Test Proponents--A Question



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Where do you draw the line? 

Here in MS, you need a fishing license to bowfish. Should I have to pass a proficiency test in order to get my fishing license?

How about my small game license? Some states will let you hunt hogs with just a small game license. How about if you only want to hunt small game--squirrel, rabbit, pheasant--should you be required to prove you can hit a small target that probably will be on the move when you shoot at it?

What if you get a Sportsman's License (all game hunt and fish)? What if you only hunt on private land?

What if you just want a primitive weapons license? Should you have to qualify with a bow, even though you just want to use black powder?

The list could grow and grow, especially if you involve the gov't. Still think it's a great idea? Why or why not?

For some reason I don't expect most of the proponents to reply........


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

Lets kill this thread right now before it escalates into insanity like the last 2 threads on the exact same topic.
I hate to see more valuable members get banned.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I really don't expect this one to go anywhere. The questions are too "hard", the answers too obvious. That was done on purpose, to illustrate a point. I'll be surprised to get a reply from any of the proponents.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Problem is people make blanket statements without thinking them through, its not as simple as a basic proficiency test. Don't need them, everyone should determine their own limits.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

If they're getting banned, they're not valuable members.

I see no problem with a profeciency test for hunting. I think it would go a long way in helping the hunting community show that it is attempting to rid itself of unethical hunters. I don't see why anyone would have a problem proving that they can hit within a kill zone of any intended game...maybe there are a lot of people that simply aren't up to the task.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Since we aren't locked yet I'll comment. I spent 25 years hunting a very secure miltitary installation that was crawling with deer, big deer. In order hunt we had to pass a shooting proficiency test and an equipment test. The shooting test was 5 arrows from 10-20 yards, two being from a tree stand into cardboard deer silouettes with invisible vitals. I can't remember the hits we had to have, maybe all 5. They had a broadhead sharpness test where they cut rubber bands, broadhead alignment test where they spun them, quiver safety check, name written between the fletching on all arrows.

I do admit it made you buckle down and practice before showing up or you didn't get to hunt that year and that would have been tragic. I always sweated my sponsor not passing. The equipment check was good in that it covered the bases but we learned to use screw in broadheads and put in 3 bladed Wasps to pass the test and then switch to whatever you wanted to use.

I also realize this would be almost impossible to do statewide. Not enough manpower, time or money to do it. It did weed out the incompetents though.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Here in MS, you need a fishing license to bowfish. Should I have to pass a proficiency test in order to get my fishing license?
> 
> ...


This is why I don't take you guys seriously. :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

irishhacker said:


> Lets kill this thread right now before it escalates into insanity like the last 2 threads on the exact same topic.
> I hate to see more valuable members get banned.


You don't believe a question on proficiency has any place in hunting do you... Why is that? Is it your "God Given Right" that you cannot exercise freely or is it just that you feel threatened by having to prove who you are?


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> You don't believe a question on proficiency has any place in hunting do you... Why is that? Is it your "God Given Right" that you cannot exercise freely or is it just that you feel threatened by having to prove who you are?


Lol.. nice try


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> I really don't expect this one to go anywhere. The questions are too "hard", the answers too obvious. That was done on purpose, to illustrate a point. I'll be surprised to get a reply from any of the proponents.


What is hard about it... You are part of an "entitled" society. What does proficiency have to do with hunting. How do you do it. Too much trouble. Too much government. Too few people to do it... blah blah blah... its actually pathetic.... Effective range... up hill, downhill, darkness, lightness, squirrel, bear, deer, rabbit... another pathetic obfuscation. The question is, should you be able to hit what you aim at given the best of circumstances. It's a simple standard.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

irishhacker said:


> Lol.. nice try


Proficiency is a necessity, don't you think?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Like I said...the questions are too "hard", the answers too obvious. I didn't account for straw men and blathering though.



> The question is, should you be able to hit what you aim at given the best of circumstances.


No, that's not the question at all. It's a common tactic to try and change the question, especially when you can't honestly address the one that was asked.

The question is, where do you draw the line? Should you be tested in order to get a fishing license? You can bowfish in MS with a fishing license. Should you be tested for a small game license? If so, should the test include shots you are likely to encounter with small game? Should you be required to pass a test with a bow even if you don't own a bow, because the license you bought would allow you to use a bow?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

LBR said:


> Like I said...the questions are too "hard", the answers too obvious. I didn't account for straw men and blathering though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even more importantly…..WHO would set the criteria for passing said proficiency test? To think for even a minute that political leanings would not find their way to such an issue is foolish. Within a short period of time after implementation of such a test, the bar would be set at a level impossible for anybody to pass.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Good point.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Haha.... here the proponents were thought to stay home from this thread... and yet it is the proponents here and the anti's staying home... :grin:

What is lacking from all of these questions is an actual, honest, debate not on whether proficiency is necessary, because it is, not on whether you should demonstrate it, because ethically you have to, and not on whether it has a place in hunting, but on how do you promote proficiency, how do you make it part of a curricula, practice sessions, competitions, and what have you, how do you promote proficiency for hunting, how do you educate new hunters in tuning with broadheads and spine, how do you exert peer pressure, so to speak, to assure we have responsible hunters out in the field. These are things all hunters need to challenge themselves on and to encourage a universal basis. This is my opinion, and apparently mine alone.... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Like I said...the questions are too "hard", the answers too obvious. I didn't account for straw men and blathering though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you are playing games again...


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> Haha.... here the proponents were thought to stay home from this thread... and yet it is the proponents here and the anti's staying home... :grin:
> 
> What is lacking from all of these questions is an actual, honest, debate not on whether proficiency is necessary, because it is, not on whether you should demonstrate it, because ethically you have to, and not on whether it has a place in hunting, but on how do you promote proficiency, how do you make it part of a curricula, practice sessions, competitions, and what have you, how do you promote proficiency for hunting, how do you educate new hunters in tuning with broadheads and spine, how do you exert peer pressure, so to speak, to assure we have responsible hunters out in the field. These are things all hunters need to challenge themselves on and to encourage a universal basis. *This is my opinion, and apparently mine alone.*... :grin:


Of course it is not your opinion alone. I know a bunch of people that help newer hunters with their equipment and knowledge of a regular basis. In fact, I mentioned on the last thread that I do this myself……sometimes more than I care to.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What is lacking from all of these questions is an actual, honest,....


ANSWER. You can provide more chatter than the parakeet section in a pet store, but can you provide just one straightforward, honest answer? Of course not, because it blows your stance out of the water.

You can ridicule the questions, try to change them, start with the name calling...but at the end of the day, that's all you have.


----------



## Thermodude (Dec 15, 2011)

LBR said:


> ANSWER. You can provide more chatter than the parakeet section in a pet store, but can you provide just one straightforward, honest answer? Of course not, because it blows your stance out of the water.
> 
> You can ridicule the questions, try to change them, start with the name calling...but at the end of the day, that's all you have.


Actually he is very clear in what he is sayin.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> ANSWER. You can provide more chatter than the parakeet section in a pet store, but can you provide just one straightforward, honest answer? Of course not, because it blows your stance out of the water.
> 
> You can ridicule the questions, try to change them, start with the name calling...but at the end of the day, that's all you have.


Oh... really... what is that question there LBR... that will blow me out of the water.... and what IS my stance.... this is funny... actually... you are going in circles... but ask me a legitimate question...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CAPTJJ said:


>


hahaha.... we got these in my yard....

View attachment 1764604


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Thermodude said:


> Actually he is very clear in what he is sayin.


And what exactly is that... I notice you didn't bother to mention it... :grin:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I guess each state would have to deal with these issues in its own way but until people accept that hunting is a privilege not a right, these threads are pointless.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> I guess each state would have to deal with these issues in its own way but until people accept that hunting is a privilege not a right, these threads are pointless.


I understand hunting is not a right, at least not by law. Continuing to ignore the fact that any testing criteria would be corrupted in short order does no good.

Again, we are talking about an animal here, not a human being. I will take care of my proficiency and ethics…..you take care of yours.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Big Country said:


> Of course it is not your opinion alone. I know a bunch of people that help newer hunters with their equipment and knowledge of a regular basis. In fact, I mentioned on the last thread that I do this myself……sometimes more than I care to.


And I do too. It is a reality that we are replenishing our numbers at a rate of 66/100. We are introducing Families Afield to Hawaii to help encourage more youth, new hunters and introduce unexposed adults to hunting. Our hunting licenses are stagnant here in Hawaii as they are in many other states, if you can believe the surveys. And speaking of surveys, are you aware of the latest surveys conducted regarding various bans for hunting like with dogs, for bear and cats, or over bait, or the introduction of wolves into your hunting area, or attitudes towards hunting in general. Some of the news is good, none of it great, and some of it is bad!

So who ultimately should gauge your proficiency? Most people don't care it seems, but as I've mentioned before on this subject here in this forum, peer review is the best most effective means of improving something and certainly is borne out by competitions, classes, and seminars besides in the workplace for safety... when there is a stake in the game!


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> And I do too. It is a reality that we are replenishing our numbers at a rate of 66/100. We are introducing Families Afield to Hawaii to help encourage more youth, new hunters and introduce unexposed adults to hunting. Our hunting licenses are stagnant here in Hawaii as they are in many other states, if you can believe the surveys. And speaking of surveys, are you aware of the latest surveys conducted regarding various bans for hunting like with dogs, for bear and cats, or over bait, or the introduction of wolves into your hunting area, or attitudes towards hunting in general. Some of the news is good, none of it great, and some of it is bad!
> 
> So who ultimately should gauge your proficiency? Most people don't care it seems, but as I've mentioned before on this subject here in this forum, peer review is the best most effective means of improving something and certainly is borne out by competitions, classes, and seminars besides in the workplace for safety... when there is a stake in the game!



Hunting will ultimately perish from within our own ranks. Take it to the bank. Too many hunters are selfish. If it isn`t the way they hunt, not only do they not care if it comes under attack, often times hunters will lead the charge against it. Hunting methods/traditions are regional in nature, just because a method is foreign to my area does not mean it is wrong.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Big Country said:


> Hunting will ultimately perish from within our own ranks. Take it to the bank. Too many hunters are selfish. If it isn`t the way they hunt, not only do they not care if it comes under attack, often times hunters will lead the charge against it. Hunting methods/traditions are regional in nature, just because a method is foreign to my area does not mean it is wrong.


yup... and hunters are the best at it too... after all they are trained... :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> So who ultimately should gauge your proficiency?


Fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, friends and ultimately the individual....NOT government.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, friends and ultimately the individual....NOT government.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> ...


Are we not a government by the people? :grin: You know... Fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, friends and individuals.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, friends and ultimately the individual....NOT government.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> ...


Last I heard, those folks are government.... maybe not the folks we want at times, when out liberties are being challenged, but then, the folks we do want at times when our liberties are being threatened, but all in all, they are us.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> Last I heard, those folks are government.... maybe not the folks we want at times, when out liberties are being challenged, but then, the folks we do want at times when our liberties are being threatened, but all in all, they are us.


What... are you NSA... :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Last I heard, those folks are government.... maybe not the folks we want at times, when out liberties are being challenged, but then, the folks we do want at times when our liberties are being threatened, but all in all, they are us.


You completely miss the point if you believe those people are government.

They are family...who know each other better than some stranger trying to make laws!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You completely miss the point if you believe those people are government.
> 
> They are family...who know each other better than some stranger trying to make laws!
> 
> ...


So how would these people who are not government determine proficiency in your opinion?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> So how would these people who are not government determine proficiency in your opinion?


Is this a serious question? :lol:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I'll add my piece here as we have just been allowed Bowhunting from 1st July.

The Estonian Bowhunting Assoc got the laws passed, it will require a Bowhunter course and shooting test at the end, they used other 10 European Bowhunting countries as models (it's just they way it's done this side of the pond) The tests and license is done by the EBA and not the Gov, in effect it's self governed.

The shooting test is 6 3Ds and you have to hit the vitals on every shot (with field points), last 3D I did I averaged 8.6 over 2 days on 68 3D's with the Orion off the shelf, so I'm not too concerned about taking any test.

I understand it's a big deal in the USA as so many shooters have shot for years without ever having to prove their shooting ability, I had the same feeling after shooting for 14 years and when tried to join a Field club they said I had to do a proficiency test, joke being I was already a National/World champion lol I did even bother with the club after that.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Big Country said:


> Is this a serious question? :lol:


 :grin: Well that *is* what everyone seems to having heartburn over... there are numerous ways to promote proficiency in my opinion that are meaningful and focus the hunter, and that is my primary focus here, target shooters are automatically gauged, 3d are automatically gauged, clubs may or may not involve proficiency acknowledgement and training, the several here I'm aware of do. I'd volunteer that it is an "interest" quotient involved as well. But I've a dozen opinions on any one subject... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> I'll add my piece here as we have just been allowed Bowhunting from 1st July.
> 
> The Estonian Bowhunting Assoc got the laws passed, it will require a Bowhunter course and shooting test at the end, they used other 10 European Bowhunting countries as models (it's just they way it's done this side of the pond) The tests and license is done by the EBA and not the Gov, in effect it's self governed.
> 
> ...


you did or didn't bother with them after that... and why? :grin:


----------



## Thermodude (Dec 15, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> And what exactly is that... I notice you didn't bother to mention it... :grin:


Rattus.......I was referring to you. Ive had no problem undrstanding anything you have said.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Thermodude said:


> Rattus.......I was referring to you. Ive had no problem undrstanding anything you have said.


 :grin: Well I'll keep that in mind... sometimes I need a translator.. :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> So how would these people who are not government determine proficiency in your opinion?


Do you know how to be a good parent or a good mentor?

If you do...than you already know the answer to your own question.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Country said:


> I understand hunting is not a right, at least not by law. Continuing to ignore the fact that any testing criteria would be corrupted in short order does no good.
> 
> Again, we are talking about an animal here, not a human being. I will take care of my proficiency and ethics…..you take care of yours.


Corrupted by who? If its run by hunters for hunters who do you not trust?


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

LBR said:


> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Here in MS, you need a fishing license to bowfish. Should I have to pass a proficiency test in order to get my fishing license?
> 
> ...


I don't think that it is unreasonable to be ask to prove that you have some basic proficiency with any weapon before you are allowed to go out and attempt to kill things with it.

Of course you don't need a fishing test, since if you are a bad fisherman you just don't catch anything, it is not like you wound anything with a bad cast.

Generally, one test would be sufficient. If you are good enough to hit a squirrel, you are probably fine with a hog. And the test is not to see if you can run and shoot. It is only to see if a person knows which end of the bow is loaded and can hit something at some distance. If the person is ethically challenged and wants to try a running shot at 90 meters there is not much anyone can do for him. But it should not be asking too much to see him hit a standing target at some range at least some of the time.

Sure, there should be a test for black powder, muzzle loader and cartridge, along with smokeless powder. I have been on the rifle range with guys who could not hit a phone booth if they were inside. 

The concept could be expanded to those who wanted to throw spears, knives, or hatchets. If you can demonstrate proficiency you should be able to hunt with it.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> Corrupted by who? If its run by hunters for hunters who do you not trust?


Hunters do not make laws, so hunters would not be making any test that was enforceable.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Do you know how to be a good parent or a good mentor?
> 
> If you do...than you already know the answer to your own question.
> 
> ...


Really.... :grin:... I'm certain... and in the immortal words of Merisa Tomei of my Cousin Vinny... Are you sure.... Are you really really sure.... :grin:

Look Bro... my opinion of me and the other residents... might actually differ from yours... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Big Country said:


> Hunters do not make laws, so hunters would not be making any test that was enforceable.


that isn't entirely correct. Most States have a Commission who are guided by the public and like golf, baseball, whatever, there are all sorts of ways to demonstrate proficiency that can be verifiable through random survey too... use the imagination.. be creative... rather than the typical response to this... :grin:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> If they're getting banned, they're not valuable members.


I beg to differ.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Do you know how to be a good parent or a good mentor?
> 
> If you do...than you already know the answer to your own question.
> 
> ...


But there's no proficiency test required in order to be a parent or a mentor. Maybe that's where we should start? That could solve some real problems and even save human lives. ok, it would be an end to liberty but, as we can see, there are a lot of people who don't value liberty all that much anyway.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> that isn't entirely correct. Most States have a Commission who are guided by the public.


And answer to politicians…….show me a single state who has a game commission/DNR that does not ultimately fall under the complete control of a bureaucracy.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> But there's no proficiency test required in order to be a parent or a mentor. Maybe that's where we should start? That could solve some real problems and even save human lives. ok, it would be an end to liberty but, as we can see, there are a lot of people who don't value liberty all that much anyway.


 End to liberty... hahahahahahahaha... please... explain liberty to me... And don't give me this tripe about not being able to go hunting is an end to liberty....


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Big Country said:


> And answer to politicians…….show me a single state who has a game commission/DNR that does not ultimately fall under the complete control of a bureaucracy.


There are many states that have a DNR answering to a Commission and hunters directly petition the Commission. Don't you do that in your state? I remember working with some folks on crossbows in PA.. did that not go into effect?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> End to liberty... hahahahahahahaha... please... explain liberty to me... And don't give me this tripe about not being able to go hunting is an end to liberty....


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Two pages, not one straight answer yet. What a surprise...not.

I'll type slower, and try to make the question even easier to understand.

If you buy a license that would allow you to use a bow and arrow, should you be required to qualify with that weapon?

If you buy a fishing license and that allows you to bowfish, should you be required to take a bowfishing proficiency test, whether you plan to bowfish or not?

If you buy a small game licence for bird or rabbit hunting, should you be required to pass a proficiency test with a bow and arrows, even though you only hunt with a shotgun?

Etc. etc. etc. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? It's a simple question. Obviously not so simple to answer.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Big Country said:


> Hunters do not make laws, so hunters would not be making any test that was enforceable.


BC, every hunting test I ever took was administered by the local Fish and Game agency of the given state. In my case Florida and Maine. It was the game officials who authored the written tests - not some legislator in state government who might not hunt or understand the subject. It's always fish and game people who get into that line of work because they like the outdoors and hunting and fishing.

Any shooting test (like the written test) would be composed and administered by Fish and Game officials because the legislators in office wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on at the boots-on-the-ground level. I wouldn't worry about the F&G officials not being on our side. If a person is that paranoid (to think the F&G people are against hunters) than there is nothing anyone can say to calm your fears.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty


Hahahahaha.... this is laughable.. I didn't think you'd have an answer...


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Very simple to answer your questions
NO
NO
NO

Gary


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

F&G enforces the game laws, they don't author them. They may or may not have any input. 

I'm surprised this thread got so many posts. Not the least bit surprised that not a one of them even begins to offer an answer to the simple questions asked.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> NOT government.


:thumbs_up

Who would be doing the testing & training? That would be an enlightening answer...


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

LBR the reason that no one might have a completely straight answer to those question YET is because the only CURRENT one is
I don't know.
Process should be simple, debate until you come up with an answer. That's what every reasonable person does. If you intend to ask a question that affects what many people can do, you ought to allow those people to think and talk about it first, eh?
According to me, it should be rather simple. If you want to get hunting license for bowhunting, you should have to take a proficiency test. Where do you draw the line? Which licenses should require tests and which shouldn't? that is indeed a good question, it is unreasonable to think you have to pass a proficiency test to go fishing with a reel. It's harmless if you don't catch something, and the test would be next to impossible to do. The thing is though, I rather think there are only a few circumstances that this could come into question. There are some obvious ones like fishing that the answer should be immediate. It's only with a few gray area ones like the small game, in which case the answer to your long string of questions is again, at least for me...
I don't know. Yet.
It's a good question, but don't demand an immediate answer. That's reckless.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Chad, my answer is a big NO to all of the above. And I do understand where you were going with this. How "governed" do you guys want to be?? I live in a FREE country and "Governed" and "Free" are on oposite ends of the spectrum as it applies to this subject. Amazing to me that any American, born and raised here, would think something like this was ok. I stated my opinion on the other thread about this, I'll fail on purpose and be hanging 18 ft in a White Oak the next morning. Speck


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I'm not demanding an immediate answer--just making fun of the attacks that were anything but answers.

I personally am against proficiency tests. Them prove nothing, and would likely keep as many good hunters out of the woods as bad. I'm not in favor of giving the gov't more control over my life.

Some of the excuses before were "it wouldn't cost anything". For my state, pretty much every law concerning hunting, fishing, and licenses would have to be re-written...plus hire people to do the testing...plus hire more people to enforce the laws...it would be yet another never-ending bureaucracy, and to what end?

What animals are deemed worthy of a proficiency test? Who gets to decide?

One big complaint is our numbers are going down--so making it harder and more intimidating to get a license is going to fix that????

Finally, who is foolish enough to believe that making us jump through any number of hoops is going to satisfy the anti-hunters?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

LBR said:


> who is foolish enough to believe that making us jump through any number of hoops is going to satisfy the anti-hunters?


They want hunting banned, nothing else will satisfy them.

The big problem is archers themselves, look at the attitude of some on this forum quoting how bad a % of traditional hunters are poor shots and this just adds to the justification that hunting with bows should be banned all together.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Chad, I was agreeing with you. Speck


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

For those that contend we need testing, I ask why? What exactly would the goals of proficiency testing would be? To keep hunters out of the woods so there is more room? To protect the animals we are trying to kill from being injured? To make everyone else live up to your standards? To prove that you are more worthy to hunt than others?

Other than on this board, I haven't heard any pushing for this, and I don't see it happening anytime soon in the real world.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

CAPTJJ said:


> Other than on this board, I haven't heard any pushing for this


And why is that?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Here in California, we have to attend a 1 day National Bowhunter Education Program to get our hunting license. There's blood trailing, deer anatomy, rules questions and much more. No profiency testing. I think if someone is serious enough to sign up and attend this program, then they have , at the very least, demonstrated the beginning of good ethics in the field. This program is put on by dedicated archers within our state. I have always been a proponent of testing, but, after reading a lot of arguments on both sides of the discussion, I am of the opinion that we leave any more government entities out of our hunting scene.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Guys, I live in North MS, but was born and raised in TN, which is where I do all of my hunting. Both states have mandatory hunter ed courses which I completely agree with and most of us passed at the age of 10. Shooting proficiency, totally different ballgame. Speck


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I think I'm going to do a 180 on this shooting test business. For a long time I thought archers should be tested for ability. But I've been watching lots of video footage over on Youtube of different hunters using recurves and compound bows making what looked like perfect shots only to have the animal move quickly out of the way. Many good shots ended up being poorly placed. No real fault of the shooter.

While I've never had a deer jump the string it's very clear on the Youtube videos that deer darting away on the shot is very common. It almost looked like it matters little how good a shot you are. In the end luck is more important than skill. I've always felt luck was important for locating deer - to be in the right place when deer appear. But now I'm seeing luck is just as important after the shot is made. 

So I'm out of the testing business. I don't think it matters anymore.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Stone, very true. Our southern deer endure about a 3 month gun season, with alot of folks in the woods. I bowhunt thru the whole season and you would be suprised how tricky a 10 yarder can be in December. Speck


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

We're on the same page Speck. I'm not far from Tupelo--closer to Fulton. My wife has family in Corinth, my dad used to trade at Frank Berry's place often. I need to get up there and see him.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Stone, glad you see the light! I don't agree that luck is more important than skill--skill is important, as is experience. Reading the animal so you know when to shoot can help tons. Also, aiming low so if it doesn't move you get heart, if it does you get lungs, can help--but a target won't move, so you might score outside the "kill" when in reality it would be the perfect shot. Being able to hit a target just means you can hit a target.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Chad, you and Scott used to come and shoot with me and "the Blackard boys" in Corinth. Speck


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Ok--cool! I almost made it back up there this summer, but had other obligations. Will the club be shooting next year?


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Luck more important than skill? YouTube might've melted your brain.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

No club. We died the same as the other 3 in our area. No participation. Speck


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Country said:


> Hunters do not make laws, so hunters would not be making any test that was enforceable.


Why don't they. It's hunters that run this stuff in other countries so why not in yours?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> F&G enforces the game laws, they don't author them. They may or may not have any input.
> 
> I'm surprised this thread got so many posts. Not the least bit surprised that not a one of them even begins to offer an answer to the simple questions asked.


Really... You've been given a dozen possibilities but don't recognize them for what they are.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> I'm not demanding an immediate answer--just making fun of the attacks that were anything but answers.
> 
> I personally am against proficiency tests. Them prove nothing, and would likely keep as many good hunters out of the woods as bad. I'm not in favor of giving the gov't more control over my life.
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with the Families Afield Program? That makes it easier to get into hunting... not harder. What is proficiency... that you don't want to prove? That is a fairly ridiculous statement, by the way, that proficiency tests prove nothing, they actually prove whether or not you grasp something and in some cases whether you grasp something adequately enough that you are to be trusted to do something with it. Do you have kids? Have you taught a kid how to hunt? If so, when is he ready?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> They want hunting banned, nothing else will satisfy them.
> 
> The big problem is archers themselves, look at the attitude of some on this forum quoting how bad a % of traditional hunters are poor shots and this just adds to the justification that hunting with bows should be banned all together.


So Indians were essentially olympic archers were they... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

grapplemonkey said:


> Luck more important than skill? YouTube might've melted your brain.


 hahahahaha.... you said it quite more succinctly than I was thinking.... :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CAPTJJ said:


> For those that contend we need testing, I ask why? What exactly would the goals of proficiency testing would be? To keep hunters out of the woods so there is more room? To protect the animals we are trying to kill from being injured? To make everyone else live up to your standards? To prove that you are more worthy to hunt than others?
> 
> Other than on this board, I haven't heard any pushing for this, and I don't see it happening anytime soon in the real world.


Still, nobody has said what problem they are trying to solve.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Here in California, we have to attend a 1 day National Bowhunter Education Program to get our hunting license. There's blood trailing, deer anatomy, rules questions and much more. No profiency testing. I think if someone is serious enough to sign up and attend this program, then they have , at the very least, demonstrated the beginning of good ethics in the field. This program is put on by dedicated archers within our state. I have always been a proponent of testing, but, after reading a lot of arguments on both sides of the discussion, I am of the opinion that we leave any more government entities out of our hunting scene.


 I agree with this. We do run our bow hunters through a fairly rigorous course of shooting at unmarked distances and all along with blood trailing, tracking, anatomy and the rest... but you're so far I think the only one that has recognized the obvious... :thumbs_up


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> Still, nobody has said what problem they are trying to solve.


Liberty... hahahahhaa


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Liberty... hahahahhaa


I asked the same question in the other thread and you still haven't answered.


----------



## uabdave (Mar 12, 2007)

Bigjono, its called representative government not mobocracy. It has its ups and its downs sometimes and not all parties are equally represented. Hunters are an insignificant minority. That's why you will always see me be on the side of less government. As is the case, 90% of what government does is not thought thru, thought wrong, or had bad intentions to start with. I am sure that the US is not the only place in the world where common sense is lacking in government. Game and fish do what the legislatures tell them to. They may have input but have only authority to enforce the laws as is. Here in Alabama, we have pretty good game laws, liberal hunting seasons and limits, and plenty of land. I have no real complaints, but I will say this. Based on the last archery tournament I went to, about 80% of the trad guys and gals wouldn't pass a target test, but have trophy rooms to brag about and hero photos galore. Read into that what you will, but it says proffiency testing likely wont make the trophy rooms and freezers get any fuller. Also it looks as the vast amount of bowhunters are doing well with self imposed ethics and limitations. 

Dave


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> I asked the same question in the other thread and you still haven't answered.


What is that MGF.... that being a responsible hunter tramples on your liberties.... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

uabdave said:


> Bigjono, its called representative government not mobocracy. It has its ups and its downs sometimes and not all parties are equally represented. Hunters are an insignificant minority. That's why you will always see me be on the side of less government. As is the case, 90% of what government does is not thought thru, thought wrong, or had bad intentions to start with. I am sure that the US is not the only place in the world where common sense is lacking in government. Game and fish do what the legislatures tell them to. They may have input but have only authority to enforce the laws as is. Here in Alabama, we have pretty good game laws, liberal hunting seasons and limits, and plenty of land. I have no real complaints, but I will say this. Based on the last archery tournament I went to, about 80% of the trad guys and gals wouldn't pass a target test, but have trophy rooms to brag about and hero photos galore. Read into that what you will, but it says proffiency testing likely wont make the trophy rooms and freezers get any fuller. Also it looks as the vast amount of bowhunters are doing well with self imposed ethics and limitations.
> 
> Dave


Show me ONE FISH AND GAME other than California and their lead ban and cat hunting ban, and bear with dogs ban or whatever they are pushing today.... show me ONE F&G that takes ANY instruction from the Legislature???


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Rattus, maybe you are missing the obvious as it relates to many post. I have a good dad. Speck


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

If you can't explain what problem you're trying to solve and how your proposed solution solves that problem, you don't have a discussion. You're the one suggesting change so you're the one who has questions to answer.

Until you do, the only answer you get from me is "NO!"


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> What is that MGF.... that being a responsible hunter tramples on your liberties.... :grin:



I didn't say that. I've been a responsible hunter for almost 50 years and it hasn't diminished my liberty at all. Have you had too much to drink this evening?


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, friends and ultimately the individual....NOT government.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> ...


EXACTLY. 

We have a Whitetail Management operation run by volunteers that hunt the local parks, etc. In order to hunt with that group, you have to pass a personal interview regarding your hunting ethics, and a proficiency test shooting hitting three different 3D deer targets in the vitals from an elevated stand. Now that being said, this organization is run by volunteers NOT the local authorities, and the organization has permission to hunt with the goal of controlling the suburban deer numbers, and has EARNED the right to hunt the public parks and EARNED the respect of the local authorities because of its good track record. This is a privately run organization. 

I am not a proponent of mandated proficiency testing because simply put "Who will be in control of it"? the Government? NO WAY. Hunters and citizens need to police themselves in this matter.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Speck1 said:


> Rattus, maybe you are missing the obvious as it relates to many post. I have a good dad. Speck


But did you alleged "good" dad pass a proficiency test to prove he is a good dad? LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Show me ONE FISH AND GAME other than California and their lead ban and cat hunting ban, and bear with dogs ban or whatever they are pushing today.... show me ONE F&G that takes ANY instruction from the Legislature???


Don't you think that bureaucrats should be accountable to the tax payers who pay them?


----------



## airwolf (Jul 28, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> If they're getting banned, they're not valuable members.
> 
> I see no problem with a profeciency test for hunting. I think it would go a long way in helping the hunting community show that it is attempting to rid itself of unethical hunters. I don't see why anyone would have a problem proving that they can hit within a kill zone of any intended game...maybe there are a lot of people that simply aren't up to the task.


sharp was not a valuable member? haha try again flier


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> Don't you think that bureaucrats should be accountable to the tax payers who pay them?


Bureaucrats are scientists or biologists


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Speck1 said:


> Rattus, maybe you are missing the obvious as it relates to many post. I have a good dad. Speck


Yeah... and so?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> If you can't explain what problem you're trying to solve and how your proposed solution solves that problem, you don't have a discussion. You're the one suggesting change so you're the one who has questions to answer.
> 
> Until you do, the only answer you get from me is "NO!"


I didn't start this thread. I haven't anywhere on this thread or anywhere else suggested change, and if you can find it post it.. Proficiency matters. Some places mandate proficiency... military, outfitters, and some urban deer hunting organizations. What makes me laugh, is that right here it is obvious that we have hunters aren't confident in their own proficiency enough to be willing to test it, but advocate for "liberty"... without responsibility.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

A couple of years ago I was invited to be one of the "hired deer killers" in a surburban community but I had to passed a proficiency test. 5 arrows from 25 yards into a 5" circle. It became apparent they wanted compound shooters only. I didn't even try.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Rattus, the world is not as big as your keyboard leads you to believe. Speck


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

And Rattus, sorry you weren't raised in the outdoors or you would have understood the post where I referred to my father and how it pertains to the topic. Speck


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Ok, when people's famy members start getting mentioned then the thread should die.
My final word on it is, two words I really hate in life are minimum and code, minimum code. It's not good enough for any job I get involved with yet you guys are happy for the standard of hunting to not even meet that in some cases. Fair enough, your choice but one day I have a feeling you will wish you'd acted sooner to protect hunting. It only takes public will strong enough to change political will and everything changes. Politicians only care about votes and if restricting hunting is a vote winner it's all going to change.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Speck1 said:


> And Rattus, sorry you weren't raised in the outdoors or you would have understood the post where I referred to my father and how it pertains to the topic. Speck


The point is I know what you were meaning about your daddy... what about your kids... what about YOU!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> Ok, when people's famy members start getting mentioned then the thread should die.
> My final word on it is, two words I really hate in life are minimum and code, minimum code. It's not good enough for any job I get involved with yet you guys are happy for the standard of hunting to not even meet that in some cases. Fair enough, your choice but one day I have a feeling you will wish you'd acted sooner to protect hunting. It only takes public will strong enough to change political will and everything changes. Politicians only care about votes and if restricting hunting is a vote winner it's all going to change.


That would be Speck, I spec... :grin:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Hunters and citizens need to police themselves in this matter.


Yep. Hunters need to regulate what they do on a hunt, no testing or license will change what you can or will do at the time of the shot. 

We mentioned in the last thread about getting your drivers license and how that doesn't mean that you are a competent driver just because have passed the test. Forcing hunters take a test would be exactly the same and can't guarantee competency or efficient hunting practices.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> Ok, when people's famy members start getting mentioned then the thread should die.
> My final word on it is, two words I really hate in life are minimum and code, minimum code. It's not good enough for any job I get involved with yet you guys are happy for the standard of hunting to not even meet that in some cases. Fair enough, your choice but one day I have a feeling you will wish you'd acted sooner to protect hunting. It only takes public will strong enough to change political will and everything changes. Politicians only care about votes and if restricting hunting is a vote winner it's all going to change.


You have absolutely no idea what myself or any other member here who is against proficiency testing has done to promote and preserve hunting. To make such a statement simply because some of us are not willing to allow the government to screw up one more aspect of our lives is both uneducated, and arrogant.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Yep. Hunters need to regulate what they do on a hunt, no testing or license will change what you can or will do at the time of the shot.
> 
> We mentioned in the last thread about getting your drivers license and how that doesn't mean that you are a competent driver just because have passed the test. Forcing hunters take a test would be exactly the same and can't guarantee competency or efficient hunting practices.


You all are hung up somewhere... :grin:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> You all are hung up somewhere... :grin:


Don't understand rat?


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

One guy has made 1/3 of the posts on this thread, and still hasn't answered any of the questions. Talk about hung up.:zip:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

CAPTJJ said:


> One guy has made 1/3 of the posts on this thread, and still hasn't answered any of the questions. Talk about hung up.:zip:


Oh, he has the answers, he just forgot what the question was…...


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Very likely.:shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

A question.......

Here in Estonia you cannot hunt with a gun without doing a test, so for them it was logical to do a similar course/test for Bowhunting. Do Gun hunters in the USA also just walk into the woods and hunt with no hunting safety courses and proficiency testing?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

steve morley said:


> A question.......
> 
> Here in Estonia you cannot hunt with a gun without doing a test, so for them it was logical to do a similar course/test for Bowhunting. Do Gun hunters in the USA also just walk into the woods and hunt with no hunting safety courses and proficiency testing?


While this varies from state to state, in my home state, ALL hunters must complete and Hunters Education course prior to purchasing their first hunting license. While these courses do include shooting, there is no criteria for proficiency, you just have to pass the education portion.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Same here in NY, we have a mandatory hunter safety course that includes shooting; plus there is a separate bowhunter education course that is required to bowhunt big game, whitetail deer and black bear.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CAPTJJ said:


> One guy has made 1/3 of the posts on this thread, and still hasn't answered any of the questions. Talk about hung up.:zip:


Really.... has anyone asked a question? No you all haven't... you've made a lot of inaccurate assumptions... but no questions... if you're talking about me that is... :grin:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Here is where I draw the line. .

I refuse to have to "prove myself" to be able to hunt. 

I don't give a ratts butt what any of the so called ethics police say..or try to get implemented. 

I don't live by someone else who thinks I need to...to me these folks are nothing more than egotistical morons who think they are saving the animals from bad hunters..They are 1 step away from being totally brainwashed, ,by their own rhetoric. They strive to impart their will and opinions on others, , without regard to others opionions.They discount others wishes to not have more government intrusion in our lives, because they want it...need it..demand it..and are afraid to be with out Big Brother standing over them telling them what to do, where to go, , how to hunt...

This is America. .not Europe. .Canada. or any place else..

We don't live and breath by the governments leave and are not subjects of any crown..so what many of us believe seems foreign to those who come from these places. .and is what sets us apart from them.

I for one am sick and tired of people having the audacity to object to something I might do..just because they are scared. .and want to be led around by the nose of any government. .just because they think everyone should be. 

Yes..hunting for food is a right..not a privilege. .for those who disagree. .get your heads out of your backsides. .and read the original charters of the 13 colonies and you might actually learn something of what we came from and what we fought for to gain.

Mac


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Here's a question: what inaccurate assumptions have been made? This should be easy since you claim "a lot" of them have been made.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Well said Mac.:thumbs_up


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

CAPTJJ said:


> Here's a question: what inaccurate assumptions have been made? This should be easy since you claim "a lot" of them have been made.


Well for one thing where have you seen me suggest asking for change... post it!


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mac, please.
Your opinion, yes it matters, all that. But my respect for your opinion falls at "these folks are nothing more than egotistical morons." and your reckless and generic insults that everyone (except yourself, of course) who DARES disagree with your idea obviously don't know anything about our country or where it came from. Perhaps if you tell them to go read the constitution, the charters, or the federalist papers, they might think you know what you are talking about.
I for one HAVE. And there is nothing in the federalist papers that mention hunting, though it does talk about the rights of people and bearing arms. There is an idea called the social contract, to which our founding fathers prescribed, that gives to the notion that in order to create a more stable world people would sacrifice some rights to a government for the betterment of all. To an extent of course. This is invoked in our very declaration of independence, which I have also read.

In the federalist papers it mentions that EVERY right only goes so far, and that it is up to the people to make the rules and laws that may sacrifice rights for the betterment of all. While you may take this as some terrible anti-american idea, it did actually come from our founding fathers.
While the second amendment, which we all know and love, states that in order for a well regulated militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the federalist papers actually go a little further. 
"to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress"
Now, we don't actually do everything our founding fathers would do, otherwise America would be a different place. For one, most people don't have to be trained in a practice regulated by congress to own arms, even though that is what James Madison, a stark proponent for the right to bear arms, said to do. So don't give me any sort of ad hominem attack on anybodies intelligence or knowledge of the United States in a feeble attempt to show your opinion as one above anyone else. It is annoying and reckless. I can't believe one would invoke such a reckless idea, for anyone who actually HAS read those document would know it contributes nothing to your argument.

And I'm appalled by the audacity of someone who would put,
"They strive to impart their will and opinions on others, , without regard to others opionions." and "for those who disagree. .get your heads out of your backsides" In the same post.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I didn't start this thread. I haven't anywhere on this thread or anywhere else suggested change, and if you can find it post it.. Proficiency matters. Some places mandate proficiency... military, outfitters, and some urban deer hunting organizations. What makes me laugh, is that right here it is obvious that we have hunters aren't confident in their own proficiency enough to be willing to test it, but advocate for "liberty"... without responsibility.


 What responsibility are you talking about?

I don't know about anybody else but I measure my proficiency with a bow all the time. In fact, almost every day.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Ok, when people's famy members start getting mentioned then the thread should die.
> My final word on it is, two words I really hate in life are minimum and code, minimum code. It's not good enough for any job I get involved with yet you guys are happy for the standard of hunting to not even meet that in some cases. Fair enough, your choice but one day I have a feeling you will wish you'd acted sooner to protect hunting. It only takes public will strong enough to change political will and everything changes. Politicians only care about votes and if restricting hunting is a vote winner it's all going to change.


There's something else that politicians care about and that's money. Hunting is a fairly large industry and government makes quite a bit of money on it. A lot of bureaucrats would be out of work without hunting. They're not going to let that happen.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> Show me ONE FISH AND GAME other than California and their lead ban and cat hunting ban, and bear with dogs ban or whatever they are pushing today.... show me ONE F&G that takes ANY instruction from the Legislature???


Illinois and Wisconsin.


----------



## JimPic (Apr 8, 2003)

Pennsylvania is another one. The legislature has to approve ALL game laws, bag limits, seasons, weapons


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Illinois and Wisconsin.


Well I learned something.... But maybe you could show me where to find that info here... http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JimPic said:


> Pennsylvania is another one. The legislature has to approve ALL game laws, bag limits, seasons, weapons


I was under the assumption that you all had a Game Commission in Pennsylvania... We had some contact with them on Crossbows a few years ago. To have a legislature have to approve bag limits and ares every year must be interesting... and productive... :grin:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Big Country said:


> You have absolutely no idea what myself or any other member here who is against proficiency testing has done to promote and preserve hunting. To make such a statement simply because some of us are not willing to allow the government to screw up one more aspect of our lives is both uneducated, and arrogant.


Which particular statement do you refer to? The one that says a high percentage of hunters a poor shots or that hunting priviledges are subject to political and public will because both statements are true as I see them. I know a lot of good hunters put loads back into it but they are not the ones being looked at here.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Mac, please.
> Your opinion, yes it matters, all that. But my respect for your opinion falls at "these folks are nothing more than egotistical morons." and your reckless and generic insults that everyone (except yourself, of course) who DARES disagree with your idea obviously don't know anything about our country or where it came from. Perhaps if you tell them to go read the constitution, the charters, or the federalist papers, they might think you know what you are talking about.
> I for one HAVE. And there is nothing in the federalist papers that mention hunting, though it does talk about the rights of people and bearing arms. There is an idea called the social contract, to which our founding fathers prescribed, that gives to the notion that in order to create a more stable world people would sacrifice some rights to a government for the betterment of all. To an extent of course. This is invoked in our very declaration of independence, which I have also read.
> 
> ...


If you had truely read the charters and Madison's and Jeffersons then you would have seen exactly what was said about a mans right to substance. .At that time. .was by hunting. 

Yes..I am disgusted by those who would so easily sign away any freedom and invite government intrusion in my life..and yes..to me. .they are and always will be MORONS. .

If this shoe fits you..then wear it. 

Bye the bye..look up what I am talking about. .you might not be so quick to respond. 

Mac


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Which particular statement do you refer to? The one that says a high percentage of hunters a poor shots or that hunting priviledges are subject to political and public will because both statements are true as I see them. I know a lot of good hunters put loads back into it but they are not the ones being looked at here.


Nobody is being looked at here because nobody here has the authority to look at anybody.

Why would a hunter be obligated to put anything back into hunting? It's a recreational pass time for most people. You go hunting if you feel like it, pay your way and you're not in debt to anybody. I've gone bowling a few times too but I don't see any reason I need to put anything back into bowling.

So what if some hunters are poor shots? They just won't get anything. My state is still busily trying to find new ways to sell more hunting licenses. Just last year they included crossbows in the regular archery season to, in their words, get more people hunting during the archery season.

The world would be a far more peaceful place if folks would learn to mind their own business. Long before we worry too much about some stupid archery test we're going to see what we can do about giving some of you a meaningful driving test so you (the collective you) stop trying to kill me on my way to work. That's a problem and it kills many people. By contrast, some silly archery test isn't going to solve any problem.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

MAC 11700 said:


> If you had truely read the charters and Madison's and Jeffersons then you would have seen exactly what was said about a mans right to substance. .At that time. .was by hunting.
> 
> Yes..I am disgusted by those who would so easily sign away any freedom and invite government intrusion in my life..and yes..to me. .they are and always will be MORONS. .
> 
> ...


I'll second that. The government is into way too much already. We need to fire about 75% of the government and let those people go do something usefull...at least something less harmful.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

MGF said:


> Nobody is being looked at here because nobody here has the authority to look at anybody.
> 
> Why would a hunter be obligated to put anything back into hunting? It's a recreational pass time for most people. You go hunting if you feel like it, pay your way and you're not in debt to anybody. I've gone bowling a few times too but I don't see any reason I need to put anything back into bowling.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ, this whole thread put a spot light on the poor standard of the average shooter out there so for the purposes of the thread we are looking at them.
While I think the driving test is a stupid analogy lets go with it. Does it make you a good driver, no. All it does is prove to others that you have shown a basic ability and understanding of driving and what is required to do it safely for you and others. Once you've passed your test you actually start learning to drive. I think a basic competency test for hunters is a good thing for the sport others don't, it is what it is.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> I beg to differ, this whole thread put a spot light on the poor standard of the average shooter out there so for the purposes of the thread we are looking at them.


What is the "standard of the average shooter"? Is this something you've measured? If so, by all means, show us your data and calculations.

"Poor" is a subjective term. If you think that the accuracy and precision of the average shooter is a problem, you should quantify the problem in objective terms and demonstrate how your proposed solution will solve that problem and to what degree.

Neither you or anybody else has done any of this. Of course, government usually doesn't either. They just throw their junk out there and nobody is ever held accountable for the failures even when it screws up lives. 

So far, all your telling us is that you don't think that the average hunter is good enough to hunt...because you say so. Do you have anything more?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

I wasn't at all going to get into this but have been following. I wanted to tell you why I started the last similar thread. No I'm not a hunter anymore so don't jump all over me (again) :smile: It's NEVER been about hunting...just the privilege to hunt.

I was at my local indoor range. Beside me was two compound guys all geared up (practice like ya hunt...right?) and a Trad guy with a 60lb bow he's just bought off of Ebay and planned to hunt with this year. I was twiddling away at target and they began discussing excitedly (a brag or two here and there as well) about the season. Nothing to do with me, I stayed out of the banter. But I decided to step back and watch...nothing planned, a break. The compound guys were lucky to hit one bull in 6 and my reaction was 'ON NO!'. The tread guy hit the yellow once in the 3 ends I stood there and my reaction was "OH F>>>>" 

It was then I came home and asked the questions that started that thread the next day.

It has NEVER been about the government or who is going to regulate whom. It is and always has been about *wounding.*

Then low and behold, here is a thread today called, 'Trad, getting the hang n getting excited.' with a picture posted. I'm not saying the person is exaggerating a bit but...read the post, then look at the pic and tell me the arrows would have landed straight in from a raised 20 yards away, with the target on the ground...could happen, but.... And guess who is encouraging this person? And guess who is trying to twist it off topic?

And lets talk about 'rights' Rights are NOT entitlement,they are what is RIGHT for all. Governance? Well, Reddogge said it all, way way back. To hunt on the military base he had to do a proficiency test. In all likelihood it was instigated and implemented by the archers themselves, so to prove they were hunting with peers and not just some yahoo with a bow. So why not let those that protect the rights of the country to protect the 'rights' (what IS right) for the animals too?

Remember, it's about *WOUNDING*, not a personal attack where emotions are involved.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bigjono said:


> I beg to differ, this whole thread put a spot light on the poor standard of the average shooter out there so for the purposes of the thread we are looking at them.
> While I think the driving test is a stupid analogy lets go with it. Does it make you a good driver, no. All it does is prove to others that you have shown a basic ability and understanding of driving and what is required to do it safely for you and others. Once you've passed your test you actually start learning to drive. I think a basic competency test for hunters is a good thing for the sport others don't, it is what it is.


Really. .then tell me what you all are basing this assumption of the average hunters skills on...I'll tell you. .some 3d shoot. .which is laughable at best to use as some reason to make more intrusion into my life. 

Exactly what is some lame brained licensing scheme. ...opps..xscues me..profientancy test..going to be good for over what is already being offered in a hunter safety course without any test?

A test is not going to reduce animal wounding..animals move..and the best archer in the world can never say with 100% certainty they won't ever wound a deer and be beleavable. .not to any honest person. 

All this is is a feel good/knee jeck reaction to a issue that can never be controlled. By those who feel some have no rights to hunt..because they aren't accurate enough to go.. .We can not legislate away stupid lazy slob hunters..we only cut off our noses to spite our faces if we start trying to. 

It's unfortunately true. ..once you give away your rights, you will never get them back. .and then some will try their best to convince you you never had any in the first place. .

Mac


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

bradd7 said:


> I wasn't at all going to get into this but have been following. I wanted to tell you why I started the last similar thread. No I'm not a hunter anymore so don't jump all over me (again) :smile: It's NEVER been about hunting...just the privilege to hunt.
> 
> I was at my local indoor range. Beside me was two compound guys all geared up (practice like ya hunt...right?) and a Trad guy with a 60lb bow he's just bought off of Ebay and planned to hunt with this year. I was twiddling away at target and they began discussing excitedly (a brag or two here and there as well) about the season. Nothing to do with me, I stayed out of the banter. But I decided to step back and watch...nothing planned, a break. The compound guys were lucky to hit one bull in 6 and my reaction was 'ON NO!'. The tread guy hit the yellow once in the 3 ends I stood there and my reaction was "OH F>>>>"
> 
> ...


He said he shot the group from a pop-up blind.


> And a twenty yd group from my pop-up blind.


 It's a ground blind.

Is there a "wounding problem"? Please describe and quantify it for us.

In this country "rights" are not necessarily about what's best for all. This country was founded on the idea of maximizing INDIVIDUAL rights. It's the "rights" of the government that our constitution places strict limits on. The right to pursue happiness as you please provided that you aren't causing harm to somebody else. We hunt for the purpose of causing the ultimate harm to the game we hunt (we kill them). At the same time it is illegal to kill or, otherwise, harm another hunter or bystander.

Again, please describe and quantify the problem that claim exists.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*A test is not going to reduce animal wounding..animals move..and the best archer in the world can never say with 100% certainty they won't ever wound a deer and be beleavable. .not to any honest person. *

No but you can reduce the odds.

*It's unfortunately true. ..once you give away your rights, you will never get them back. .and then some will try their best to convince you you never had any in the first place. .

*

You never had them in the first place. They aren't a personal entitlement that you can hoard, sell or buy. They are what IS right for ALL life concerned. By your logic it's YOUR right to bow hunt domesticated cats...go ahead and try.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*"He said he shot the group from a pop-up blind. "*

With that group he would have had to be laying on the ground...the optimal word is 'pop- up'

*Again, please describe and quantify the problem that claim exists. 

*

First, if there is a problem it might be that any yahoo can go into a store and buy a bow, without any background or qualifications, that is as powerful as most guns, then go 'hunting' after a couple of weeks of flingin' arras. However, only if you have to defend it would you call this thread a 'problem' as it's only asking for discussion on whether or not it's relevant to prevent wounding and/or the betterment of the society of hunters as a whole.

Let's simplify it a bit. If you are shooting target competition there is a point in the career, based on the number of times you can hit the 'kill' zone consistently, a point where you've proven you can fully handle your bow and arrow gear (tuning etc) to be able to hit this 'kill zone' where you can call yourself 'an archer' Anything outside of the 'kill-zone' is a wound. Everything else before that, you are just learning and practicing to the best of your ability to become 'an archer'. The number of times you can hit the 'kill zone' is the barometer, presented by a body of like-minded, goal dedicated 'archers'. 

The KEY here is that no one is asking someone that erroneously calls themselves a 'hunter' to hit a moving/jumping target. The same body of peers is just asking that you can prove you are qualified to call yourself a 'hunter'.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Just to note: In my own personal mind, it would be MUCH better in this and other threads, if people would leave emotions, fears and governments - that create name-calling, bashing or attempts to discredit - out of the threads but instead voice your *personal* concerns about why or why not YOU personally agree or disagree and then the posts would be adult discussions instead of a series of debates.

If we did this the moderators wouldn't have to step in to do something they may or may not want to do but need to do to protect the 'rights' (what IS right) for the rest of us, by removing the person's participation because they think it's an individual right to behave against what has been determined what IS right, by a body of their peers..


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

If a test was really going to solve anything, I would think the dnr , gov. game and fish, whoever you say is in control of the laws, would of tried to implement a test already, the cost is not worth the outcome, equals bad for everyone.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

tpcowfish said:


> If a test was really going to solve anything, I would think the dnr , gov. game and fish, whoever you say is in control of the laws, would of tried to implement a test already, the cost is not worth the outcome, equals bad for everyone.


Again, it might be because don't want to involve money or control and so have left the hunters to determine for themselves what level of skill and what is suffering is acceptable...self-governing as what IS right for those involved? Military obviously has no problem self-governing their bow hunters and I'm pretty sure there isn't a governmental budget for that aspect of their own military? So the non-suffering of an animal must be of great importance to them, considering what they are trained to do if necessary.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Illinois and Wisconsin.


Montana as well

Please don't think for a second that Fish Widlife & Parks is necessarily pro hunting. University of Montana is 300 yards away from my business and I get to meet a bunch of the students. My guess would be 1/4 or more of the wildlife management students don't hunt and don't come from a hunting back ground. 

We currently have an out break of blue tongue here locally. A friend had 2 FWP biologists out on his ranch to put down an effected fawn and take tissue samples. They broke down after shooting the clearly distressed animal. When asked they responded that they didn't hunt and had no back ground in it. 

The fawn was the first animal either had seen killed - how do you get a masters in wildlife bio and never see an animal killed??


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

One more thing, then I'm done, as this is stupid at best. The company I work for has a test for employment. You must pass this test to work there. Granted the test has been "dumbed" down in the 19 yrs I've been here, but it's to be taken nonetheless. Now enter a 21 yr old, who passed this test and gained a job in my department. About his third day there, the man he was helping asked him to bring him a flat-head screwdriver. Our "test passer" came back with a drill bit. Speck


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

MGF said:


> I'll second that. The government is into way too much already. We need to fire about 75% of the government and let those people go do something usefull...at least something less harmful.


Its called the voting booth, but then a better voter turn out is called for. Hard to make change happen when people stay home and think their vote won't make a difference.

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## uabdave (Mar 12, 2007)

You can't leave emotions and governments out of it when you are advocating more government to regulate a mans fundamental right to survive. its one thing to set a bag limit, its another thing to not allow a man to even try bc he cant hit a target to your standard. It's a dang deer get over it. It is a source of food and sport nothing else.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*The fawn was the first animal either had seen killed - how do you get a masters in wildlife bio and never see an animal killed?? *

Because their training is to keep animals alive at all costs unless it is necessary, more humane, to kill to prevent further suffering for that animal or others that will suffer needlessly in the future because of that animal. Sport is not a 'need', neither is hunting for food for a majority of the peoples...it's a want.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*You can't leave emotions and governments out of it when you are advocating more government to regulate a mans fundamental right to survive.*

Its NOT about the government at all. It's about suffering and the prevention of it by a body of peers, self-supporting, self-governing. The thread didn't ask the government anything, nor is it lobbying for anything. It asks a body of like-minded peers, on a common gathering place, IF they considered it valuable or not. No one is going to knock on your door and tell you you have to have a test before season opens this year.

Instead of 'government this and government that, and I know this and that about the government', which is instigation for debate, a better way 'might' have been to ask "So do you think the government would...why" which creates a discussion without emotions. 

Personal opinions are valued less than the gathering of relevant personal experiences, offerings and reasonings that can keep minds open. One is called a 'personal platform', the other is a 'forum'. In a 'forum' there are no winners or losers, rights or wrongs, there are only differences...much like real life is supposed to be.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, funny how some here repeatedly display it and don't even pay attention to what they post. Deriding other archers with the "brag or two" comment, while continually bragging about the tournament won as a child years ago. Mentions "bashing or attempts to discredit" right after trying to insinuate that a new trad bowhunter didn't really shoot the groups that he posted in his thread. Telling others to leave emotions out of the discussion, meanwhile they make several long posts showing that they are getting emotional about the subject; caring about animals being wounded and suffering proves this. Some people have very little credibility left(if any) and have no business telling hunters what they should do, especially when they admittedly don't hunt, which means they aren't a peer.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Matt_Potter said:


> Montana as well


Add NY to the list. I have a friend that was on our state's Fish and Wildlife Management Board, he quit after figuring out they were just for show and the state legislature really made the decisions.


----------



## Leafwalker (Oct 7, 2008)

rattus58 said:


> Well I learned something.... But maybe you could show me where to find that info here... http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/Pages/default.aspx


You have to dig in and look at each hunting area, like this one. It states " Non-toxic shot required on Dove Management Fields during the entire season. Maximum shot sizes are #6 steel or 71/2 bismuth."


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

steve morley said:


> A question.......
> 
> Here in Estonia you cannot hunt with a gun without doing a test, so for them it was logical to do a similar course/test for Bowhunting. Do Gun hunters in the USA also just walk into the woods and hunt with no hunting safety courses and proficiency testing?


Steve, it's a state by state thing here. In Maryland you cannot get a license to hunt without passing a Hunter Safety Course no matter what your age but I don't know what the shooting requirements are if any because there were none when I took it in the 70s. I was grandfathered in when they passed that law but took the course so I could hunt in some managed hunts.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

CAPTJJ said:


> Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, funny how some here repeatedly display it and don't even pay attention to what they post. Deriding other archers with the "brag or two" comment, while continually bragging about the tournament won as a child years ago. Mentions "bashing or attempts to discredit" right after trying to insinuate that a new trad bowhunter didn't really shoot the groups that he posted in his thread. Telling others to leave emotions out of the discussion, meanwhile they make several long posts showing that they are getting emotional about the subject; caring about animals being wounded and suffering proves this. Some people have very little credibility left(if any) and have no business telling hunters what they should do, especially when they admittedly don't hunt, which means they aren't a peer.


I said that both the trad and compounders shot poorly. AS for the tournaments I have won as a child and my rankings in Ontario and Canada, I posted them because you can't. And that's relevance. 
But, I'm not going to get into this type of behavior again. If you dispute something I say, then go ahead in an adult manner but quit trying to discredit or bash and flip it onto me.

You see, this forum is what we are talking about. It's a gathering of like-minds and peers that DISCUSS what IS right for all of us, on an adult level. It's self-governing and supported by the advertising so that we don't have to put up money to be able to gather here. WE have decided as a group, what IS right for the whole group but on an individual basis what IS right for us, from the content offered. 

The moderator is not the rule setter, he is just the enforcer of what we have determined, morally and ethically, to be what IS RIGHT for the group as a whole, so that they can continue to attract advertisers, so that we can continue to gather here..because it's valuable and important to us, as a single entity operating in the same minds. In other words...government...the moderator is only the speaker of the house, speaking only when necessary, on behalf of the majority's already established self-government, when two or more begin to debate their individual personalities instead of discussing like adults.

AND this site is not FOR you nor is it about you. It's designed to help the children of our children, and our worth will be valued on adult provided contributions, not childish arguing or attempts to discredit.
Funny thing again, over 1300 views of this site and only 147 posts. So, if they are watching, perhaps we should too.

VERY simple really.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> Well I learned something.... But maybe you could show me where to find that info here... http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/Pages/default.aspx


What I know is because I see the process first-hand. If you want a game law changed you go to a legislator, not the DNR.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

A proficiency test is about one one thing only ENDING HUNTING ! There are people out there that dont want us to hunt. I would venture to say some here on this thread. The longer we argue about this the more ammo we give the ANTI HUNTERS to use against us. We should be arguing about how we should fight the anti's. instead of trying to tell me my kids arn't good enough shot to go hunting!! I have been fighting the anti hunters for 40 years the first place the start is the smallest group ARCHERY HUNTERS !!!!!!

When are you going to wake up and fight the good fight ?

Gary


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

J. Wesbrock said:


> What I know is because I see the process first-hand. If you want a game law changed you go to a legislator, not the DNR.


But, as an individual with a personal agenda, or as and individual as a representative of a majority that agree it's 'right' for many? Wouldn't it have to have support from the DNR before it's valued a 'right' possibility by the legislator?


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Since I seem to be one of the few who had to pass a shooting proficiency test over 25 years in a row to hunt where I hunted I guess I have some insights on the subject. To me the test was fair and I'm not sure who demanded it, the military installation or the bow club there that ran it. I do have a friend who was a member of the club and I can ask him. I think the test did work to make sure those who hunted there knew which end of the bow the arrow came out of and had safe equipment in hand. What the test could not regulate was dull broadheads in the field and limiting shots outside of the archer's comfort zone. These things had to be a self regulating thing with each archer just like we do it now. I did mention we had to hunt with arrows that had our last name in PAINT between the fletching so if deer were found gut shot or arrows that strayed out of the safety areas were found you'd hear about it and maybe loose your priviledges. So we were sort of self regulating on the shots we took because we didn't want to report to the Fed game warden too many times you wounded a deer and didn't recover it and God forbid you didn't report an unrecovered deer because if it were found with your arrow in it, goodbye!

I also was exposed to a very unfair test set up by a community whereby only a compound shooter or a lucky or super skilled traditional archer could pass. So all test are not fair and once passed cannot regulate what happens in the field.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Brad,

The DNR's approval is not required for the legislature to pass a new hunting law. As a matter of fact, many of them get passes over the strong objections of the DNR and their wildlife biologists. What part of this is confusing to you?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Brad,
> 
> The DNR's approval is not required for the legislature to pass a new hunting law. As a matter of fact, many of them get passes over the strong objections of the DNR and their wildlife biologists. What part of this is confusing to you?


And having hunted in Illinois for many, many years, J. Wesbrock knows firsthand how the legislature tramples all over the DNR. I am not aware of a more corrupt government where hunting is concerned than exists in IL.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

I'm in Canada remember. If a group goes to the DNR because membership has requested it, then it goes to the legislator for review before it's brought into the house for approval. If an individual was to bring something personally, the legislator would go back to DNR, then DNR goes back to the groups and asks if this is what they really want/need...then one way or the other it goes back up again. Then it's determined who is going to pay for it, and how it will be legislated, Federal, Provincial or if it can be self-supporting and self-governing by the groups, with DNR as the referee/moderator...more or less. If it's something that is general to all Canadians then it is passed as law and governed by Canada...IE = Drivers License as opposed to fishing licenses which are governed by the provinces, and club moral and ethical governed by the club itself. Only if it's unfair (prejudice for example) does the province get involved and if they can';t solve it, ask the Canadian Parliament to create a law that can be enforced by the government, that will prevent it happening in the future...Immediate curtailing of current suffering, so to prevent suffering for our children's children. 

Most organizations get approval on their charters from the provinces so that they won't suffer inaccuracies or create suffering for others in the future and so if it happens, the province will know what they need and can make a determination without wasting parliament time or money.

But in all of this, the individual groups have to have a meeting of the minds on what is 'right' for all, not just themselves.
I was just asking for my own information.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

J. Wesbrock said:


> What I know is because I see the process first-hand. If you want a game law changed you go to a legislator, not the DNR.


Exactly the same in Montana.

Matt


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> What is the "standard of the average shooter"? Is this something you've measured? If so, by all means, show us your data and calculations.
> 
> "Poor" is a subjective term. If you think that the accuracy and precision of the average shooter is a problem, you should quantify the problem in objective terms and demonstrate how your proposed solution will solve that problem and to what degree.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure you pay too much attention to things. Effective range is a standard that has been around for decades, and its been talked about enough that you should have had some inkling that it was a standard. But even the idea that someone should be able to shoot at their effective range is argued by several on here that.... "what about dusk? What about up hill, downhill? What about sunlight? What about... and on and on and on..... an arbitrary argument from what I would consider irresponsible response. One should know ones effective range, and if you are potentially shooting up hill, then you should have practiced that. That is why roving is such a grand activity even while hunting. 

As to your other question... ARCHERY WOUNDING RATES AND SHOTS PER KILL

Bow-Hunting References

1. Aho, R.W. 1984 "Deer Hunting Retrieval Rates." Michigan Pittman-Robertson Report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 11pp.
58% wounded

2. Anonymous. 1970 "Chincoteague Narrative Report, 1965-1970" Refuge Manager"s United States Government Memorandum to Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 3pp.
52% wounded, 15 shots per kill

3. Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G. 1987 "Archery Wounding Loss in Texas." Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 16pp.
50% wounded, 21 shots per kill

4. Cada, J.D., 1988 "Preliminary Archery Survey Report." Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana. 7pp.
51% wounded.

5 & 6. Causey, M.K., Dennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman Jr., J.I., 1978
"Bowhunting White-tailed Deer with Succinylcholine Chloride Treated Arrows." Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(3): 142-145
50% wounded in Alabama (without succinylcholine chloride).
50% wounded in South Carolina (without succinylcholine chloride).

7. Croft, R.L. 1963. "A Survey for Georgia Bowhunters." Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish commissioners. 17:155-163
44% wounded.

8. Downing, R.L. 1971. "Comparison of Crippling Losses of White-tailed Deer Caused by Archery, Buckshot and Shotgun Slugs." Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 25:77-82
50% wounded

9. Garland, L.E. 1972. "Bowhunting for Deer in Vermont: Some Characteristics of the Hunters, the Hunt, and the Harvest." Vermont Fish and Game Department. Waterbury, Vermont. 19pp.
63% wounded

10. Gladfelter, H.L. and Kienzler, J.M. 1983. "Effects of the Compound Bow on the Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa." Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp215-219
55% wounded

11. Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983. "Effects of Compound Bow Use on Hunter Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa." Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.
49% wounded

12. Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. 1989. "Survey of Archery Hunters, 1987." Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. 17pp.
52% wounded

13. Hofacker, A. 1986. "On the Trail of Wounded Deer: The Philosophy of Waiting." Deer and Deer Hunting 10(2):65-85, 104
56% wounded

14. Jackson, R.M. and Norton, R. 1982. "Wisconsin Bowhunter Study." University of Wisconsin. Lacrosse, Wisconsin. 36pp.
44% wounded.

15. Langenau, Jr., E.E. and Aho, R.W. 1983. "Relative Impact of Firearms and Archery Hunting on Deer Populations." Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp 97-121
55% wounded, 13 shots per kill.

16. Langenau, Jr., E.E. 1986 "Factor Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotguns Slugs." Leisure Sciences 8(4):417-438
61% wounded.

17. McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.L. and Wentz, W.A. 1985. "Nonreporting Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer Bowhunters--1981." Wildlife Society Bulletin
12(4)395-398
48% wounded, 14 shots per kill.

18. Moen, A.N. 1989. "Crippling Losses." Deer and Deer Hunting 12(6):64-70.
68% wounded.

19. Stormer, F.A., Kirkpatrick, C.M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979, "Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-tailed Deer." Wildlife Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16
58% wounded.

Fractions rounded to nearest whole number:
55% overall wounding rate from 19 reports (two cited by Causey et all);
17 shots per kill, average.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

2413gary said:


> A proficiency test is about one one thing only ENDING HUNTING ! There are people out there that dont want us to hunt. I would venture to say some here on this thread. The longer we argue about this the more ammo we give the ANTI HUNTERS to use against us. We should be arguing about how we should fight the anti's. instead of trying to tell me my kids arn't good enough shot to go hunting!! I have been fighting the anti hunters for 40 years the first place the start is the smallest group ARCHERY HUNTERS !!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the record Gary, I am 100% pro hunting, I'm just 100% anti crappy shooting.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Great work Rattus! Thanks!


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Bigjono said:


> For the record Gary, I am 100% pro hunting, I'm just 100% anti crappy shooting.


I'm with you Biggie and it has nothing to do with us against them or animal rights...but that's their fear.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Rat, am I reading those numbers correctly? Looks like more than half the deer are wounded not killed. Is that correct? And look at the hits per kills ratio. I had no idea there was SO much pure missing going on. I do think the numbers are for all archers including compound. 

Those are far worse than I ever imagined. How can we honestly talk down an anti-bowhunter with numbers like that from so many sources? Going forward I don't think I'll try. In fact I'll no longer tell any new associates I bowhunt at all. I find those studies gruesome.


----------



## hanginhigh (Sep 12, 2010)

Its hard for me to believe that on a bowhunting forum members feel hunting is a privilege not a right. I guess it goes hand in hand with the mentality that we need more government regulations to control our way of life.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> I'm not sure you pay too much attention to things. Effective range is a standard that has been around for decades, and its been talked about enough that you should have had some inkling that it was a standard. But even the idea that someone should be able to shoot at their effective range is argued by several on here that.... "what about dusk? What about up hill, downhill? What about sunlight? What about... and on and on and on..... an arbitrary argument from what I would consider irresponsible response. One should know ones effective range, and if you are potentially shooting up hill, then you should have practiced that. That is why roving is such a grand activity even while hunting.
> 
> As to your other question... ARCHERY WOUNDING RATES AND SHOTS PER KILL
> 
> ...


Wow


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

hanginhigh said:


> Its hard for me to believe that on a bowhunting forum members feel hunting is a privilege not a right. I guess it goes hand in hand with the mentality that we need more government regulations to control our way of life.
> 
> Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2


hanginhigh, I never considered this a "hunting" forum. For me it's a traditional archery forum. So I don't think we should assume all readers are hunters. I hunt for a few days a year only. Once I'm done I never give hunting a second thought for the rest of the year. It never enters my mind. I'm an archer first who does not own a compound bow.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

And again, what would a test prove? That you can hit a target in a controlled environment. That doesn't stop people from taking stupid shots, out of range shots, awkward shots, etc. Since we are only a small fraction of the bowhunting community, the huge number of those stats--if they are even close to being accurate--are compound archers. 

As someone already stated, if you actually get out and shoot and get to know your fellow archer, you'll find guys who may not be great shots but who are amazing hunters. Their trophies aren't wood and plastic, they are hide and fur.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

What bothers me most IS the fact those numbers come mostly from compound shooters. I'm convinced compounders are better shooters in every way compared to trad guys. I see that borne out each and every 3D shoot I attend. So it has to figure the trad guys are even WORSE.

I've already made plans to hunt Maine in a few days. Might be my last hunt ever. Not sure I want to be associated with this business anymore. I'll still go see my brother up in Maine but might just stay on the porch with the dogs. 

Yikes! More wounding shots than kills. What are we doing?


----------



## bardman (Oct 18, 2006)

I can only hope the antis sabotage those numbers. That is unreal. 

Very Much in favor for Bowhunter education, with a emphasis on being proficient, shot angles, proper breathing etc.. 

But IMO, I dont believe that makes anyone a killer of game. I know people that can out shoot me all day long. But if a 180 inch buck is at 30 yards I bet on me all day long and twice on sunday. They are my friends and they have a hard time controling their nerves at the moment of truth, on LIVE game. 

Again I am all for whatever imporves our (bowhunters) image to the non-hunting public. NOT ANTIS, there is no reasoning with them. I know that first hand, I served on deer hunting committee for in town hunting. They are completly unresonable about any hunting. 

But the non hunting public IMO is the most important to keep them on our side, I am in strong favor of. MTC


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I for one would like to know what methods were used in the gathering of that data.

Did they poll hunters?
Did they find & count all of the wounded game animals.

I'm not doubting the data exists, but I do very much doubt it's accuracy.

Rick


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

If I had really read the charters and Madison and Jefferson?
Well first, let me correct that it was Madison and Hamilton that wrote the Federalist papers. But furthermore, the man's right to substance? I don't believe I recall what you are talking about? Can you show me where in the Federalist papers it mentions that? I'm sure you will, there must be some small quote in there.
But apparently, not one big enough to make it into the constitution or the Bill of Rights. 
Let me say that I didn't recall that from everything I've read, and then I DID look it up, and could not find it. It would rather please me if you could prove me wrong.

The point of my last post, however, was apparently completely misconstrued. The founding fathers said quite a lot, and they disagreed on quite a lot. Using one such and such quote from the Federalist papers, written by two men who completely opposed each other, to back up any sort of argument like hunting, is absurd. And then to apparently condemn any arguments from others as idiocy due to your inflated self image and yell at them to "learn about your country" is just insulting. 
I don't want to hear about your "god given right" That's a straw man argument.
I don't want to hear about your apocalyptic fear that the government are going to steal everything from you, that's a straw man argument.
I want to hear actual evidence if you are going to so adamantly going to object in that way. For you need a reason. I don't want to hear baseless attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, that anyone who opposes you are morons. That anyone who might believe in this proficiency test are completely submitting to the will of the government and want to be led around on a leash. This is some image you have inflated in your own mind due to your own fears. Currently, the one who sounds like a complete dictator is you, because you apparently think that other's opinions must be CRUSHED, for they are against your own and they are morons.

I am tired of the hypocrisy of those who yell at people to respect their opinion, while insulting others.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

I doubt the accuracy of those numbers as well. Sounds kinda like one of those CNN polls I've never taken, because I guess I was to busy "working". But, I will say this, the cbow industry is trying to turn bowhunting into a semi-long range sport, which it is not meant to be IMO. I have nothing against cbows, hunted with them for a long time and may again one day. I'm just saying I hear alot of 50yd plus stories coming out of many mouths for several years now. Which actually makes a good point as it relates to this thread. I do not know any cbow shooter personally, that can't stack arrows at 25yds. But I know very few if any who can kill game consistently at 40 plus. Doesn't mean they won't try. Speck


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

I hope you guys realize that is a works cited, of 20 different sources. Not one singular poll. The accuracy of one, maybe two coming into a question, possibly. But to think that all 20 of those are completely falsified or inaccurate goes a little against odds.


----------



## uabdave (Mar 12, 2007)

Darkwoe, did all our rights eminate from the federalist papers?? It seems a lot of history took place before 1776. I wonder I the native Americans just sat around all day til 1789 waiting for ratification? THere's a such thing as natural law as described in the declaration you know, that whole life liberty thingy. Forget our founders for a minute and ask yourself if every man throughout history pre-founding ever stopped to ask himself if he had the right to eat by his own hand either by growing his own or killing his own. Gee where'd the caveman get those crazy ideas from? Probably the rumbles in his belly.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

You can discount one or two source. But all of them? That's not reasonable. Those studies were done by different sources over many different states and years. What makes me think they are correct is how close they all are in their findings. That makes sense to me because hunters are the same all over the country.

I'm also very aware of the shooting of others at 3D shoots. It does seem the majority of trad shooters cannot hit the vitals of a deer target at 20 yards better than 30-40% of the time. Certainly no more than that. This rather dovetails with the various study kill/wound numbers.

Nobody on this forum is going to admit being a poor shooter and none will every admit to missing 3D targets, but when I watch my peers shooting 3D the story is very different. Most guys can't shoot a lick. Most cannot break 200 for 30 targets. That alone is piss-poor shooting. Last 3D trad shoot I attended there were about 17 recurve and longbow shooters. Only 4 shot over 200 and it was a very easy course. So I for one believe the wounding numbers presented by the different studies.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> If I had really read the charters and Madison and Jefferson?
> Well first, let me correct that it was Madison and Hamilton that wrote the Federalist papers. But furthermore, the man's right to substance? I don't believe I recall what you are talking about? Can you show me where in the Federalist papers it mentions that? I'm sure you will, there must be some small quote in there.
> But apparently, not one big enough to make it into the constitution or the Bill of Rights.
> Let me say that I didn't recall that from everything I've read, and then I DID look it up, and could not find it. It would rather please me if you could prove me wrong.
> ...


If you honestly believe that the Federalist Papers are the only known works of the founding fathers, ,thenyou indeed need to go to your public library and do a little more research. ..lol...and no I chose not to school you on this. .it is far too easy to find for yourself. .granted you can't get it with a Google search. ..lol

As to your assertion that my opinion is a strawman argument is ludicrous I do not have to prove anything to you. .the information is readily available for anyone to find, but I can say this. .since you are demanding I do show you. .your entire argument is that of a elitist. .demanding proof of a person's ability to shoot a bow before they are allowed to hunt. .Sorry. .I'm not playing that childish game with you. .

Real good research requires going and actually reading what was written in books. .not some modernists interpretation of it given in a brief overview from a Google search. .I can offer you a piece of advice though. .take a lunch. .

Mac

Mac


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Uabdave my point, if you had read it, is that using the founding fathers as the entire basis of your argument is a terrible idea. 
Let me say that again, my point is that using the founding fathers as the entire basis of your argument is a terrible idea.
I believe I said it in my last post. Thank you for backing up my point.

Mac I believe you won't find anything against me because you can't. I also never said anything of the sort that the federalist papers were the only works of the founding fathers, but since you pointed pretty much explicitly to those and the charters, they are what I used.
You "chose" not to school me. Brilliantly played.
The point of a debate is proving something against another. If you really have evidence to back your assertion, then you use it. The only reason you wouldn't is because you cant.
I believe I have used credible evidence, in my original post I used direct quotes. You on the other hand have done nothing more then say you're wrong in such eloquent fashions.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

So..I'm supposed to change my stance on this by studies done in the 80's ?

Sure I will. ..

How many states have enacted hunter education since these were done?

What% difference between compound shooters and traditional shooters is given for these studies? 

Mac


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Mac, I believe trad shooters are worse on a whole today than when I started shooting field archery in the early 70s. Back then the level of shooter was better because most new shooters got decent coaching by men schooled in target archery. The word "trad" had not even been invented yet. We also shot out to 80 yards and guys learned more about their equipment and arrow trajectories because they had to in order to be competitive in field archery. Modern 3D archery is the bane of good shooting. Once you restrict shots to under 25 yards not much learning takes place. Shooters too easily find simply hitting the targets reward enough it seems. And just about any boob can hit enough 3D targets inside 25 yards to come away thinking they can shoot.

Be willing to bet a wounding study done today would find an increase in wounded deer over those older studies because today's shooters are less able.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Uabdave my point, if you had read it, is that using the founding fathers as the entire basis of your argument is a terrible idea.
> Let me say that again, my point is that using the founding fathers as the entire basis of your argument is a terrible idea.
> I believe I said it in my last post. Thank you for backing up my point.
> 
> ...


There is enough evidence of what the founding fathers of this nation stored in your public library that is not available to read on line. 

Have you read the original charters of the 13 colonies? 

Have you read the current ststes charters and seen the changes made?

Do you understand what the sentiment was in our colonial period by the crown as to what freedom the commoner was entitled was as apposed to that of the wealthy landowners? 

Do you understand which states were opposed to succession and as a result which of those states to this day are more restrictive to it's citizens? 

Do you understand that the founding fathers when drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had a uphill battle with these states, drafting what they did, as they did to appease these people, just to get both ratified? 

There is more to history than just a brief synopsis you can find online. 

The rights of man to substance, is the foundation of all laws in this country when we broke from the terrany of the crown of England and are the very essence of the words...Life and Liberty ...

You choose to look at a small section of what is written and as such, miss the very reason we broke from England. . Freedom. .and the root causes and the people who to this day fight against it.

Your interpretation of even the Federalist Papers is flawed if you don't understand the real reasons behind why they were written in the first place. .

Get off the Internet and go to a library and read..you will find a new perspective if you do. 

Mac


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> Mac, I believe trad shooters are worse on a whole today than when I started shooting field archery in the early 70s. Back then the level of shooter was better because most new shooters got decent coaching by men schooled in target archery. The word "trad" had not even been invented yet. We also shot out to 80 yards and guys learned more about their equipment and arrow trajectories because they had to in order to be competitive in field archery. Modern 3D archery is the bane of good shooting. Once you restrict shots to under 25 yards not much learning takes place. Shooters too easily find simply hitting the targets reward enough it seems. And just about any boob can hit enough 3D targets inside 25 yards to come away thinking they can shoot.
> 
> Be willing to bet a wounding study done today would find an increase in wounded deer over those older studies because today's shooters are less able.


That is a very good point. The good shooters are getting better and better by schooling themselves in proper form and aiming methods, the guys I refer to generally shoot Asbel style, squat fart pluck and miss. They obviously have no intention of improving because they all think they're Fred Ferguson or Benny Hill or whichever old time hunting icon they dream of. The dumbing down of 3D distances to try and attract these guys to compete has had a very negative effect I think. Most that I see can't break 200 for 40 targets let alone 30. The real good trady style guys might get to 280 but there are only 2 or 3 of them round here. I know guys say that being rubbish on 3D doesn't mean you're rubbish on game, I call BS on that. Crap is as crap does sorry.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

The data is rubbish. 'shotgun' & 'Anonymous' lol! But I digress...



rattus58 said:


> 16. Langenau, Jr., E.E. 1986 "Factor Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotguns Slugs." Leisure Sciences 8(4):417-438
> 61% wounded.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490408609513083



> Hunter retrieval of wounded deer was used as a case study to examine applications and limitations of leisure research for the management of recreational behavior. All hunters receiving permits to hunt in the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge during November 1–20, 1983, were sent mail questionnaires. A total of 457 (93 percent) of the archery and 143 (95 percent) of the firearm permittees responded after 3 mailings. Archery deer hunters were estimated to have retrieved 29 (43 percent) of the 68 different deer hit by arrows. Shotgun hunters were estimated to have retrieved 42 (81 percent) of 52 different deer hit. Discriminant analysis showed that the retrieval of deer hit with arrows was most likely when the shooter had tagged a large number of deer during former archery hunts, when the deer was hit in a position other than broadside, and when the range of the shot was short. Deer hit with slugs were more likely to be retrieved when hit by hunters with little experience in tagging deer during former firearm hunts, when the shooter also hunted deer with a bow and arrow, and when the shot was taken at deer that were not running. These data were interpreted to suggest how retrieval rates might be increased through regulation, education, and management of the recreational environment. The role of leisure research and theory in providing techniques and a rationale for modifying the behavior of recreationists is discussed.


Questionnaires (lol!) based on deer retrieved & hearsay of the hunter to whether they hit the deer or not, in 1983. 

The look at the dates of the others too... :wink:


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Jon, the crap 3D shooter is even crappier on real game because of the prospect of shooting at live game that moves. Nobody shoots live targets better than paper or rubber targets. I always laugh out loud when some nimrod writes in to claim he shoots "fur" better than targets.


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

this,x 2


Rick Barbee said:


> I for one would like to know what methods were used in the gathering of that data.
> 
> Did they poll hunters?
> Did they find & count all of the wounded game animals.
> ...


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Stone Bridge said:


> Mac, I believe trad shooters are worse on a whole today than when I started shooting field archery in the early 70s. Back then the level of shooter was better because most new shooters got decent coaching by men schooled in target archery. The word "trad" had not even been invented yet. We also shot out to 80 yards and guys learned more about their equipment and arrow trajectories because they had to in order to be competitive in field archery. Modern 3D archery is the bane of good shooting. Once you restrict shots to under 25 yards not much learning takes place. Shooters too easily find simply hitting the targets reward enough it seems. And just about any boob can hit enough 3D targets inside 25 yards to come away thinking they can shoot.
> 
> Be willing to bet a wounding study done today would find an increase in wounded deer over those older studies because today's shooters are less able.


Yup..I agree with your sentiment on a lot of this..and is one reason I am not happy with the whole 3d tournament thing....and how it is scored. 

Now..since to some here I give just a straw man's argument. .lol..

Let's see if this makes sense. .

Given the fact that many here..including yourself feel that the current archers skill level is in such a sorry state as to need some type of profiency test before being able to obtain a right to hunt..let's see just how easily it can be argued that since it is, and the sole reason for this is to ensure no animal needlessly suffers..that no archery hunting should be allowed. .

If you all can agree with all of the anti hunters on..this ..then this is the next logical step in the future of bow hunting. .I saw these words posted a few post back btw..

If you open this Pandoras box. .this is what you are going to get. .Mark my words..

Mac


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mac what even makes you think that I just did a brief search online? This is a grand assumption on your part.
First of all, on the vast majority of the documents you refer to, I don't need to go to a public library. I own copies of them. I make a living based on the politics and history of the United States. Don't say I'm just some joke looking up documents online on small whim. Second, were I to look up these documents online, it would not be some rendition, but rather look through the Avalon project, which has original copies posted online, with no opinion inserted by the website.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/statech.asp

Let me address this finally.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I very much doubt whether you have read any of the documents you are referring to, and are trying to grasp at whatever straw and throw out whatever insult you can in order to feign any sort of knowledge on them. Your are insulting my intelligence by throwing out generic assumptions without any sort of your own evidence. It is shameless that you have invoked those documents and ideas so often to try and support your claim, yet when someone actually challenges you to give some direct example, you refuse, because you can't. I doubt whether you yourself have followed your own advice and actually read any of these things at a library, and are simply throwing out those insults to continue to promote your inflated ego. You have no real knowledge on the subject, and I should stop bothering. 
Come on, give me something. You haven't yet. When I present an argument on this countries documents you simply have said that I don't know enough. Give me a break. Use something substantial.
Either give me an argument that actually deserves a modicum of respect,
Or admit that you are a fool and never use those baseless and reckless arguments again.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*sole reason for this is to ensure no animal needlessly suffers..that no archery hunting should be allowed*

Is that the point in your mind, to ban hunting? Or is it by making sure the archer has the accuracy to prevent suffering needlessly? And let's go back. Not only the animal suffers, but also the archer who misses, and those that witness it if too, especially when the animal can't be found - if they have any morals and ethics? 

Okay, then, what if a person wounded and animal and a law was passed that they had to stay out there until they located the animal and put it out of it's misery, for as long as it took - perhaps missing the opportunity to earn a living necessary to feed his family?

What then is the preference?

Where you REALLY have it wrong, and it's already been identified and rehashed, is that NOBODY yet has said that they want bow hunting banned. In fact, it's the opposite. They want archers to prove themselves, to weed out the crappy ones, before they go out, and that's beneficial to all bow hunters...no?

What really gets to me is that Rattus, who you've been banging on for two days to provide data, goes out of his way to seek out not one, not two, not three but many points of published articles, from myriad of arenas, and you question the sources? Granted, as some have said, perhaps one or two maybe inaccurate, but all of them? Oh yea...it must be a conspiracy.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

So accuracy = less wounding? The truth could very well be the opposite so have a think about what that means to the future of bowhunting.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Destroyer said:


> So accuracy = less wounding? The truth could very well be the opposite then have a think about what that means to the future of bowhunting.


Future of bow hunting for whom? The ones that pass or the ones that can't? Seems, from my vantage point, that only the ones that fear they couldn't pass have an agenda to defend. No worries posted whatsoever for those that don't have the fear.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

First off, everyone has morals and ethics, but they may differ from yours; ethics by definition is up to the individual, you don't get to decide it for them. A person's ethics are based on their morality, which varies based on upbringing, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc.

Secondly, you can hash this over as much as you want, but we still don't have proficiency testing and aren't going because of the reasons that have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, no matter how much you desire to impart your will on the entire hunting community.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> Future of bow hunting for whom? The ones that pass or the ones that can't? Seems, from my vantage point, that only the ones that fear they couldn't pass have an agenda to defend. No worries posted whatsoever for those that don't have the fear.


Did you even read what I wrote? The opposite part? 

Future of bowhunting period, for all. And that means you and anyone else that thinks there needs to be a test, everyone. Clear enough?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> I hope you guys realize that is a works cited, of 20 different sources. Not one singular poll. The accuracy of one, maybe two coming into a question, possibly. But to think that all 20 of those are completely falsified or inaccurate goes a little against odds.


I think you are pretty naive if you don't think all of those studies could be manufactured. In reading some of the authors, I saw many red flags. Another thing that bothers me about those so called sources, I never tell anyone of my hits or misses while hunting and I sure as hell don't go around talking about wounding game animals. For those "sources " to get that information, they must have quoted antis who lied about their experiences or they talked to bowhunters who aren't the sharpest tacks in the drawer.Get real!


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

To whom is that aimed Captjj. Personal attack of some sort? Is it called for?

Okay, let's go your way. You get 3 guys ion a charter. One says he doesn't want to use your bait but will instead use 44 hooks on a line and gaffs a fish in the eye. The fish won't live, but because of HIS morals and ethics,or lack of them, HE decides to throw it back in and let the fish suffer until it dies. What do YOU do then? What do you do next time the same group wants to charter your boat? Is there either a common law or moral and ethical agreement between charter boat captains that may prevent this suffering? Who decided, other gaffers or a group of 'good' fishermen?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*or they talked to bowhunters who aren't the sharpest tacks in the drawer.*

And WHO is it we are discussing here?

Oh yea...it's a conspiracy, and some of them met in the back chat room on the internet to feed each other information...hmmmm Could have happened?


----------



## hanginhigh (Sep 12, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> hanginhigh, I never considered this a "hunting" forum. For me it's a traditional archery forum. So I don't think we should assume all readers are hunters. I hunt for a few days a year only. Once I'm done I never give hunting a second thought for the rest of the year. It never enters my mind. I'm an archer first who does not own a compound bow.


Ok so it isn't a hunting forum but it is a hunting thread. Im a hunter first an only hunt with my longbow, not shure why that matters. I shoot almost daily an am confident that any deer inside 20yds I will put a lethal shot on. I don't need the goverment to tell me that. 

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

We aren't talking gov. control. We are talking a jury of peers, like Reddogge says they do on the military base he used to live and hunt on. If you can do it, prove it. Very simple, no?


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Still not going to change anything with this thread.:shade:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> We aren't talking gov. control. We are talking a jury of peers


That doesn't make sence. In order for it to be enforced the government has to be involved.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

How Destroyer? Ask Reddogge how they did it on his base - he already posted it on page one?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Captjj, 
The thread wasn`t to change anything, there was no agenda. It was to ask simple questions to open minds. That`s all.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Peers???? Last time I checked, I didn't need those. What is hilarious, if this actually happened, mercy, better lock your doors and lock them tight! Too much northern living for some here. And I mean far north. Speck


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Speck1 said:


> Peers???? Last time I checked, I didn't need those. What is hilarious, if this actually happened, mercy, better lock your doors and lock them tight! Too much northern living for some here. And I mean far north. Speck


Well, if you wanted to shoot targets nationally or internationally, you have to follow a set of rules, as set out by the local bodies to be a participant. Like Fita. Same basic thing - associations of people who have already proved themselves to hold the moral and ethical behaviors of all individuals, and have also proved that they are capable of handling their gear properly, above everything else...the individual as voted upon by their peers, as what IS right for the group or association as a whole. For the people, by the people. You don't pass the test, then you are deemed by a group of like-minded individuals (peers) that you cannot hunt in that local. Simple. 

Laws are only created when some people can't abide by the wishes of the majority. Rules and guidelines are created before laws need to be created to prove people can abide by the rules and wishes of the majority. This forum is a perfect example. It's only when an individual can't PROVE they can abide/behave properly, by what the majority of like-minded individuals (peers) that have agreed upon, in respect to the subject and limits of the behaviors, that the moderator has to 'lay down the law', and the person gets banned temporarily. If they come back and still can;t hit the target, they are banned for good, on behalf of their peers, for the betterment of their peers. No different.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Okay then, answer this? All things being equal...How hard IS IT to pass a simple proficiency test and who, really, would it hurt and who, really, would it benefit? 

IMHO it would benefit the deer and the other hunters that have the balls to not sidestep a simple test or make excuses why they shouldn't have to take it. If you pass, it benefits everyone. If you fail, it benefits everyone. Win-Win for the hunters.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

bradd7 said:


> Captjj,
> The thread wasn`t to change anything, there was no agenda. It was to ask simple questions to open minds. That`s all.


How do you know the point of the thread - Chad started it - you just pontificated


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> How Destroyer? Ask Reddogge how they did it on his base - he already posted it on page one?


Was it a private military base? A one off situation can't possibly be implemented state wide as Reddogge stated and certainly not nation wide without it being put into law. 

As soon as that law is created for hunting the government has the authority to use that law to refuse anyone the right to hunt. Add to that the data collected from testing about success rates (if they are so terrible as some here keep saying) and pretty soon your talking about a having the way and the means (evidence) to completely ban bow hunting.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Matt, You already know who started it (what did you call it out loud, that got it locked - the the train-wreck on AT? :smile originally. Same content, different person.

Destroyer; Not sure about reddogge, you'll have to ask him. And no, we aren't saying the gov has any input at all. We are saying it's hunter association based...like Fita.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Was it a private military base? A one off situation can't possibly be implemented state wide as Reddogge stated and certainly not nation wide without it being put into law.
> 
> As soon as that law is created for hunting the government has the authority to use that law to refuse anyone the right to hunt. Add to that the data collected from testing about success rates (if they are so terrible as some here keep saying) and pretty soon your talking about a having the way and the means (evidence) to completely ban bow hunting.


Guess his missed the post from the trad hunter from Maryland that stated his "peers" that shoot compounds made the test so difficult that only compound hunters could pass it, he didn't even bother trying the test. I think it was 5 arrows in a 5" circle for 25 yds.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Matt_Potter said:


> How do you know the point of the thread - Chad started it - you just pontificated


Open minded pontification.:wink:


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

CAPTJJ said:


> Open minded pontification.:wink:


Another personal insult aimed at me again Captjj? At what point do you decide to stick with the subject and become ashamed of your behavior?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> We are saying it's hunter association based...like Fita.


Regardless of who does the testing, the management, it has to be put into law in order to *enforce* it and none of the archery organizations can do that on their own so the government will be involved in a big way.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Bradd, you keep saying the government has no input at all(that would be my government since you live in Canada). I'm saying, now read this slowly, not you or anybody else walking the face of this planet has any say at all as it pertains to the topic. Most people who think they have their finger on the pulse of Americans, based on TV, polls, etc, etc, are dead wrong. I'm done, shouldn't have participated in the first place. Speck


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Then how can Fita or the reddogge military base (I doubt if it's the same on all bases) enforce their mandates and rules?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

CAPTJJ said:


> Guess his missed the post from the trad hunter from Maryland that stated his "peers" that shoot compounds made the test so difficult that only compound hunters could pass it, he didn't even bother trying the test. I think it was 5 arrows in a 5" circle for 25 yds.


:thumbs_up


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Speck1 said:


> Bradd, you keep saying the government has no input at all(that would be my government since you live in Canada). I'm saying, now read this slowly, not you or anybody else walking the face of this planet has any say at all as it pertains to the topic. Most people who think they have their finger on the pulse of Americans, based on TV, polls, etc, etc, are dead wrong. I'm done, shouldn't have participated in the first place. Speck


That's what I am saying and no I am not saying simply America, it could be anywhere in the world as Steve Morley and others have already pointed out. It doesn't have to involve the government, it could be people like you. People who hunt and are concerned about the betterment of the hunting industry as a whole. People who have no problem proving they deserve the privilege of hunting, without causing undue suffering on the animals that YOU love to hunt, and for the safety of others...in any country. So that the gov doesn't have to become involved when some yahoo injures and animal that wanders into a neighborhood, or misses the target high and it injures/kills someone else (it would only take one) in either of our countries before the media jumps all over it and the antis have the upper edge to pass a law.


----------



## SteveMcK (Aug 23, 2013)

*Really? I didn't think we need proficiency tests, this changed my mind.*



reddogge said:


> A couple of years ago I was invited to be one of the "hired deer killers" in a surburban community but I had to passed a proficiency test. 5 arrows from 25 yards into a 5" circle. It became apparent they wanted compound shooters only. I didn't even try.


If you can't do a 5 in group on a target that isn't and won't be moving at a mere 25 yards you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. Everytime you wound an animal and it dies on someones lawn, it hurts bowhunters reputation everywhere.

I mean really? I haven't shot in 15 years, I picked up a set and I'm shooting a 3in group at 25 yards already after an hour. If you are shooting a 5 in group in ideal situations, then in a hunting situation, with adrenaline high and muscles cold, shooting up or downhill, possible wind and weather, you'll be lucky to have a 10 in group.

I have nothing against traditional shooters, as long as they practice enough to know their limitations and abide by them. If the best you can do is a 5 in group at 10 yards, and you won't take a shot longer then 10 yards? Hats off to you. 

But people who can't pass an simple test like you mentioned and go out and shoot at everything that moves have to be wounding 3 times more animals then they take home.

And more luck then skill? OMG. If you know you can shoot a 3 in group, you can aim at the heart, and if the animal moves, you should either kill or miss. All a deer does on hearing the string is drop and load their legs for a spring. So you hit the top of lung zone, spine, or miss clean. 

But if your a piss poor shot, that's when your lodging it in the guts or legs etc.

As to the OP's questions, these are dumb questions. If you are shooting at big game valued hunting animals, you should be proficient. If the majority of hunters aren't, then it needs to be enforced. If you are shooting at overpopulated small game, in most cases you kill or miss anyway, because the smaller bodys can't endure the trauma. And if they get wounded and die somewhere, there are no shortage of smaller predators and carrion eaters to deal with it quickly, unlike a big game animal that stinks up the area for weeks. 

You can't have liberty without responsibility.

Personally I think the best solution is to require hunters on public land to join a club, and let the clubs regulate their members. Most private land owners would also require a good club as well, but that's a private issue imo. IMO if its your land, you can do what you like.

This solution doesn't cost taxpayers anything, the government isn't enforcing anything. But if you have piss-poor ethics, good luck staying a member anywhere. And if a club starts to accept all the rejects it'll have a terrible reputation and won't be able to get its members hunts on private land.

It would also encourage more clubs which are a great thing for the sport.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Who said it had to be hard? It's decided upon by the members of the group. Is 3 in the yellow from 15' hard? But guaranteed there are a lot of those that can't and say they can. So prove it?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Well said Steve. 



SteveMcK said:


> If you can't do a 5 in group on a target that isn't and won't be moving at a mere 25 yards you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. Everytime you wound an animal and it dies on someones lawn, it hurts bowhunters reputation everywhere.
> 
> I mean really? I haven't shot in 15 years, I picked up a set and I'm shooting a 3in group at 25 yards already after an hour. If you are shooting a 5 in group in ideal situations, then in a hunting situation, with adrenaline high and muscles cold, shooting up or downhill, possible wind and weather, you'll be lucky to have a 10 in group.
> 
> ...


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> Then how can Fita or the reddogge military base (I doubt if it's the same on all bases) enforce their mandates and rules?


Fita can only enforce rules on their own members because you agree to their terms and agree to abide by those rules. They aren't laws but laws are exactly what would be needed in order to make participation mandatory.

Military? You've got to be joking...


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Maybe they should just pass a law that states 'anyone that wounds an animal has to stay in the forest with whatever they took with them, for as long as it takes, without any help, and not allowed to come out without the carcass.' That would be simple enough.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Destroyer,
Maybe not. For example, maybe the 'club or association could limit it in their own individual counties/states/provinces and if you don't follow the rules, you just get booted. The peer pressure would be enough.

As to the military, ask reddogge, he posted his experiences on page one.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Well, thought I was done. Bradd, I have nothing against you, don't know you. Maybe you truly believe the things you are saying. The problem is(unless I have missed something) you didn't grow up an American. Therefore, you cannot comprehend how we feel about these kinds of topics. It's already been said, make the test 25yds. One guy will pass and shoot and wound deer at 50. Another will fail, that's only good out to 15, but only shoots game at 10 and is a great "hunter". No thanks and enjoy the continued debate. Speck


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*Maybe they should just pass a law that states 'anyone that wounds an animal has to stay in the forest with whatever they took with them, for as long as it takes, without any help, and not allowed to come out without the carcass.' That would be simple enough. *

Or change 'anyone' to 'any individual or group' and make the whole group stay out there...then see what happens. :teeth:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> Maybe not. For example, maybe the 'club or association could limit it in their own individual counties/states/provinces and if you don't follow the rules, you just get booted. The peer pressure would be enough.


If there is no law then I don't have to join the club or association.


----------



## hanginhigh (Sep 12, 2010)

I prove it everytime I drag a deer out of the woods. What's a test going to prove anyway? Who's to say that the guy that can stack em in the center at 20yds isn't going to send one after the monster standing at 40yds.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

SteveMcK said:


> If you can't do a 5 in group on a target that isn't and won't be moving at a mere 25 yards you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. Everytime you wound an animal and it dies on someones lawn, it hurts bowhunters reputation everywhere.
> 
> I mean really? I haven't shot in 15 years, I picked up a set and I'm shooting a 3in group at 25 yards already after an hour. If you are shooting a 5 in group in ideal situations, then in a hunting situation, with adrenaline high and muscles cold, shooting up or downhill, possible wind and weather, you'll be lucky to have a 10 in group.
> 
> ...


There's some good stuff in here but there's point where you go back and forth with yourself.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Yeah, you need to join a club to hunt public land, that's really going to happen. I already belong to the club, its called the Taxpayers Club.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

CAPTJJ said:


> Yeah, you need to join a club to hunt public land, that's really going to happen. I already belong to the club, its called the Taxpayers Club.


Lol! Its a crappy club too but when you think about having to join a club to hunt and the reasons the reasons for these debates... :wink:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

Thread reopened.

Posted Rule by Admin in the Trad forum. This was posted awhile back. I just want to remind folks. I removed 20 posts. I was actually enjoying this debate but when the words Dumb and Ignorant start to show up...it started to go down hill. Please continue with the debate but not the arguing.
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2092061

"From now going forward, you will not be allowed to argue your opinions over another member's. When a member asks for help, give your advice and move on. Any commenting on how another member's advice isn't worth a hill of beans, will have their access from this sub forum removed.

tj"


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

SteveMcK said:


> Lets say I can sink 100 arrows in a 5 in circle at a given distance, and you firing 100 arrows at the same target are say, a 15 inch circle.


Just because you can 'sink' all arrows arrows into a 5" circle on a target doesn't mean you will on a animal's vitals. All it means is you can put those shots into a 5" circle but that 5" circle can be on any place of a deer at any point in time since deer aren't static like a target. Doing it for 100 arrows wont change that either.



SteveMcK said:


> Now if you can't hit a 15 inch target, you could hit in the head, you could hit in the guts, you could lame one leg, all kinds of possibilities.


You still don't understand what a variable is? You can hit a 1" dot on a target 100% of the time and still hit all those places of the deer too, it isn't within the hunters control. A really bad shot probably wouldn't hit the deer at all so therefore my previous statement is correct.

Btw, it doesn't matter how many % you wound, one critter is too much for any anti hunter or even for a normal person that is on the fence as far as hunting is concerned so don't think your safe with the logic behind %'s.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

bradd7 said:


> We aren't talking gov. control. We are talking a jury of peers, like Reddogge says they do on the military base he used to live and hunt on. If you can do it, prove it. Very simple, no?


Having admitted repeatedly that you are NOT a hunter, you are NOT a peer, and by tour own standard you have no legitimate say in this argument. As a responsible Hunter, I am a staunch advocate for proficiency in ALL aspects of hunting. Some arbitrary shooting exam proposed by an animal rights advocate who clearly knows nothing about hunting is not going to fly with me.

First of all, let's look at why your "proficiency" test is ridiculous...

Foam targets don't jump strings. Ever. Real animals do. Your perfect shot on that rubber deer just hit outside the vitals on a whitetail. Shooting a target will not produce the same adrenaline dump as setting a pin on a live animal. That has nothing to do with the "thrill of killing" as you would call it. Rather, it has to do with the fact that it's more difficult to make the shot hunting than target shooting. Then there's the fact that your arbitrary test can be fudged. Let's say you set the standard at making the shot with a 40# draw and a 350 grain arrow. I just passed your test, and I'm walking out in the woods with a 55# draw and 374 grain arrows. Did your test prove I can hit my target with this rig? No. Let's take that a little further. I just shot your test with field points. When I head out with my broadheads, how well have I tuned them? HAVE I tuned them? Or have I screwed them on ans hoped for the best? Now let's assume I've taken your test with exactly the rig I'm hunting with, gotten my BH's tuned perfectly, and I'm in the stand. There's a deer 30yds out, perfectly broadside. I set up, and release. Hypothetically, let's say I'm a world class shot, and that arrow flies like a laser right to my point of aim. It's on a trajectory to cut through both lungs and completely dissect the aorta. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that my bow sounds like a bomb going off, so when I released that perfect shot, my buck dropped a started turning. My perfect shot just entered slightly below the spine and nicked the upper side of the offhand lung. My freezer full of meat just bolted off to possibly die a slow, terrifying death by drowning in his own blood. Or worse, I just winged him enough to slow him down. Unable to run, he's brought down by a coyote that night, and he's still conscious when it rips open his belly. But it's ok, because I passed your test. I know what you're thinking. Why didn't I track my animal? But you can't ask that question, because it wasn't on your shooting test. 

How about this... Let's say I'm just like you. I don't know anything about hunting, but I can pass your shooting test, so I gat to call myself a hunter, despite the fact that my "hunting" experience was shooting woodpeckers 40 some odd years ago, and tracking my kills meant walking over to the tree I pinned them to. But I got lucky. I shot my deer in the vitals (as indicated by the 3D target I tested on). Unfortunately, my arrow only ENTERED into the vitals ring. It exited way outside, and hit nothing but liver tissue and gut. Since I'm qualified to call myself a hunter, I'm still good. I get out of my stand, and take off after my perfectly gut shot deer. I chase that tiny blood trail relentlessly. Every time that deer beds down, I show up, and he bolts again. But I'm a hunter, right? I'm not giving up. No matter how hard I push that gut shot deer. My arrow went into the vitals, so I'm golden. I didn't know I should hold back and let that deer bed down and bleed out for a while. Instead, I pushed an animal that would have been a perfect shot on a target. The blood clotting closed the wounds, and the blood trail vanished. Now my deer is out there wounded, and I'm not going to find it. I passed my shooting test, so I'm qualified to be called a hunter. The only problem, is I don't have the slightest idea how to hunt. 

See, the problem with you anti-hunters spouting about your ideas for proficiency testing is that you don't know anything about hunting. You MIGHT have a clue about putting arrows on a dime at 50 yards, but that's not hunting. That's shooting. You don't seem to understand the difference. Understanding animal behavior and anatomy, stalking, equipment selection and tuning, shot placement, blood tracking, recovery, stand/blind placement, wind judgement, scent control, and choice of hunting methods ALL come into play, and ALL of these aspects are variable, depending on the situation at hand. Knowing how to adjust to these changing elements is what makes you a Hunter. You're not a hunter. You don't have the slightest idea how to judge the skills, or lack thereof, of a real hunter or a prospective hunter. 

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*Having admitted repeatedly that you are NOT a hunter, you are NOT a peer, and by tour own standard you have no legitimate say in this argument. As a responsible Hunter, I am a staunch advocate for proficiency in ALL aspects of hunting. Some arbitrary shooting exam proposed by an animal rights advocate who clearly knows nothing about hunting is not going to fly with me.*

Please stop reading only what you want, defending what you don't have too, and go back and read the posts. I didn't even enter this until late yesterday? 
I said I wasn't a hunter anymore by choice. I am not your peer because I proved by posting my accomplishments that we aren't on the same level in archery or anything else as you are now proving to everyone. I also said that I live in a small country town filled with hunters and have no opinion whatsoever what they choose to do for themselves. I am in NO way any type of advocate for anything other than to not see an animal suffer when a hunter could have been better. So, if anything I am against bad hunters that don't have the guts to prove what the brag about. 

This thread is nothing more than a discussion of thoughts and ideas and has no room for personal opinions. Questions are asked and answered by the intelligent, without attempts to bash, insult, discredit or throw the topic off balance with person rights or govern-mental issues. These are simple questions there merely require a yes or no and anything else is discussed, not debated. That's adulthood. If you can't handle it, then leave or don't say anything. Those your choices and rights. 

And BTW; I already posted that I was nailing woodpeckers to trees when I was 12...some 48 years ago, with a fiberglass bow and fiberglass arrows that I got in a set for xmas....no biggie. It doesn't make you a hunter, it makes you a stupid kid, like most of us were.

They ONLY difference, it seems, between you and me is that I'm not one but afraid to take any tests of accuracy because I KNOW I can hit 3 in the center at 20 yards if I did decide to hunt again, AND I've proved it. And if I wanted too, I can hunt geese and ducks right off of my lake front property.

Nothing in these posts are personal hits towards hunters. They are a DISCUSSION...get over yourself already please.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

patientz3ro said:


> Having admitted repeatedly that you are NOT a hunter, you are NOT a peer, and by tour own standard you have no legitimate say in this argument. As a responsible Hunter, I am a staunch advocate for proficiency in ALL aspects of hunting. Some arbitrary shooting exam proposed by an animal rights advocate who clearly knows nothing about hunting is not going to fly with me.
> 
> First of all, let's look at why your "proficiency" test is ridiculous...
> 
> ...


Yep, that just about sums it up for me. Good analogies.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Yep, that just about sums it up for me. Good analogies.


*Foam targets don't jump strings.*

The why would YOU, of all people, be afraid of any test? We aren't talking a stalking or chasing test, or a morals and ethics test, we are talking minimum accuracy test, with no government involvement. so it could be a body of YOUR peers...a group of like hunters that judges your bragging rights and privileges to hunt?

The question has never been about who is a hunter and who is not, or who is the best in their own mind. It's always been about accuracy to prevent suffering...especially by the guys that come from a compound, buy a 60# bow off of Ebay, practice a couple of weeks of snap shooting at half draw, and then go into the woods. 

You don't need FITA archery lessons, the size of your camo truck won't help, the cost or name-brand of your gear won't help. If you can handle the bow good enough not to wound, then prove it. 

Simple...


----------



## SteveMcK (Aug 23, 2013)

Destroyer said:


> Just because you can 'sink' all arrows arrows into a 5" circle on a target doesn't mean you will on a animal's vitals. All it means is you can put those shots into a 5" circle but that 5" circle can be on any place of a deer at any point in time since deer aren't static like a target. Doing it for 100 arrows wont change that either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol that was good for a laugh. Do you understand math or statistics or variables? If Weather is one variable, and the animal is another variable, and your accuracy is the third variable, how does becoming less accurate reduce wounding? No, by decreasing your variable in accuracy, your odds of a clean shot go up.

If accuracy is causing us to wound MORE animals, then why do we have an archery forum? Forget tuning, forget form, forget expert advice, everyone go buy a random bow and random arrows, stop practicing, and just go wing arrows at everything that moves. That'll reduce woundings.

You can't defend an asinine statement, just admit its wrong.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Mac what even makes you think that I just did a brief search online? This is a grand assumption on your part.
> First of all, on the vast majority of the documents you refer to, I don't need to go to a public library. I own copies of them. I make a living based on the politics and history of the United States. Don't say I'm just some joke looking up documents online on small whim. Second, were I to look up these documents online, it would not be some rendition, but rather look through the Avalon project, which has original copies posted online, with no opinion inserted by the website.
> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/statech.asp
> 
> ...


Let me tell you something. .I have read everything I have spoken of..and don't tell me I haven't. 

I have no need to explain it any further to you or the likes of person who doesn't believe what I have said. .That proof is already there..and regardless of what you claim. And this proof.is easily found by anyone who wants to see for themselves. 

As to the rest of your bs rant..no..I'll state my opinions and feelings any damn time I chose to. .

Mac


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

What sounds about right to me is, that the patient should be giving the tests to his peers, with the old guy hiring himself out for lessons if they fail? 

:teeth: Good combo?


----------



## SteveMcK (Aug 23, 2013)

patientz3ro said:


> Having admitted repeatedly that you are NOT a hunter, you are NOT a peer, and by tour own standard you have no legitimate say in this argument. As a responsible Hunter, I am a staunch advocate for proficiency in ALL aspects of hunting. Some arbitrary shooting exam proposed by an animal rights advocate who clearly knows nothing about hunting is not going to fly with me.
> 
> First of all, let's look at why your "proficiency" test is ridiculous...
> 
> ...


You made the point that hunting is more then accuracy. That's clear. But how should everyone learn these excellent points you bring up? By winging arrows at everything until you learn by trial and error? Civilization advances by building on others experiences through education. Yes we should learn from our own mistakes, but its way smarter to learn from others mistakes.

You also made the point that you can learn how to hunt ethically, as you just educated us very nicely. Of course most of that is already in hunter education classes, but by all means, we can put in a few extra pointers with the tests.

"Traditional" english archers shot at targets from the age they could stand, practiced most of their lives. Did it make them better hunters and soldiers? Of course.

If one of the recruits in an ole english army couldn't hit the paper target, do you think his superiors believed him when he said "I hit living things better then targets". No, he was assigned to a pike to protect the archers who could actually hit the target. Proficiency tests aren't new...

I never heard of Robin Hood complaining about the archery butte being a static target and therefore harder to hit somehow then a deer. That's a lazy argument. No, he was splitting arrows at 100 yards and over. Ya, by LAW, english archers were practicing at 100 yards. All the tournaments were 100 yards and more. And your whining about hitting a pie plate at 25?

Compound bows are for modern people who don't have the time to practice enough to get accurate with trad equipment. You can pick it up and be a good shot pretty quick.

I've always wanted to be a traditional shooter, its a huge challenge, and takes a LOT of practice. Hats off to those who have committed to it and got good at it. But if you can't hit a pie plate at your hunting distance, YOU AREN'T GOOD AT IT. If you don't have the vast amount of time required to get good at traditional archery, pick up a pre-owned compound for a couple hundred. You still need practice, but probably 90% less.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

SteveMcK said:


> No, by decreasing your variable in accuracy, your odds of a clean shot go up.


Odd's? Lol! Don't care what the odds are, one wounded critter is enough of a reason to ban hunting altogether for some ppl. Do you honestly think justifying your point by having a lower % of wounding is better? Because if you do then that is an argument not to use any bow to hunt. A rifle is more accurate with less woundings again so lets force everyone to use them and ban bow hunting..


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mac, you have not proven anything. You have not even tried.
If the proof is that easy, then show it to me.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

SteveMcK said:


> I never heard of Robin Hood complaining about the archery butte being a static target and therefore harder to hit somehow then a deer. .


:mg:

Are you serious?


----------



## SteveMcK (Aug 23, 2013)

This is about your statement that accuracy = more woundings. I won't let you get away with a statement like that. It has nothing to do with banning bowhunting, as I'm a bow hunter. 

As to wounding deer, less>more. If you disagree, you shouldn't be hunting. If you can't hit a pie plate, you have even less chance of hitting a deer, don't fool yourself.

As to Robin Hood, I thought you might identify with my point a little better if you've seen it in a cartoon. I'm a fan of the Simpsons too, but its kinda hard to take Homer seriously.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

bradd7 said:


> *Foam targets don't jump strings.*
> 
> The why would YOU, of all people, be afraid of any test? We aren't talking a stalking or chasing test, or a morals and ethics test, we are talking minimum accuracy test, with no government involvement. so it could be a body of YOUR peers...a group of like hunters that judges your bragging rights and privileges to hunt?


George, the why is simply this. Being a good shot does not equate to being a good hunter. There are so many more things that go into being a good hunter than just being able to hit a bullseye consistently. For many years, my ego got in the way of appreciating what many are capable of in the woods even though they may not be the most outstanding shot, many make up for that one deficiency with superior woodsman skills and can put themselves in positions where their shot is a much closer or easier one than an inexperienced hotshot could ever hope to have. You, of all people, claiming a native heritage, should know that ancient hunting was more about quantity of shots than quality of shots. Why hasn't someone posted the studies that have shown that a staggering 97% of all deer wounded with an arrow , but not found, survive the wound as opposed to approx. 40% of those wounded, but not found, with a bullet?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

SteveMcK said:


> This is about your statement that accuracy = more woundings.


Not my statement, this was



Destroyer said:


> So accuracy = less wounding? The truth could very well be the opposite so have a think about what that means to the future of bowhunting.


Your wrong about everything so far. Don't try to move the focus on to something you made up.


----------



## SteveMcK (Aug 23, 2013)

Do I need to explain opposites? White, black, less, more, up down? The opposite of Accuracy = less woundings, is accuracy = more woundings.

I simply condensed it a bit, but the statement is factually the same as your quote. Except for the "could very well be". 

No, the truth couldn't even possibly be the opposite of accuracy = less woundings.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Mac, you have not proven anything. You have not even tried.
> If the proof is that easy, then show it to me.


I don't think I have the permission of the library to photo copy everything i have read in my life. .sorry. .

How about this. .prove my opinion wrong..

Show my assertions wrong..

Show me that what I said is false or misleading. .

Being able to have freedom against a system that gave precedence over the common man to a select few in all aspects is and always will be what this country was founded on..

Dispute it all you want. .but unless you can provide ample documentation that proves otherwise..your never going to convince me or anyone else this is wrong. 

Mac


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

SteveMcK said:


> Except for the "could very well be".


That wouldn't be a factor now would it. 



SteveMcK said:


> I simply condensed it a bit


No you didn't, you changed it and took it out of context to suit your continued evasion of the truth. I stated what I meant by it in a previous post but you ignored that too.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

I guess in all of this I've stayed with one position and that is;

A hunter should be a good (doesn't have to be the best) target archer first and foremost, to learn the proper skills necessary for a the best possibility of a clean kill on every shot. Then learn the hunting aspects to become both a good archer and hunter equally. No one should be allowed to buy a bow without proving first, to the humane ones that love the sport and want to keep it alive, without proving they have practiced enough to become a valued peer. Meaning, no person should be allowed to be over-bowed, with the possibility of panic or stress of any sort when the animal is in front of them. 

Pope and Young, Fred Bear (who publicly admitted he wasn't that good), Howard Hill and all the others learned to be very accurate, or as accurate as they could with the gear they had, BEFORE they became bow hunters. It's painfully obvious that they practiced and practiced before attempting kill an animal cleanly and properly. In fact,there was a story somewhere about Fred Bear wounding a bear in the butt, by a bad shot (no hop, skip or jump from the animal) and then having to chase it down, and how bad he felt.

Follow the 3Cs of archery (and anything else) Control, Consistency, Confidence. We can't have one without both of the others. All that is being discussed is whether or not someone should be able to prove they have the 3Cs, and not just bragging about it.

I'm out.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> No one should be allowed to buy a bow without proving first, to the humane ones that love the sport and want to keep it alive, without proving they have practiced enough to become a valued peer. Meaning, no person should be allowed to be over-bowed, with the possibility of panic or stress of any sort when the animal is in front of them.


So hunters need to get your approval to hunt and even to buy a bow?

Good that you have let us all know what your real intentions were Brad and why you have pushed this anti-hunting stuff on us. I'm sorry but your approval isn't required.


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mac, you haven't said anything that could possibly be disproven, because you have not said anything of substance.
You've said things along the lines that it is your god given right to hunt. And you've thrown insults that people need to read the charters. As for anything of actual substance to contribute to whatever argument you had, you have yet to give one.
The one thing you have provided, THE ONE thing, is you mentioned the man's right to substance, which I already came out and said that I have never read or heard of such a thing in the federalist papers, and ran a search through the federalist papers to see if I could find it, to which I could not. You had no reply, other then that I must of course be wrong about something.
You have yet to give any sort of evidence to prove you have any knowledge on our subject whatsoever.
You have said nothing of value, nothing with any substance that can be proven wrong.

"Being able to have freedom against a system that gave precedence over the common man to a select few in all aspects is and always will be what this country was founded on.."
What is this though? I never said anything against that, show me where I have! I would not disagree with this, but that is not what we were talking about!
What I am calling you out on is you yell at people who disagree that they simply do not know our country, when you have yet to show me that you know it any more.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

bradd7 said:


> *Having admitted repeatedly that you are NOT a hunter, you are NOT a peer, and by tour own standard you have no legitimate say in this argument. As a responsible Hunter, I am a staunch advocate for proficiency in ALL aspects of hunting. Some arbitrary shooting exam proposed by an animal rights advocate who clearly knows nothing about hunting is not going to fly with me.*
> 
> Please stop reading only what you want, defending what you don't have too, and go back and read the posts. I didn't even enter this until late yesterday?
> I said I wasn't a hunter anymore by choice. * I am not your peer because I proved by posting my accomplishments that we aren't on the same level in archery or anything else as you are now proving to everyone. *I also said that I live in a small country town filled with hunters and have no opinion whatsoever what they choose to do for themselves. I am in NO way any type of advocate for anything other than to not see an animal suffer when a hunter could have been better. So, if anything I am against* bad hunters that don't have the guts to prove what the brag about. *
> ...


Let's address the bold points first.

You say you're not bashing or insulting anyone, yet you claim superiority without knowing anything at all about me, my accuracy, OR my hunting skills. Again, hunting and shooting are NOT the same thing, as I stated before, and you conveniently ignored. I'm glad you admit you're never going to be my peer, but you clearly don't understand why. As for bragging, maybe I forgot, so please show me where I've done so. This thread IS about personal opinions. How do you not realize this? You say it's not about rights? Read what you said at the end of that paragraph. What's the last word in that statement? You said your woodpecker escapades made you a stupid kid, not a hunter. I agree with that. I DON'T agree with the bit about how, "most of us were." Unless, by "us," you mean your fellow non-hunters. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume to speak for the majority of the hunters here, and say that we were taught to respect the living things that we kill. Had I shot something just for entertainment, I wouldn't have been able to sit for a week, and it would have been a cold day in hell before I was allowed back in the woods. Now, as for the differences between you and I, I can promise you accuracy is FAR from the only one. For one thing, you have NOT, in fact, proven your skills. That applies to both your shooting AND your hunting. I could walk out back tomorrow and take a picture of every single arrow I own sticking in a 2in circle in the middle of my target. If you didn't see me shoot them, who's to say I didn't just stick them in there? You see what I did there? Finally I'm really happy for you for being able to have ducks and geese you could shoot if you wanted to, but that's completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a hunter. I could take off down the freeway at 100+ mph if I wanted to, but that doesn't make me a racecar driver. 

Now, let's talk about MY shooting and hunting skills. I got back into archery this year after quite a few years away from a bow. Around here in San Diego, it can be very difficult to get deer within bow range on public land, so I hunted with a rifle. Back home in Mississippi, I hunted with what I practiced with most frequently. After having to undergo shoulder surgery a while back, I find more and more that recoil from my deer rifle is becoming extremely uncomfortable. So much so, that I wasn't enjoying my hunts. Anticipating the pain that it would cause was killing it for me. I killed my share of deer with my bow when I was younger, so I decided to pick it back up. After shooting 2, sometimes 3 or 4 days a week at the range, and spending a little time out back every day getting my form perfected, I'm consistently putting 6 shots into 3in groups at 20, and 6in groups out to 40. Now here's the important part. *I will NOT be taking a weapon into the woods this year.* Why? Because until I can put those 6 arrows into that 6in circle at 60+ yards with a 60# draw weight, I will not consider myself accurate enough to guarantee a kill within the effective range of my bow. That's a higher standard than some people hold to, and lower than others, but for ME, that is a morally sound, responsible, and ethical minimum. The difference between you and me, is that I'm not suggesting that everyone else should be required to do the same.



Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

SteveMcK said:


> Lol that was good for a laugh. Do you understand math or statistics or variables? If Weather is one variable, and the animal is another variable, and your accuracy is the third variable, how does becoming less accurate reduce wounding? No, by decreasing your variable in accuracy, your odds of a clean shot go up.
> 
> If accuracy is causing us to wound MORE animals, then why do we have an archery forum? Forget tuning, forget form, forget expert advice, everyone go buy a random bow and random arrows, stop practicing, and just go wing arrows at everything that moves. That'll reduce woundings.
> 
> You can't defend an asinine statement, just admit its wrong.


I think you're misunderstanding what destroyer is saying. No one here is claiming accuracy isn't critical, just that it's not the ONLY factor that matters. The best way to explain why many of us feel this accuracy test is pointless is this... Imagine for a second you're sitting in a stand, and there's a deer 20yds out. Directly in front of the deer, there is a screen with the vitals outlined, so that you see them superimposed on the deer. When you release the arrow, it hits the outline perfectly, but the deer heard the string and dropped, turning away from you. You could be accurate as hell, but that deer isn't in the same spot, so your accurate shot missed the moving deer. You're accurate, but you still missed.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Mac, you haven't said anything that could possibly be disproven, because you have not said anything of substance.
> You've said things along the lines that it is your god given right to hunt. And you've thrown insults that people need to read the charters. As for anything of actual substance to contribute to whatever argument you had, you have yet to give one.
> The one thing you have provided, THE ONE thing, is you mentioned the man's right to substance, which I already came out and said that I have never read or heard of such a thing in the federalist papers, and ran a search through the federalist papers to see if I could find it, to which I could not. You had no reply, other then that I must of course be wrong about something.
> You have yet to give any sort of evidence to prove you have any knowledge on our subject whatsoever.
> ...


I haven't yelled at anyone at anytime here..so I am not sure what you mean. .

As to who I think is a moron..that proof is easily seen on this thread. 

I will say 1 last time that the Federalist papers are not the only writings on the subject, but apparently the only thing you can use. 

My beliefs are sound and my statements are true and reflect accurately what I have put forth.


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

You have continually insulted anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. I sincerely apologize if I mislead you by saying that was the same as yelling.
And I will say again that you have not yet presented one piece of evidence supporting your assertions and only insult those who challenge you.
And until you do, I deny that you have any knowledge on the subject whatsoever.
Please reply with some substance, as you have not yet.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

bradd7 said:


> I guess in all of this I've stayed with one position and that is;
> 
> A hunter should be a good (doesn't have to be the best) target archer first and foremost, to learn the proper skills necessary for a the best possibility of a clean kill on every shot. Then learn the hunting aspects to become both a good archer and hunter equally. No one should be allowed to buy a bow without proving first, to the humane ones that love the sport and want to keep it alive, without proving they have practiced enough to become a valued peer. Meaning, no person should be allowed to be over-bowed, with the possibility of panic or stress of any sort when the animal is in front of them.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry... you are clearly deluded as to what hunting is about... and what it takes to be a successful too.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

SteveMcK said:


> You made the point that hunting is more then accuracy. That's clear. But how should everyone learn these excellent points you bring up? By winging arrows at everything until you learn by trial and error? Civilization advances by building on others experiences through education. Yes we should learn from our own mistakes, but its way smarter to learn from others mistakes.
> 
> I never heard of Robin Hood complaining about the archery butte being a static target and therefore harder to hit somehow then a deer. That's a lazy argument.


No, I'm not suggesting you just fling arrows and hope for the best. I hope no one gets the impression that I am. The point that I'm trying to get across is that being dead on accurate isn't proof against wounding an animal. There are a multitude of reasons that an arrow could go exactly to the point in space where you wanted it to go, and still result in a non lethal shot or an animal that isn't recovered. I also don't think anyone is saying that static targets are more difficult than live ones. Quite the opposite, really. 
Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AKDan (Nov 8, 2006)

I am curious how many of you have sat in on a IBEP sanctioned bowhunter ed shooting 'test'? 

I haven't read the 9 pages of bickering about testing vs hunting...accuracy vs wounding, etc. 

I think we all know a static 3d shoot is not going to test a hunters prowess...his/her ability to judge when to shoot, how successful they'll be at bowhunting or anything past shooting a static target.

My experience?

I've been a bowhunter ed instructor in a state that requires proficiency testing. 4 targets, 2 arrows per target, must get 5 'kills' as determined by the hunter ed instructor (not always the rings on the target), pass fail, no shots farther than 30 yards and no broadheads required or allowed. Sounds goofy right? Well it is....AND...it isn't. 

You and I (20+ years shooting sticks), know whats required of us. What we've seen and repeatedly hear from new folks is the value of the class/shooting requirements. Lets go back 20+ years....how many of us mentored under someone? I would venture to say most of us. Today people mentor behind this thing...a computer screen more often than not and we know how far that gets us when the chips are down. Nothing repeat nothing can get us ready for that day we drew the first time on any critter and dumped the string. 

When I first started as an instructor it became more of a mentorship, classroom, go out shoot (if they wanted), than test. People like you and I, passed usually without any problems. 

The disgusting part of being an instructor is watching folks walk up, a week or two before a hunt, new bows, arrows still in the cardboard holders they used to sell at kamapart, no idea what's going on and start shooting, people shooting equipment not set up, tuned, or even fitting them (though some did pass most did not). These are the same people that took to the woods, or would have. Mind you Alaska does not have a testing requirement for all areas...only bowhunting ONLY ares. 

So what did it accomplish? Quite frankly that's as much a loaded question as asking if the testing is a good or bad venue as can seen by this thread alone. For the new folk they gathered a load of information (mind you again most of us didn't have computers to play behind to get 'smart' overnight back in the day unlike today). For the folks who have bowhunted to just about any degree....it was an afternoon class that most picked up something, for some it was just a waste of time. The irony is, those waste of timers, had the most to give to the class, along with the instructors. Its not a win win for everyone when people come through the door with a pissy attitude.

Now here's the failure of the hole system.

You cannot...CAN NOT regulate ethics. Repeat CANNOT!!!

The class does however show many that there's more to bowhunting than just shooting a bow the day of. Watching moose with an arrow stuck in their rear end while my unit zero'd for qual day was quite disgusting. It wasn't the first, and hasn't been the last. could or did testing stop this? again...another open ended question that their is no right or wrong answer for. It COULD or COULD NOT have. Depending on who shot that arrow, either way it was a wounded moose none the less.

A good example of the failure is a 'bowhunter' I had the opportunity to meet in a class I taught years back. It was one of my last class's, I'll get to the why of that later. It was the end of September, early October marks a day for most bowhunting bou hunters here in the interior. A long weekend and the bou are usually much farther south, migrating away from much less hospitable grounds to somewhere they can survive the winters. Enroute are said bowhunters. In this case, the student who passed the class with flying colors, was met on 'the slope' as we call it. Door open, window down, standing on the running boards of a f350 crew cab, arrow knocked release on the string. To you who don't live here, you'll find some things very odd with this. First, you cannot shoot on from or acrossed the road. You cannot shoot from any moving motorized piece of equipment (boat, wheeler, truck, atv etc). Yet said 'bowhunter proceeded to launch arrows at bou much too far as was evident by his 'range guesstimation errors'. Maybe it was the vibrating diesel that messed up his accuracy...either way he's a poacher and picked up 0 from the class. 

Did this course give him anything? NO! It truly was a waste of said 'bowhunter's time. 

Here's some of the issues that these courses are trying to keep from happening. Slobs! but the catch 22 is you can NOT regulate ethics?!?!?! confusing as hell aint it?!?! I stopped teaching when the class went to online book work. I personally got tired of the slobs showing up with no clue at the range usually weeks to days before some form of hunt coming close. 

So do we test or don't we? personally I still think the shooting portion is a decent requirement. If you've spent time behind the scene's you'll see the light to where I'm coming from. It hasn't gone corrupt, if anything it has gotten easier for the students. I truly believe a bowhunter ed class should be a all inclusive class...not just ethics ethics ethics. From 0 experience to the field, or atleast as close as we can get to it. 

We used to have a suburban bowhunt in anchorage for moose years back.....the amount of wounded moose walking the streets (yes they do this frequently walk the streets lol) was staggeringly high. The state shut the hunt down. Now any special hunts in that side of the world (360 miles away), require some form of class or sit down. For us old timers if you will, these class's seem mundane worthless, even to a point hypocritical, yet to a green behind the ears full of piss n vinegar youngster, these class can be a form of wake up, education, and training. 

There is NO good answer to testing...these are just my own opinions after teaching seeing both the good and bad first handedly. feel free to bash my opinions because you choose to hunt some private wood lot you should be allowed to a free for all because a fly fisherman cant id every form of insect they mimic, a bass fisherman doesn't know how to properly lip, or a walleye guy has no clue how to properly jig at night. I don't believe a little education hurt any one of us, at any level....and in turn feel those of us with the know should be giving back. Though today, the computers do it for us and we wonder why things are all screwed up....after all if its on you tube it must be correct! :thumbs_do Instead we are more set on what we can gain....again another fail and another topic all together.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

AKDan said:


> I am curious how many of you have sat in on a IBEP sanctioned bowhunter ed shooting 'test'?
> 
> I haven't read the 9 pages of bickering about testing vs hunting...accuracy vs wounding, etc.
> 
> ...


As a fellow instructor I was glad to hear you comments. Thank you.

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> You have continually insulted anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. I sincerely apologize if I mislead you by saying that was the same as yelling.
> And I will say again that you have not yet presented one piece of evidence supporting your assertions and only insult those who challenge you.
> And until you do, I deny that you have any knowledge on the subject whatsoever.
> Please reply with some substance, as you have not yet.


Really. ..your 17 years old..and you really think you know it all don't you. .

Funny..really funny. ..

Mac


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Maybe we should ban bowhunting so these archery forums could get back to archery. If you want to hunt, go get a gun and then go bog down the Ruger Forum.

Just a thought.


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

This is a fantastic example of why there SHOULD BE a traditional bowhunting forum!
I believe the folks that are target archers only... have the same mindset as the guy above ^^^
I do not enjoy sorting through the riffraff to read great information from bowhunters.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Hacker, I'd love to see all archery hunting restricted to one forum only on Archery Talk. I think that's a great idea of yours. It would really clean up the threads for those of us interested in archery and not hunting.


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

Hey,, We can agree on something!


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

irishhacker said:


> This is a fantastic example of why there SHOULD BE a traditional bowhunting forum!
> I believe the folks that are target archers only... have the same mindset as the guy above ^^^
> I do not enjoy sorting through the riffraff to read great information from bowhunters.


Sadly its already entered been asked for...and some of the guys who target shoot and also hunt threw a big enough hissy fit that it didn't happen. There are other forums here and elsewhere that don't have as much
drama. ..lol...lol...lol

Mac


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

AKdan

Montana had a proposal several years ago (didn't pass) that would go a long way to solving the "instant bow hunter" issue. 

The proposal was "choose your weapon" - if you want to bow hunt the early season then you have to use a bow all year. Choose to rifle hunt then you can only hunt during rifle season. 

For me I choose to use a bow all year already. The only difference between bow season and rifle season is during rifle season I have to wear orange and I have more company. 

But I think a system like this would make guys think long and hard about whether they really want to bow hunt or not. 

Matt


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

[q]*should know that ancient hunting was more about quantity of shots than quality of shots.*[/q]

Not true in all cases Itbeso. Those on the plains hunting buffalo from horseback maybe, but before horses stalking as close as possible was the norm. Same with my Peoples the Mohawk. The bush was very dense, and so the bows weren't that powerful, so they needed to get close with good shot. Not everyone could become a hunter in most tribes. There were a proficiency test to prove you could be quiet - dancers were deer toes on their ankles as a symbol of this and if they could wak through the village without making a noise, that was a start. They had competitions between themselves and other Nations where they had to hit a cornstalk from a certain distance and if the arrow stuck they got more points. Only the best, humane, hunters were allowed as voted on by the Grandmothers and approved by the other hunters of the particular tribe.

[q]*
So hunters need to get your approval to hunt and even to buy a bow?*[/q]

No Destroyer, not mine. I said, "without proving first, to the humane ones that love the sport and want to keep it alive, without proving they have practiced enough to become a valued peer."


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> AKdan
> 
> Montana had a proposal several years ago (didn't pass) that would go a long way to solving the "instant bow hunter" issue.
> 
> ...


That's actually a pretty good solution for stopping at least some of the people that buy a trad bow 2 weeks before a hunt?


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> AKdan
> 
> Montana had a proposal several years ago (didn't pass) that would go a long way to solving the "instant bow hunter" issue.
> 
> ...


I Like This Idea !!!!!

Rick


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*Patient*

If you are as good as you say you are (and I believe you), and you are as morally and ethically good as you say you are (and I believe you), and you are as good a hunter as you say your are (I have no reason to doubt you) then shouldn't it be exactly like people like you, that should have a body of like-minded peers that can keep the yahoos out of the bush by testing them according to your current standards of human being,in the form of a hunter? 

One of the problems on the internet is that we can't stand on the line together nor can we hunt together so we don't know (can observe personally) what each is capable off. I'm sure most of us have met those that can talk the talk but can't walking the walk. For example, you don't know my hunting or shooting skills and I don't know yours personally. I'm sure if we, as with most of us, could meet on the line, or join each other in the field (hunter or not) we would agree on a lot of things. Unfortunately there is an internet in the way of the thoughts and actions.

All we a talking about is simply a minimum accuracy test - mainly for newbies or the younger adults coming to the sport. We aren't talking gov control, or banning hunting, or anything else that's been used as a defense. We aren't talking about how good a person is at hunting or shooting at this point as any hunters course can teach the basics of safety and the morals and ethics, that has already been agreed upon by the hunters themselves - some which have had to be put into laws when the yahoos of the past wouldn't follow them. 

Mostly, we have all agreed, hunter and non-hunter alike, that wounding an animal unnecessarily is wrong. Whether they jump the string or flinch or the hunter was nervous or cold and just made a bad shot. It happens and we feel terrible. We aren't talking about those that are a good shot or a good hunter as they have no problem passing a hunters course so should have no problem passing a simple proficiency test (or should). It's not about them against us, in this case the target archers against hunters. There is no separation as we are all here together. There are guys like Itbeso and Rick and many other fine target archers that have already proven themselves under pressure, and all they needed was the basic course on hunting. The there are the other guys that have proven themselves as great hunters, stalkers, morally and ethically sound, like Patient. We are talking about the ones that may not be able to pass a proficiency test, as observed by a body of peers. We are talking about a meeting of the minds, not a space between the ears.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

irishhacker said:


> Hey,, We can agree on something!


I'm guessing you golf too. We can agree on that also. I'm a hacker too. LOL

But seriously, if there was a hunting forum only then every thread that degenerated into a hunting argument could be moved to that forum. Seems like everything related to archery in a USA archery forum gets dragged into hunting. Arguments about arrow weight or broadhead type. Discussions about bow type and shooting style all end up as fights pitting hunters against the better informed target archers. Everything ends up being a hunting thread. I believe this is because most who read the Trad forum are not so much interested in archery but are only really interested in hunting. This is a shame for those of us who love archery first.

So I'm all for any thread topic that strays into a hunting theme be moved into a hunting-specific forum. Imagine how fewer arguments there would be on the regular archery forums. All the fights would be about arrow weight and game regulations and evil government over in the "hunting" forum. I think you have a great idea that will never happen.


----------



## Gapmaster (May 23, 2002)

> No one should be allowed to buy a bow without proving first, to the humane ones that love the sport and want to keep it alive, without proving they have practiced enough to become a valued peer. Meaning, no person should be allowed to be over-bowed, with the possibility of panic or stress of any sort when the animal is in front of them.


That's like saying you need to show proficiency with a spoon before you can use one because you might just put to much on it and choke yourself or your child when eating with it.
Sometimes I just cannot get over all the people in this world that want to bubble wrap everybody in everything they do for fear something might not go right and someone or something might get hurt. Stop selling shoe laces because some people don't tie their shes correctly and they trip and fall. Maybe you should have to show proficiency showing you know how to drive a car while your grandchildren are riding with you before you can transport them. The list goes on forever. It seems everybody wants to babysit everybody in the world for one thing or another. Gawd, let people go hunt with a bow while they have that one freedom left without government intrusion. There is enough of that crap in all other aspects of our lives. Worry about something worth worrying about. Just my opinion.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I believe this is because most who read the Trad forum are not so much interested in archery but are only really interested in hunting. This is a shame for those of us who love archery first.


Good grief...

I don't think it's coincidence that the best archers I know, and know of--archers who actually get out and compete (and win) in public--are also successful hunters. They also tend to give the best and most reliable advice on forums like this one, vs. keyboard archers.

It would appear that the big majority of archers are hunters--else that wouldn't be the turn these threads take.

To imply that hunting archers aren't interested in accuracy or even archery is ridiculous.

It only takes a little self-discipline to fix the "problem"--if you don't hunt, aren't interested in hunting, etc. then don't participate in threads that pertain to hunting. I have no problem ignoring certain threads, certain posters, and/or certain topics that don't interest me in the least. If you can't make yourself avoid a topic or a thread, what would make you avoid a separate forum?

9 pages and still no answer to the original question--where do you draw the line?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

LBR, every thread, no matter the topic, get hijacked by hunters on these archery forums. I think it ruins most threads. I do read the FITA forum and post over there sometimes. But for the most part those people are better squared-away and don't ask the same kinds of novice archery questions we get here. Of course the answers that are given here are always hunting tainted and the novice gets a lousy answer. Best case in point is "what draw weight should I use?" The novice asks that and all the hunters chime in with 50#. Another poor answer given by hunters who don't really understand proper archery technique.

Of course we do have some hunting guys like Potter and Westbrook who know what's going on, but they mostly keep quiet because of the ill-informed hunting element that always try to dominate with bad advice.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Gapmaster said:


> That's like saying you need to show proficiency with a spoon before you can use one because you might just put to much on it and choke yourself or your child when eating with it.
> Sometimes I just cannot get over all the people in this world that want to bubble wrap everybody in everything they do for fear something might not go right and someone or something might get hurt. Stop selling shoe laces because some people don't tie their shes correctly and they trip and fall. Maybe you should have to show proficiency showing you know how to drive a car while your grandchildren are riding with you before you can transport them. The list goes on forever. It seems everybody wants to babysit everybody in the world for one thing or another. Gawd, let people go hunt with a bow while they have that one freedom left without government intrusion. There is enough of that crap in all other aspects of our lives. Worry about something worth worrying about. Just my opinion.


I laughed at that one too. No one should be allowed to buy a bow until they show proficiency with a bow? I'm sure in some pharmaceutically-induced state that makes sense. :chortle:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> LBR, every thread, no matter the topic, get hijacked by hunters on these archery forums. I think it ruins most threads. I do read the FITA forum and post over there sometimes. But for the most part those people are better squared-away and don't ask the same kinds of novice archery questions we get here. Of course the answers that are given here are always hunting tainted and the novice gets a lousy answer. Best case in point is "what draw weight should I use?" The novice asks that and all the hunters chime in with 50#. Another poor answer given by hunters who don't really understand proper archery technique.
> 
> Of course we do have some hunting guys like Potter and Westbrook who know what's going on, but they mostly keep quiet because of the ill-informed hunting element that always try to dominate with bad advice.


There you go. You have the FITA forum, which I assume doesn't get "tainted" with hunting opinions? I don't know--I rarely go there, because I have no interest in FITA style archery at this time.

Maybe I just notice it more, but I see a lot more "misinformation" (trying to be polite) posted by admitted non-hunters on this forum--some proclaiming to be gurus or experts--and their groupies, who for the most part are novices just parroting what they have read. As is the case on most forums, the people who really know their stuff and have proven it in the public arena get run off by the wannabe's and their groupies. I'm glad we have several accomplished archers here who still post in spite of the "experts" telling them how wrong they are.

No idea why you have a chip on your shoulder concerning hunters, but it's obviously clouding your judgment. If it weren't for hunters, archery wouldn't have anywhere near the following it has here in the U.S. If anything, you should be thankful--it's because of hunters that we have the choices of equipment we have. If I had to rely on FITA style courses, I wouldn't have anywhere to shoot or compete other than my back yard--at least not within a reasonable drive (2-3 hours or more, one way).

The "highjacking" goes both ways too. This thread was started with a question about hunting. How in the world did it turn into "I wish there was a separate forum" or "I hate hunting"??


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Stone Bridge said:


> LBR, every thread, no matter the topic, get hijacked by hunters on these archery forums. I think it ruins most threads. I do read the FITA forum and post over there sometimes. But for the most part those people are better squared-away and don't ask the same kinds of novice archery questions we get here. Of course the answers that are given here are always hunting tainted and the novice gets a lousy answer. Best case in point is "what draw weight should I use?" The novice asks that and all the hunters chime in with 50#. Another poor answer given by hunters who don't really understand proper archery technique.
> 
> Of course we do have some hunting guys like Potter and Westbrook who know what's going on, but they mostly keep quiet because of the ill-informed hunting element that always try to dominate with bad advice.



Do you seriously think that most top end target archers do not hunt? 

Do you think that a top end target archer who hunts with a 55# bow would suggest that draw weight to a newbie?



The majority of posts on this thread have me thinking that this may be the dumbest thread in the history of AT…….and I have been around here for a long time.


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::beer:

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

If there needs to be an "answer", it's that apparently many folks draw the line differently. That's your answer. "Where do you" draw the line is asking for a personal opinion and is not a empirical inquiry.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

AKDan thanks for taking the time to post, interesting and informative :thumbs_up


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

bradd7 said:


> [q]*should know that ancient hunting was more about quantity of shots than quality of shots.*[/q]
> 
> Not true in all cases Itbeso. Those on the plains hunting buffalo from horseback maybe, but before horses stalking as close as possible was the norm. Same with *my Peoples the Mohawk*. The bush was very dense, and so the bows weren't that powerful, so they needed to get close with good shot. Not everyone could become a hunter in most tribes. There were a proficiency test to prove you could be quiet - dancers were deer toes on their ankles as a symbol of this and if they could wak through the village without making a noise, that was a start. *They had competitions between themselves and other Nations where they had to hit a cornstalk from a certain distance and if the arrow stuck they got more points.* Only the best, humane, hunters were allowed as voted on by the Grandmothers and approved by the other hunters of the particular tribe.


The corn stalk shoot was a Cherokee contest with the goal being penetration.

www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/Culture/General/CornstalkShooting.aspx


"Contestants shoot 80 yards from the target, and after all have shot, the archers walk the range to the cornstalk rack to count their scores. The score is determined by how many cornstalks the arrow pierces. After the scores are counted, the archers line up again, reverse the field and shoot the rack at the other end of the field.

The procedure is repeated until one of the archers reaches a total of 50 points.The cornstalk rack is a stack of stripped and cleaned cornstalks laid horizontally, 3 feet wide, 3 feet high and 12 inches deep. Four small vertical poles that are lashed together across the top for support hold the cornstalk rack.

Accuracy and strength is required to have the arrows penetrate the rack as horizontally as possible. The strength of the pull determines whether the arrow has enough velocity to pierce the tough woody fiber of the cornstalk."


The native range of the Cherokee was "The southern Appalachian Mountains: including western North and South Carolina, northern Georgia and Alabama, southwest Virginia, and the Cumberland Basin of Tennessee, Kentucky, and northern Alabama."

The native range of the Mohawk "They were historically based in the Mohawk Valley in upstate New York; their territory ranged to present-day southern Quebec and eastern Ontario. Their traditional homeland stretched southward of the Mohawk River, eastward to the Green Mountains of Vermont, westward to the border with the Oneida Nation's traditional homeland territory, and northward to the St Lawrence River."

Given the lack of proximity I'd be a little surprised if they just wandered down for a friendly archery tournament - but, hey I've been wrong before.

Matt


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Dan probably remembers a guy from an old chat room years ago...he talked about how he was going to test with a compound because it was easier to pass, then hunt with traditional gear. Just another example of how much good a test would do. Even if the test required you to cite specifically what bow you were going to use, you could set up a trad bow with sights, shoot a target style bow, etc. 

That just brings up more questions as to where you draw the line.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> LBR, every thread, no matter the topic, get hijacked by hunters on these archery forums.


Isn't this a hunting thread? And it appears to have been hijacked by a couple target archers, one that admits he doesn't hunt and the other that said he might just sit on the porch this season.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt,

Maybe that was the first Trad World.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> The corn stalk shoot was a Cherokee contest with the goal being penetration.
> 
> www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/Culture/General/CornstalkShooting.aspx
> 
> ...


Now there's the thing with old legends, they have a habit of changing to suit the needs of the story teller.


----------



## irishhacker (Sep 4, 2011)

Big Country said:


> Do you seriously think that most top end target archers do not hunt?
> 
> Do you think that a top end target archer who hunts with a 55# bow would suggest that draw weight to a newbie?
> 
> The majority of posts on this thread have me thinking that this may be the dumbest thread in the history of AT…….and I have been around here for a long time.


Look at the 2nd post.. don't say I didn't warn you about this thread lol 
​I saw it coming a mile away


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

irishhacker said:


> Look at the 2nd post.. don't say I didn't warn you about this thread lol
> ​I saw it coming a mile away


You did! :lol: I knew you were right then, but like a car wreck, you just gotta look.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Matt_Potter said:


> The native range of the Mohawk "They were historically based in the Mohawk Valley in upstate New York; their territory ranged to present-day southern Quebec and eastern Ontario. Their traditional homeland stretched southward of the Mohawk River, eastward to the Green Mountains of Vermont, westward to the border with the Oneida
> 
> Matt


Since were already off track and I'm a history buff, I live in what was the historical territory of the The Mohawks(Mahicans). The French and Indian War was centered around here, Fort William Henry is just down the road, and the James Fenimore Cooper classic "The Last of the Mohicans" was based on events that took place here. My understanding is that many of the roads, including the one I live on that follows the lake's shoreline, were originally Mohawk Indian foot paths.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Gapmaster said:


> That's like saying you need to show proficiency with a spoon before you can use one because you might just put to much on it and choke yourself or your child when eating with it.
> Sometimes I just cannot get over all the people in this world that want to bubble wrap everybody in everything they do for fear something might not go right and someone or something might get hurt. Stop selling shoe laces because some people don't tie their shes correctly and they trip and fall. Maybe you should have to show proficiency showing you know how to drive a car while your grandchildren are riding with you before you can transport them. The list goes on forever. It seems everybody wants to babysit everybody in the world for one thing or another. Gawd, let people go hunt with a bow while they have that one freedom left without government intrusion. There is enough of that crap in all other aspects of our lives. Worry about something worth worrying about. Just my opinion.


Hear, Hear!!:thumbs_up


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> The corn stalk shoot was a Cherokee contest with the goal being penetration.
> 
> www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/Culture/General/CornstalkShooting.aspx
> 
> ...


You aren't wrong Matt, except on a few points.

The Cherokee are part of the Iroquoian language group and were brothers and sisters to the Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga, which are the original league of 5 Nations as Tuscarora came later for protection when threatened by invasion of non-Natives. At the time the League was created they sent runners in all directions and asked anyone who would like to join could. Cherokee, for their own reason decided not too and paid the price dearly later.n Just to note: Ben Franklin, John Adams and other Founding Fathers had become brothers of the Iroquois and copied much the Iroquois Great Law of Peace, in which they lived peacefully under for more than 500 years before.

Native Traders traveled all over north America and maybe into South America. We know this because corn originated in around Mexico but by the time the non-Natives arrived they already knew how to breed and grow 47 different varieties of corn. They were peace loving farmers, not blood thirsty warriors...as were the Cherokee with one important difference. The Cherokee, who didn't join the League, were surrounded by Algonquins, their sworn enemies. During these travels and at certain times of the seasons, spring plant and fall gathering for example, all Nations, from far and wide, gathered to meet new friends, renew old acquaintances, sell their products, and play games such as chance, lacrosse and cornstalk archery. These are called Pow Wows (actually Pau Wau in our language) and are still held today in certain forms. The game wasn't limited to just the Cherokee, it was played but most tribes. However, and this is only what I was told by my Elders so you'll have to ask a Cherokee, when they refused to join the League their corn product was raided by the Algonquins and they resorted to hunting, as the Algonquins did, so they had to learn to use the bow properly before they hunted and the cornstalk shoot was a proficiency test for the newbies as well as 'who's village has the best archer' by the older hunters.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> Maybe that was the first Trad World.


Hilarious, but feasible.:thumbs_up


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Hear, Hear!!:thumbs_up


You know... after raising three kids, I asked the missuse about spoons... and you know.... a kid does have to show proficiency in order to use one... fancy that.... :grin: Picking up dirt and putting it in its mouth... not so much training or breast feeding... spoon... nope apparently takes a bit.... care to try something else? As for choking... Last Saturday we went to a service of one of my clients who in fact choked on an orange.... 72 years old.... avid hunter... proficiency... it never ceases to be important.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> Maybe that was the first Trad World.


Now that's funny


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> Maybe that was the first Trad World.


I'm guessing the first Europeans was at Cadzand and ended 100 years later at Castillon


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

CAPTJJ said:


> Since were already off track and I'm a history buff, I live in what was the historical territory of the The Mohawks(Mahicans). The French and Indian War was centered around here, Fort William Henry is just down the road, and the James Fenimore Cooper classic "The Last of the Mohicans" was based on events that took place here. My understanding is that many of the roads, including the one I live on that follows the lake's shoreline, were originally Mohawk Indian foot paths.


And there is supposedly a Mohawk beheading rock somewhere near Roger's Rock I was told by a couple of locals this summer when I was up there.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

reddogge said:


> And there is supposedly a Mohawk beheading rock somewhere near Roger's Rock I was told by a couple of locals this summer when I was up there.


Could be, think I've heard of it. 

For some reason I am reminded of a story a customer told me a few years back. They were convinced that the lake was all frozen with ice on the bottom and sides under the water??? They were on one of the cruise boats someone told them that the Indians used to dive down and chip pieces of ice off to keep their food fresh. I tried to explain that ice is less dense than water and it was impossible, they still didn't believe me.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Do you seriously think that most top end target archers do not hunt?
> 
> Do you think that a top end target archer who hunts with a 55# bow would suggest that draw weight to a newbie?
> 
> ...


Where does Chad say that in the post you quoted? Unless I purposely take it out of context I don't see it.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

CAPTJJ said:


> Since were already off track and I'm a history buff, I live in what was the historical territory of the The Mohawks(Mahicans). The French and Indian War was centered around here, Fort William Henry is just down the road, and the James Fenimore Cooper classic "The Last of the Mohicans" was based on events that took place here. My understanding is that many of the roads, including the one I live on that follows the lake's shoreline, were originally Mohawk Indian foot paths.


The Mohicans were a different Peoples and part of the Beothuk Nation that were wiped out by non-native disease infested trade blankets - Nov. They lived on the east coast but controlled trade on the upper part of the St Laurence to the oceans - mostly Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Mohicans were inland and around the eastern Quebec and south from there. The Huron, also an Iroquoian speaking Peoples, at one time controlled the middle part but they were driven out by the Iroquois for trying to stifle trade. They ended up at Lake Huron but once controlled Hochelaga (Montreal) and Stadacona (Quebec city) where Samuel De Champlain first settled.

Many of the cities we live in now are named after the original Native names as the cities were almost always either a days walking or paddling distances away, and yep the major routes followed the shorelines. 

The French were based in the Quebec areas and downwards into the USA from there. The wars started because the British went around and burned all the Iroquois stores of corn in an attempt to starve them out in the winters. It was called "The Scorched Ground Campaign."

Just to note: The Pilgrims are a horror story. They were originally religious zealots outcast from Britain...or else. The Mayflower broke down, then left behind and that's not the ship they landed on these shores with.
Columbus, never set foot on North America. His ships were not the Nina, Pinta and Sante Maria. His name was Christoff Columbo (or a variation) and the Nina was a pet name for the ship called the Sante Clara. Written history lies to children as all history is written by those that consider themselves the winners.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I don't think he was directing that at me...I didn't say it either way.

Obviously I was asking for opinions. Surely those who are strong proponents for qualifying have thought this through...right?

If there's a chance you could use a bow for hunting, whether you actually intend to or not, whether you even own a bow or not, should you be required to qualify to get a license?

If you only want to hunt "small game"--some states will let you hunt hogs with a small game license--should you have to qualify?

If you buy an "all game hunt and fish" license, as MS offers, should you be forced to qualify?

If you just buy a "primitive weapons" license, with the intent of using a smoke pole, should you be forced to qualify?

If you normally hunt with a compound or crossbow during the archery season, should you be forced to qualify with a traditional bow, just in case?

Since you can bowfish here with just a fishing license, should you be forced to qualify to buy a fishing license?

The questions could go on and on. Obiously there are no "right" answers--as has been stated, you can't regulate ethics.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

bradd7 said:


> The Mohicans were a different Peoples and part of the Beothuk Nation that were wiped out by non-native disease infested trade blankets - Nov. They lived on the east coast but controlled trade on the upper part of the St Laurence to the oceans - mostly Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Mohicans were inland and around the eastern Quebec and south from there. The Huron, also an Iroquoian speaking Peoples, at one time controlled the middle part but they were driven out by the Iroquois for trying to stifle trade. They ended up at Lake Huron but once controlled Hochelaga (Montreal) and Stadacona (Quebec city) where Samuel De Champlain first settled.
> 
> Many of the cities we live in now are named after the original Native names as the cities were almost always either a days walking or paddling distances away, and yep the major routes followed the shorelines.
> 
> ...


Written history as opposed to what? Tales passed down from generation to generation? Now thats a recipe for disaster as we all know how stories get embellished just by a few retellings within a few weeks.lol


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*And there is supposedly a Mohawk beheading rock somewhere near Roger's Rock I was told by a couple of locals this summer when I was up there. *

I doubt that Mohawks beheaded anyone as they were peaceful farmers. The Iroquoian Confederacy is oldest democracy in the world. On the other hand the Onendaga (means 'good-bye trouble' in Iroquois) were a bunch of raiding and blood thirsty yahoos that couldn't live within the rules set out by the group/village and were expelled (shunned). The deal was in any village, if you don't like it, or won't behave as a human after three warnings you were escorted out, and shunned. In the end Diganawidah and Hiawatha (the real one), who created the Great Law of Peace, then brought the Nations together. They went to the then leader of the Onendaga and through song and prayer 'tamed the snakes from his hair',meaning they changed him into a good person through logic and compassion. They also appointed him the 'fire-keeper' of the Nations, a respected position.

As for archery. Basically the Iroquois didn't need bows and arrows until later, and the ones they needed were short and very week as the bush was hard to navigate. (Colonel By (Rideau Canal) writes in his diary that it took him and 4 men one month to survey one mile through the bush and the bugs drove them nearly mad. Iroquois were peaceful farmers and always grew a couple of rows of extra corn, beans and squash for anyone to take. It also provided them with game that came to take the feed, so they only had to either domesticated them (which they did) or hit them with a stick. In those days, in this area Elk, woodlands buffalo and deer were common. It was later when the British and French started to use the St Laurence as a trade route, cutting out the Iroquois did they take up long bows and groups of Natives, staying as long as a few months, would shoot at the boats from shore.

Just so you don't get confused with non-native based history while we are off topic.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Correct, I meant to type Mohicans, had the other spelling right in parentheses. There is a cruise boat an the lake called "The Mohican".


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

itbeso said:


> Written history as opposed to what? Tales passed down from generation to generation? Now thats a recipe for disaster as we all know how stories get embellished just by a few retellings within a few weeks.lol


This was my exact thought too. It's okay to accept the old tales from supposed "elders" but written history is junk?

I love it.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Written history as opposed to what? Tales passed down from generation to generation? Now thats a recipe for disaster as we all know how stories get embellished just by a few retellings within a few weeks.lol


The stories are passed from mouth to mouth by people who have a good heart and a good mind, as originally taught, without embellishment. In some instances some are recorded in Wampum belts. In other instances the 'story-tellers' are either teaching historical facts as accurate as possible or teachings of morals and ethics to the children. They aren't the same kind of fantasy stories in the non-native sense. They all have a meaning for those that know how to listen properly. As I said, your type of history is written by those that think they are the winners...politics still does it.

A wampum belt is not just a bunch of beads or shells. Each one represents something and the people responsible for carrying the belts must be able to share these meanings, in an honest way. No so much with non-natives. 

I've already provided two examples of your history being fabricated. Look it up and argue that maybe?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I reckon no answer is it's own answer.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

So old Indians never messed up a story? Really? After hundreds of years of telling the same old stories no Hemingway of the North Woods ever fabricated just a bit to make the story make his people look better, or for the same boring old story to finally sing?

I always thought the American Indians were human beings - no better and no worse. I had no idea they were incapable of errors in translation over centuries. With superior minds like that, how did they get defeated by the Europeans? And why do most of them still languish on reservations when the option to leave and better oneself is there for all of them? Doesn't sound like a collection of superior minds to me. Not hardly. I'm pretty sure they all messed up the good old stories over the years. Probably a lot.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Here's one you're going to have fun with. The 'Right to bare arms' actually comes from the Iroquoian Great Law of Peace. It doesn't mean you have the right to carry a weapon. It meant that if there was a disagreement, between two people that couldn't be resolved, it was 'right' for all people that they duke it out by themselves...get rid of the animosity so they could all go back to living in peace as quickly as possible.

AND, warriors were peace-keepers that were chosen on their ability to bring two minds together. 

AND hunters were those that were usually meek and mild, and had great compassion for the animals they killed to feed their families, as it's still custom to look the animal in the eye to thank it (get close-clean kill) for giving up it's life to feed humans, and then tobacco is still put down in prayers of gratitude after the kill. Do you do that?

AND gays were called upon the chiefs of women of the community to solve maritial problems and were revered because they could walk in both worlds.

Non-Natives, along with the parts of the Constitution that they copied from the Iroquois Great Law of Peace have twisted it for their own gain or misinterpreted it altogether and based on the barbarianism that Europe was contaminated with at the time. As I said, look up the real story of the Pilgrims. 

AND as I said, The Iroquois Confederacy lived in peace for over 500 years before European influence.

Maybe you should pay more attention to how it's supposed to be, rather than believing everything you read?


So...since the Iroquois buried all their weapons of war when the Confederacy was born, only qualified people, in heart, mind, experience and proficiency were 'allowed' to hunt.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> So old Indians never messed up a story? Really? After hundreds of years of telling the same old stories no Hemingway of the North Woods ever fabricated just a bit to make the story make his people look better, or for the same boring old story to finally sing?
> 
> I always thought the American Indians were human beings - no better and no worse. I had no idea they were incapable of errors in translation over centuries. With superior minds like that, how did they get defeated by the Europeans? And why do most of them still languish on reservations when the option to leave and better oneself is there for all of them? Doesn't sound like a collection of superior minds to me. Not hardly. I'm pretty sure they all messed up the good old stories over the years. Probably a lot.


Boy, I remember reading Howard Zinn and thinking that same thing! People are people - can't change that no matter how you present it.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Boy, I remember reading Howard Zinn and thinking that same thing! People are people - can't change that no matter how you present it.


Of course there 'could' have been additions, subtracts etc and this did happen a the Natives were separated more and more. That's not the point. The point is John Wayne never killed any Natives, much less 12 with a six-gun. 

As I said, the history written even now is skewed by the controllers of the country and by media. If I had to choose accuracy in content, I personally would go with the Natives as they have no reason to lie for profit or control of the masses.

In fact,I heard someone say that they are not subjects of the crown...are you kidding me? That AND religion...In God We Trust on the money? So guess what? Most religions believe in the same God but in a different way, but Europe hired the lowest of the low as crusaders, then wiped them out when they got too powerful. The USA IS Europe...well was, they are now owned by China by debt...get used to speaking mandarin. Rome dominated Europe for centuries on behalf of religion, and Europe is the USA, so, who is controlling whom? Delusion by illusion.

Now, let's get get back to the topic please. I only posted what I personally have learned as a reference not a point of argument.

Natives, from childhood, were selected by the peoples of the community to be hunters, based in the proficiency they proved,in all aspects of hunting...so why not now?.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

wow...11 pages in two days...I read the OP the day it was posted and?...ran...figuring I'd see bold red letters under several names and a lock on the thread before it ever made it too page 3....but?...with 11 pages in just two short days?...I had to look again...re-read the OP then just leaped forward to read the last two pages...and again..."wow".

I worked all day with a real bad head cold...got my 8 hours in and came home early to take more cold medicine and just relax with no intentions of shooting my bow...but after reading this?...I think I'll go shoot my bow. :laugh:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

bradd7 said:


> Of course there 'could' have been additions, subtracts etc and this did happen a the Natives were separated more and more. That's not the point. The point is John Wayne never killed any Natives, much less 12 with a six-gun.
> 
> As I said, the history written even now is skewed by the controllers of the country and by media. If I had to choose accuracy in content, I personally would go with the Natives as they have no reason to lie for profit or control of the masses.
> 
> ...


In the case of Zinn, it's a little deeper than that I think. There's also exploitation of the other side of history just to move along an agenda as well - in this case, promoting Marxism in eduction of our youth. That's always the problem with any history, it's a tool on all sides of the equation - anything but an unbiased chronology of actual, factual, events. Nary a history book yet has solved that, either.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> wow...11 pages in two days...I read the OP the day it was posted and?...ran...figuring I'd see bold red letters under several names and a lock on the thread before it ever made it too page 3....but?...with 11 pages in just two short days?...I had to look again...re-read the OP then just leaped forward to read the last two pages...and again..."wow".
> 
> I worked all day with a real bad head cold...got my 8 hours in and came home early to take more cold medicine and just relax with no intentions of shooting my bow...but after reading this?...I think I'll go shoot my bow. :laugh:


 You mean you'll go out and shoot your bow in order to establish your effective range... :grin:


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Jinkster,
What surprises me is that over 3000 people are watching and only the same few people have posted 306 posts...10%. And the moderator has already cleaned out a page or more!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> You mean you'll go out and shoot your bow in order to establish your effective range... :grin:


Already established...as right now?...my effective range is snot into a Kleenex! :laugh:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

bradd7 said:


> Jinkster,
> What surprises me is that over 3000 people are watching and only the same few people have posted 306 posts...10%. And the moderator has already cleaned out a page or more!


Sorry bradd but your numbers are skewed...that over 3K number is simply how many times this thread has been "viewed"....and not "how many people are watching" as I rarely see this particular forum have more than 50 or so "watching"...so it could've just been the same 3 people clicking in it 1,000 times...which I suspect is closer to the case! :laugh:


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

JINKSTER said:


> Sorry bradd but your numbers are skewed...that over 3K number is simply how many times this thread has been "viewed"....and not "how many people are watching" as I rarely see this particular forum have more than 50 or so "watching"...so it could've just been the same 3 people clicking in it 1,000 times...which I suspect is closer to the case! :laugh:


Oh...I see what you mean now. But if they have viewed, I'm assuming (could be wrong) that even if 500 have read one of more posts they determined something about either the subject or people posting? That's the way I 'click' . If I can't contribute something (I think) is of value or the thread is too intimidating I won't bother. 3K is a lot of people in a couple of days since yesterday it was at 1800 so some must be following quietly.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

bradd7 said:


> Oh...I see what you mean now. But if they have viewed, I'm assuming (could be wrong) that even if 500 have read one of more posts they determined something about either the subject or people posting? That's the way I 'click' . If I can't contribute something (I think) is of value or the thread is too intimidating I won't bother. 3K is a lot of people in a couple of days since yesterday it was at 1800 so some must be following quietly.


Yep...undoubtedly there are a lot of "Lurkers"...and there are on every type of forum I've ever been on in the past decade or so...whether it be archery, firearms or sportbike forums...and I've always been one to encourage folks to post up and "participate"...cause without "participation"?...all's you have is another void in cyberspace...but just like when the local club ranges throw "Work Parties"?...or it's time to "set-up the range" for a shoot?...it's an 80/20 proposition...and if you're lucky...and give away free cold drinks?...you just "might" get that 20% to show up....then just 1/2 of them will do the lions share of the actual work involved...while the other 1/2 spends more effort telling them how they think it should be done! :laugh:

so?...your 10% number is probably real close to accurate...nice shot! :laugh:


----------



## Gapmaster (May 23, 2002)

> The 'Right to bare arms' actually comes from the Iroquoian Great Law of Peace. It doesn't mean you have the right to carry a weapon. It meant that if there was a disagreement, between two people that couldn't be resolved, it was 'right' for all people that they duke it out by themselves...get rid of the animosity so they could all go back to living in peace as quickly as possible.


So Bradd7, I'm just wondering. Are you saying that the "Right to Keep and Bare Arms" that is in our Constitution was actually derived from this Iroquoian law? Or am I just reading into what your saying and not understanding what you mean? Just hoping you could clarify it for me. Gap


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> What bothers me most IS the fact those numbers come mostly from compound shooters. I'm convinced compounders are better shooters in every way compared to trad guys. I see that borne out each and every 3D shoot I attend. So it has to figure the trad guys are even WORSE.
> 
> I've already made plans to hunt Maine in a few days. Might be my last hunt ever. Not sure I want to be associated with this business anymore. I'll still go see my brother up in Maine but might just stay on the porch with the dogs.
> 
> Yikes! More wounding shots than kills. What are we doing?


Compound shooters probably have a greater level of accuracy for the same distance but shooting at what I think are insane distance has become fairly common. Some compound shooters who do well on a 50 yard target go out and take 50 yard shots at deer. It's still a bow and a lot can go wrong at those longer distances.

I think my average shot distance is someplace between 12 and 17 yards. I have missed deer at 12 yards but I don't miss targets at 12 yards.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I'm not sure you pay too much attention to things. Effective range is a standard that has been around for decades, and its been talked about enough that you should have had some inkling that it was a standard. But even the idea that someone should be able to shoot at their effective range is argued by several on here that.... "what about dusk? What about up hill, downhill? What about sunlight? What about... and on and on and on..... an arbitrary argument from what I would consider irresponsible response. One should know ones effective range, and if you are potentially shooting up hill, then you should have practiced that. That is why roving is such a grand activity even while hunting.


You the one not keeping track of things because that's not what we were even talking about. The poster I responded to claimed that the average bow hunter was a poor shot and he called that a "poor standard". I asked for his measurement data of the "average bow hunter's shooting capability.

Nobody is arguing against knowing your "effective range". You're not making any sense. Are you ok?


> As to your other question... ARCHERY WOUNDING RATES AND SHOTS PER KILL
> 
> Bow-Hunting References
> 
> ...


Most of the deer that I've wounded and lost were wounded with my truck. I do a lot of country driving and we have a lot of deer around here. I've hit 7 or 8 and only killed two on the spot. All the others ran off.

But where is the problem that government needs to address? If you don't collect your deer, you lose. It doesn't hurt me. Maybe that's one less deer to bounce off my truck.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF, we're talking cowboys and Indians on this thread. What's all that compound business.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Jon, the crap 3D shooter is even crappier on real game because of the prospect of shooting at live game that moves. Nobody shoots live targets better than paper or rubber targets. I always laugh out loud when some nimrod writes in to claim he shoots "fur" better than targets.


I don't believe that. Some people are less pressured by hunting shots than competition. 

I came into camp with my longbow and several squirrels. That sort of impressed my compound and crossbow campmates. Later that day, I decided to do some shooting and they all lined up to watch what they thought would be some great shooting. I guess I got kind of nervous with them all watching me and I didn't shoot very well...but I still hit and killed the squirrels.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, we're talking cowboys and Indians on this thread. What's all that compound business.


I was responding to you and you mentioned that compound shooters are better. I was trying to say that they probably are better on the range but may not wound less deer in the field. I pointed to the much longer shots they take as one possible reason.

Lots of "trad" have been hunting a long time and went through their compound "phase".


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

bradd7 said:


> Maybe they should just pass a law that states 'anyone that wounds an animal has to stay in the forest with whatever they took with them, for as long as it takes, without any help, and not allowed to come out without the carcass.' That would be simple enough.


Isn't that what everybody does?

If I shoot a deer, it's because I want it. I'm going to stay on it until I have it or I'm convinced it isn't hurt bad enough to be had. Been there and done that...as they say.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

bradd7 said:


> Destroyer,
> Maybe not. For example, maybe the 'club or association could limit it in their own individual counties/states/provinces and if you don't follow the rules, you just get booted. The peer pressure would be enough.
> 
> As to the military, ask reddogge, he posted his experiences on page one.


I don't care much for clubs and associations. I go my own way.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CAPTJJ said:


> Yeah, you need to join a club to hunt public land, that's really going to happen. I already belong to the club, its called the Taxpayers Club.


I already joined that club when I became a tax payer and helped by the public land and fill it with deer.


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

17 years old.
Yes Mac, you have been unable to prove a single thing about whether you know more then a 17 year old. Who's majoring in political science and is working on the staff for the county democrats.
Yet another feeble excuse. What's your next one?
Or are you ready to actually post something with substance? 
Or more likely, admit that a 17 year old knows more then you.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Compound shooters probably have a greater level of accuracy for the same distance but shooting at what I think are insane distance has become fairly common. Some compound shooters who do well on a 50 yard target go out and take 50 yard shots at deer. It's still a bow and a lot can go wrong at those longer distances.
> 
> I think my average shot distance is someplace between 12 and 17 yards. I have missed deer at 12 yards but I don't miss targets at 12 yards.


MFG...if I may?...there's a geographical factor that comes into play here...and I as well thought just like you and wasn't aware of this "Geographical Factor" until it was brought to my attention watching Pete Shepley get kinda "grilled" for the reason why he would come out with a "Long Range/Extended Distance Bow Sight" for powerful compound speedbows...as he was questioned regarding the ethics behind such a product and whether or not he was encouraging bow hunters to risk taking longer shots...and his response went something like this...

"Absolutely not...and here's where the confusion comes in...as while most of the shots taken by archers in thickly wooded hunting areas such as along the eastern seaboard and east of the Mississippi are at 20yds and closer?...once you start getting out west in the wide open spaces?...most archers are fortunate to get within 40yds of a deer and it's not uncommon for archers in those areas to successfully harvest deer too upwards of 60yds...but what we know is this...often times the deer is fatally hit yet runs and additional 40-60yds then stops and looks back...and what the extended range sight is intended to do is to give that archer a second chance to put a second arrow in him and seal the deal....and that's the intention behind the extended range sight."

Now I myself had never given this any thought until I listened to Mr. Shepley explain it a few years back...spending all my hunting time in thickly wooded southeastern seaboard areas...and if I was in a place I could "see" more than 30yds?..I was in the wrong spot! :laugh:

But it's true....and from what I understand about it now?...just by "lay-of-the-land"?...getting a 40yd shot on deer is a gifted chip shot in places like Texas, New Mexico...Southern Arizona...no trees...no place to hide but a ground blind...and my floppy hat is off to archers taking deer in places like that with compounds let alone stickbows.

And here's another reason to have both respect and pity on bow hunters in such places...as comparatively speaking?...they are sparsely populated...so they will never have the Lions Roar when it comes to defending such practices...even though such is widely accepted common place bow hunting those "Wide Open" locations...where both you and the deer can literally see for miles in all directions.

all I got....which is now a greater level of understanding and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> MFG...if I may?...there's a geographical factor that comes into play here...and I as well thought just like you and wasn't aware of this "Geographical Factor" until it was brought to my attention watching Pete Shepley get kinda "grilled" for the reason why he would come out with a "Long Range/Extended Distance Bow Sight" for powerful compound speedbows...as he was questioned regarding the ethics behind such a product and whether or not he was encouraging bow hunters to risk taking longer shots...and his response went something like this...
> 
> "Absolutely not...and here's where the confusion comes in...as while most of the shots taken by archers in thickly wooded hunting areas such as along the eastern seaboard and east of the Mississippi are at 20yds and closer?...once you start getting out west in the wide open spaces?...most archers are fortunate to get within 40yds of a deer and it's not uncommon for archers in those areas to successfully harvest deer too upwards of 60yds...but what we know is this...often times the deer is fatally hit yet runs and additional 40-60yds then stops and looks back...and what the extended range sight is intended to do is to give that archer a second chance to put a second arrow in him and seal the deal....and that's the intention behind the extended range sight."
> 
> ...


Of course you may, LOL. I understand that. 

Where I hunt we have thick woods but we also have HUGE wide open cut corn and bean fields. A hunter on the edge of one of those fields will see deer at any distance you can imagine. I know compound shooters around here who don't hesitate to take shots over 50 yards.

I've passed up a lot of shots on my own property because it was too far for me to shoot with my stick bow. I think most compound shooters would have taken those shots.

I'm not saying they shouldn't but a lot can go wrong and they wound their share of deer.


----------



## AKDan (Nov 8, 2006)

Chad,

We've known eachother a very long time! this question was brought up years ago and the answer remains the same. 

The problem is those of us who are for it, aren't giving you your answer and wont. Personally I don't care if a walleye guy needs to prove he can jig properly before he's allowed to jig, or you have to prove you can use a spoon so you don't choke yourself...(hilarious!). When it comes to bowhunting, the course has proven itself to a degree, and it hasn't. I can go longer winded if you really want it, but with all the mud slinging around this forum I'll pass. 

Potter, 

I don't like the idea of a yearly restricted weapons hunt. Here's why. 

small game hunt with both bow, blackpowder and though rare my old 12ga.
predator call with a 17hmr and a 6ppc.
I do blackpowder rifle hunt, though I'm not big into it I do enjoy it as rare as it happens for big game.
I do however carry a black powder double shotgun for turkeys yearly and more recently for waterfowl.

98% of what I do is with a stick, but imho I think it should up to said user to decide what weapon they so choose to use. The shoot test is once in a life time...again whats it prove...that on one day, way back when, you could shoot at a 3d target. That's not the point of the course or test and most posting against it are missing what this is trying to drive home. But any long winded speech would get twisted into some form of alien invasion thread so whats the point, quite frankly even addressing Chads original question is a waste of time as this has been addressed years ago and nothing has changed over time on either end.

Potter..... what I WOULD like to see on the cards is what weapon you passed with. Traditional or wheels. We all know if you give people a loop hole, they'll run through it like gangbusters. Ie take a compound and pass it than go hells bells with a stick, its frustrating as all he!! to see these guys wailing away up north. Again something most don't deal with, highly visible situation with multiple animals in a small area, and more often than not more than a few bowhunters. This would eliminate the need for a yearly one weapon only lisc for those of us who choose to hunt with a multitude of weapons.

someone brought up costs and enforcement. The course is put on by volunteers. The man at fg here that heads it is the same guy who heads all of our education classes, the instructors are free. The class costs the user a few bucks which covers most of the fees associated with the class. Enforcement is done by those already enforcing the rules the state troopers. Thinking they'd need more to run around and check if you have a ibep card, is hideious. They're going to check when they check your lisc. We COULD however use more of them. If you read the trooper blog aug-sept you'd understand why! Its damn near viral up here!!!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> You the one not keeping track of things because that's not what we were even talking about. The poster I responded to claimed that the average bow hunter was a poor shot and he called that a "poor standard". I asked for his measurement data of the "average bow hunter's shooting capability.
> 
> Nobody is arguing against knowing your "effective range". You're not making any sense. Are you ok?
> 
> ...


Here is the MGF solution...


MGF said:


> If you don't collect your deer, you lose. It doesn't hurt me.





MGF said:


> Maybe that's one less deer to bounce off my truck.


The reality of 19 studies is 55% overall wounding rate from 19 reports (two cited by Causey et all); 17 shots per kill, average. There is another pro-bowhunter study done at Camp Ripley. Bottom line there was a 13% loss rate as from an 87% recovery rate. This is a positive study to cite... as long as you don't delve into it too deeply... and that is the number of deer that had been shot, lost and shot again by someone else and collected. It seems you are saying deer make great targets and are fun to score.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Of course you may, LOL. I understand that.
> 
> Where I hunt we have thick woods but we also have HUGE wide open cut corn and bean fields. A hunter on the edge of one of those fields will see deer at any distance you can imagine. I know compound shooters around here who don't hesitate to take shots over 50 yards.
> 
> ...


I understand...I got invited by a friend named Steve White to hunt up around the Auburn area...his father owned and ran a gas station/auto repair shot in a town so small that it ain't even on the map..."White City"....but they had huge cornfields! :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Speaking of wounding and losing deer. It will always happen in hunting. I shoot a rifle pretty good but I lose a squirrel once in a while. Hey, they're small and they move a lot. Sometimes there's just a leaf or twig in the woods that you didn't see.

Is there any predator that always kills humanly or doesn't wound and lose prey? Do you think a wild feline or canine is overly concerned with the "suffering" of the prey? Hell, they'll start eating before the prey is even dead.

Nature has some seemingly cruel and savage qualities about it...by our standards. Have any of you actually watched what goes on in the wild? The best incentive to hunt and shoot well is to increase your efficiency (harvest to energy expended ratio).

I think some of the people here are deep into anthropomorphism. Do we blame Walt Disney for that? City living maybe? Maybe you're too far removed from the real thing? If you don't want a deer to "suffer" don't shoot at them. Hey, if you were going to be shot at, would you rather be shot at by a good shot or a bad shot? I'd rather the guy shooting at me be a bad shot. If he's a good shot, you're dead.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

irishhacker said:


> This is a fantastic example of why there SHOULD BE a traditional bowhunting forum!
> I believe the folks that are target archers only... have the same mindset as the guy above ^^^
> I do not enjoy sorting through the riffraff to read great information from bowhunters.


Been saying we need a separate forum for ages. We aint going to get one because there are too many that would loose an opportunity to push their mindsets on others. Thats why they are here instead of the Fita forum, little fish there, bigger here (in their minds). :laugh:



CAPTJJ said:


> Isn't this a hunting thread? And it appears to have been hijacked by a couple target archers, one that admits he doesn't hunt and the other that said he might just sit on the porch this season.


And the reason for not having a trad hunting subforum becomes even more clear... :wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

AKDan said:


> Chad,
> 
> We've known eachother a very long time! this question was brought up years ago and the answer remains the same.
> 
> ...


Almost everyone in life has to "qualify" for something and for what you do. Many if not most of us go on with continuing education, sometimes its required, sometimes it just makes good sense. Peer review... used in publications and used in the workplace to promote workplace safety. Some folks just can't be bothered... Liberty, you know... :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Here is the MGF solution...
> 
> The reality of 19 studies is 55% overall wounding rate from 19 reports (two cited by Causey et all); 17 shots per kill, average. There is another pro-bowhunter study done at Camp Ripley. Bottom line there was a 13% loss rate as from an 87% recovery rate. This is a positive study to cite... as long as you don't delve into it too deeply... and that is the number of deer that had been shot, lost and shot again by someone else and collected. It seems you are saying deer make great targets and are fun to score.


No. I'm saying that hunting is far from a sure thing and that predators, in general, miss more than they score. If that were not true, they would eat all the prey. Prey animals run and hide for a living. They're used to it. Sometimes they get injured but don't die or don't die very fast. That's the nature of things. If you don't have the stomach for it, maybe hunting just isn't for you.

The other thing I tried to point out is that I hit WAY more deer with my truck than I do with my arrows and that I have lost the great majority of them. If you want to protect the deer around here from wounding, you need to keep them off the roads...or put really soft rubber bumper on all the cars. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure the auto harvest is larger than the archery harvest around here.

Heck, we have ton of deer here but they live where I can't hunt. My truck puts a lot more venison in the freezer than my bow ever will.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Almost everyone in life has to "qualify" for something and for what you do. Many if not most of us go on with continuing education, sometimes its required, sometimes it just makes good sense. Peer review... used in publications and used in the workplace to promote workplace safety. Some folks just can't be bothered... Liberty, you know... :grin:


I don't think anybody argued against continuing education...just as nobody argued against knowing your "effective range". You like those straw men, don't you?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

MGF said:


> No. I'm saying that hunting is far from a sure thing and that predators, in general, miss more than they score. If that were not true, they would eat all the prey. Prey animals run and hide for a living. They're used to it. Sometimes they get injured but don't die or don't die very fast. That's the nature of things. If you don't have the stomach for it, maybe hunting just isn't for you.
> 
> The other thing I tried to point out is that I hit WAY more deer with my truck than I do with my arrows and that I have lost the great majority of them. If you want to protect the deer around here from wounding, you need to keep them off the roads...or put really soft rubber bumper on all the cars. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure the auto harvest is larger than the archery harvest around here.
> 
> Heck, we have ton of deer here but they live where I can't hunt. My truck puts a lot more venison in the freezer than my bow ever will.


Oh...and most of the deer killed by autos are left to lay and go to waste!


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

I absolutely loooooove not being bothered. Thanks for bringing up that point Rattus. Big thumbs up! Speck


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> 17 years old.
> Yes Mac, you have been unable to prove a single thing about whether you know more then a 17 year old. Who's majoring in political science and is working on the staff for the county democrats.
> Yet another feeble excuse. What's your next one?
> Or are you ready to actually post something with substance?
> Or more likely, admit that a 17 year old knows more then you.


County democrats..wow..that explains alot..

Your party has indoctrinated you very well.

Try looking this up..and answering this..who knows might be interesting for you. .

What are the main differences between the original colony charters granted by the Crown, and that what was ratified by the individual states in their original state constitution...

Here is one other thing you can look into. .and try to answer..

What is the true meaning of the words as written in the Constitution of the United States. .and how does the word sustenance pertain to it?

LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS..I know I misspelled it earlier. .

Let's see if your indoctrination by your chosen party has warped your concepts and see if they are still trying to change our history to suit their needs...or..if you can figure this out on your own. .Im hoping the later actually. .

Mac

Mac


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

After reading all 33 pages of this thread, I feel like all of us can agree on the fact that non-lethal shots and unrecovered animals are bad. We also agree that the more accurate a hunter is, the better. I think the problem is that some of the non-hunters seem to think that accuracy is the ultimate factor in whether you make a clean kill or a wounding shot, and I think that's just not the case. 

I consider myself to be a very ethical hunter. I believe I have a responsibility to bring home anything I shoot, no matter how difficult it is to track down after the shot. I will not hunt with anyone who does not feel the same way. Unfortunately, tracking down an arrowed deer isn't a skill you can teach yourself in the back yard, but ultimately, it's this skill (or art, depending on who you ask) which determines whether your deer is wounded or recovered. 

What I would LOVE to see, is a course for prospective bowhunters that would teach tracking, recovery, shot placement, etc. Not basic hunter's ed, but considerably more in depth. You take the course, and at the end, you prove to the instructor that you can do what you've learned. It's not a mandatory course, but if you choose to take it, you can present proof to the DNR and get $X off your tags, AO tags upgraded to "either sex" or something along those lines.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

A 17 year old democrat from the state that gave us Feinstein and Pelosi.ukey:


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Gapmaster said:


> So Bradd7, I'm just wondering. Are you saying that the "Right to Keep and Bare Arms" that is in our Constitution was actually derived from this Iroquoian law? Or am I just reading into what your saying and not understanding what you mean? Just hoping you could clarify it for me. Gap


Gapmaster;

Most of what is in your constitution was derived from the Iroquoian Great Law of Peace, and the country based on how the Iroquoian Confederacy operated. In some cases (please don't ask me to quote but it is online)`is is almost word for word but in many cases it was misinterpreted when Ben Franklin, John Adams and others copied it. When the Great Law of Peace was created the 5 Nations came together and buried their weapons under the Great Tree of Peace to prevent taking up weapons (arms) against their brothers and sisters. So by logic, there couldn`t be any `right to bear arms.

To summarize the differences, with the League of Nations living in peace for over 500 years before contact, it was based on resolutions towards peace in all instances, with the individual having full responsibility over themselves and younger members of their families. For example, if one person murdered another by accident or intent, they were not necessarily killed too. The punishment may have been that they would have to live with the victims family, to replace their son. Disagreements between villages might have been solved by a game of lacrosse, which also provided an outlet for the younger adults to relieve their angers. In this case it was how they solved a disagreement for two people that disturbed the peace of all through their words or actions. Then baring their arms and duking it out kept the rest of the village safe and ended the personal conflicts. In other words,if you are going to disturb other people`s peace with your issues, before you involve anyone else, you have the 'right to bare arms' and fight it out between yourselves. 

Remember, `rights`in the Iroquoian way is what IS right for the benefit of all people. It`s not a personal entitlement...one of the other things the founding fathers misinterpreted.

That's how it was taught to me.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I want to thank you all for this thread...it helped me come to a conclusive decision to sell my target bow...(which I just did)...now..

anybody wanna make me an offer on a 8" PSE Duece Stab with (2) 1" long 1oz cap weights and a 2" long VibraCheck ShockX Damper?

makes a dynamite 12" stab!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Speck1 said:


> I absolutely loooooove not being bothered. Thanks for bringing up that point Rattus. Big thumbs up! Speck


Good point.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CAPTJJ said:


> A 17 year old democrat from the state that gave us Feinstein and Pelosi.ukey:


That is a bogus statement, Capt. We, the few sane people in California, would love to actually GIVE you Feinstein and Pelosi.lol:teeth:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

patientz3ro said:


> some of the non-hunters seem to think that accuracy is the ultimate factor


Yep, Olympic mindset. Accuracy at all costs...



patientz3ro said:


> I consider myself to be a very ethical hunter.


I never use the term 'ethics' when referring to hunting, ethics are mostly emotional, political and very personal since its on a individual level so it can vary too much. Instead I use 'efficiency' since it covers any ethical points and disarms any personal feelings on the subject. The anti's use 'ethics' as a way to reach ppl and works so well since it works on a emotional level. Efficiency is just cold hard facts and I think most non hunters (open minded & fair) can understand that better since its logical.


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oh great. And I'm sure you're a republican or a libertarian or some such watching fox news and yelling at the television. We could bicker about "Party indoctrination" forever.
You don't like the democrats, therefore the democrats must be brainwashing people. Simplest explanation, because you are perfect in every way.

But anyways, finally! An actual question! Something with substance! Though I still disapprove of the fact that you have not come out with any of your own knowledge and are just having me read some more or recall from my memory.
First of all, the word sustenance is never in the constitution. May I remind you that the rights of the people is hardly ever addressed in the constitution, it lays out the groundwork for the government, congress and the senate in the first article, president in the second, courts in the third, and then crimes, and debts, and amendments, and so forth in the next ones. So I don't exactly understand how you are trying me to understand what they mean by the word sustenance, when they never say sustenance. 

The differences between the colonial charters and the state constitutions though, well that is a bigger question now isn't it!
Let's see though, there are several. Apart from the fact that the charters were granted under the crown, and the constitutions were not, there is also the fact that the constitutions set up the same form of government that the US constitution does.
There was the fact that religion was more secularized in the constitutions, such as where the charter of delaware says that only those who believe in the savior Jesus Christ may hold office the Constitution of Delaware says "There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another; and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil once in this State, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastorial function."

As for the general laws? Not much. In fact it even says in the constitution of New Jersey "That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force"

The reason you put Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in there kind of confounds me. They are the natural rights that John Locke thought of. or rather, Life, Liberty, and Property. 
I believe in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Don't you?

But anyways, chalk it up to "Party Indoctrination" if you can honestly believe that everything can be explained away by that. You still have yet to show me some your own knowledge.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> That is a bogus statement, Capt. We, the few sane people in California, would love to actually GIVE you Feinstein and Pelosi.lol:teeth:



The few sane people,who just happen to be gone crazy? Maybe they will be back soon.:teeth:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Man I need a new mouse or something....how did I go from a thread about proficiency and effective range in the trad forum too the "political soapbox" forum?...oh well...since I'm here?...

It seems to me that these days?...Uncle Sam is doing everything from telling us how we can't raise our kids too forcing us to buy healthcare insurance...Elliot Spitzer was in charge of ethics...Bloomburg still lets you have sody water...(just not as much so buy two)...and finally?...Illegals in Cali can have Drivers Licenses...and FREE Healthcare...(sure wouldn't want'em to feel not welcome)...and on those cold lonely nights you can still always text Anthony Weiner...so what's the big fuss?...it's a simple rule...

if you can't bury 4 out of 5 in the X at 80yds?...you ain't allowed to hunt...anything...

'cept politicians and tax collectors! :laugh:

with bonus points for "a wound". :laugh:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> I don't think anybody argued against continuing education...just as nobody argued against knowing your "effective range". You like those straw men, don't you?


Is it a strawman? Really? Someone was whining about all the different "effective ranges" you might have... up hill, down hill, dark, light... pathetic actually... you either have confidence or you don't. You get it from practice and if you don't have the practice or the experience, is that animal the one to practice on? It seems that you don't mind. No one arguing against continuing education? Then what's the beef about being proficient? Oh I see... proving it.... I got it now.... that affects Liberty.... :grin: Not a one of you, and I've not read every post, but that is my impression, has argued for any continuing education, for voluntary proficiency accountability or anything else that would lead to improving ones confidence and skills.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

Destroyer said:


> I never use the term 'ethics' when referring to hunting, ethics are mostly emotional, political and very personal since its on a individual level so it can vary too much. Instead I use 'efficiency' since it covers any ethical points and disarms any personal feelings on the subject. The anti's use 'ethics' as a way to reach ppl and works so well since it works on a emotional level. Efficiency is just cold hard facts and I think most non hunters (open minded & fair) can understand that better since its logical.


I work in emergency medicine, so we have a stricter definition of "ethics." For me, "ethical" is defined as, "doing what is right in the absence of written guidelines."
I totally understand what you're saying, though, and you're absolutely correct. 

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> if you can't bury 4 out of 5 in the X at 80yds?...you ain't allowed to hunt...anything...
> 
> 'cept politicians and tax collectors! :laugh:
> 
> with bonus points for "a wound". :laugh:


I am SO down with that idea!


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Oh great. And I'm sure you're a republican or a libertarian or some such watching fox news and yelling at the television. We could bicker about "Party indoctrination" forever.
> You don't like the democrats, therefore the democrats must be brainwashing people. Simplest explanation, because you are perfect in every way.
> 
> But anyways, finally! An actual question! Something with substance! Though I still disapprove of the fact that you have not come out with any of your own knowledge and are just having me read some more or recall from my memory.
> ...


Ok..heres a little bit of my knowledge..since you are still in school. .you might want to keep it in mind. .

When asked how a word pertains to something. .say the Declaration of Independence. .that word doesn't have to be written. .

If you compare the old English meaning of the word, you will see exactly how it pertains to this phrase. WHEN dealing with colonial period writtings..using modern interpretation of the same words is not applicable. 

Secondly..since I asked about the main differences between the original charters..and the states constitution which was first ratified. .one of the most obvious would be that no title or privileges could be given by thst state or Congress.. BTW. .What this effectively did was wipe out any titles and land grants given by the King in the colonies...and gave those holdings to the individual states..If you look you'll see this mentioned. .Oh..in case you dont..this fact is also mentioned again by the phrase....All men are created equal. .

Now. .about your little tantrum with the rest of my post..I hate to break this to you. .but the democratic party is no friend of any sportsman. They have as a whole done more to curtail my civil liberties than any other political party. Save your rhetoric and your bs..it doesn't fly..just stinks. .

Mac


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Right, that's simple, I learned about that in middle school. 
Somewhat related you may remember is that nobody may swear an oath of loyalty to anybody but the United States.
I suppose it is SOMETHING. Though you have failed to impress me.

As for the word sustenance, I suppose I should clarify that I didn't just look up explicitly the word sustenance. You'll remember that I pointed out the Constitution has nothing to do with the civil rights. It's the set up of the government.

As for the democrats not being a friend of any sportman, hell, I know that. They tend to be against guns, and weapons, and hunting, and all that. I happen to still enjoy shooting and hunting. I just prefer the rest of what they stand for. That doesn't mean I agree with everything the party does.
I may be a little odd, since this thread seems to have attracted mainly hunters, I'm sure most people reading will also be republican. That's just some statistics coming out.
I hate to break it to you though, that has nothing to do with what were are talking about. I stated before that we could bicker about "party indoctrination" forever. I prefer to actually come out on subject though.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

rattus58 said:


> Not a one of you, and I've not read every post, but that is my impression, has argued for any continuing education, for voluntary proficiency accountability or anything else that would lead to improving ones confidence and skills.


Are you serious? You're going to wade into this without being fully informed, run your mouth, and make ignorant blanket statements based on your "impressions" rather than actual facts, and you wonder why you're getting pounced on? 

Let me educate you, so you don't have to strain yourself. Personal, voluntary accountability is EXACTLY what we're arguing for. When people like yourself, who jump to conclusions without any knowledge, start demanding that we meet YOUR standards of "proficiency," it's no longer personal OR voluntary. See, voluntary means that I do something of my own free will, while being at LIBERTY to choose not to, should I so desire. I know how much you love to throw that word around in your attempts to belittle those of us who actually know what it means. 

As for continuing education, had you read through this thread before jumping in with ill-informed, unfounded opinions, you would have seen that I proposed just such a thing within the last few pages. Not only that, I also proposed creating some type of incentive to motivate hunters to get involved with continuing their education. 

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Is it a strawman? Really? Someone was whining about all the different "effective ranges" you might have... up hill, down hill, dark, light... pathetic actually... you either have confidence or you don't. You get it from practice and if you don't have the practice or the experience, is that animal the one to practice on? It seems that you don't mind. No one arguing against continuing education? Then what's the beef about being proficient? Oh I see... proving it.... I got it now.... that affects Liberty.... :grin: Not a one of you, and I've not read every post, but that is my impression, has argued for any continuing education, for voluntary proficiency accountability or anything else that would lead to improving ones confidence and skills.


I honestly don't know what you're talking about or what, if anything, you're arguing for. Education is a fine thing and I've spent a significant portion of my life on it as both student and teacher. Proficiency is a fine thing. I've spent most of my life working to be a great deal more than proficient at a considerable number of things. Accountability just happens to be one of my favorite topics especially as it should apply to government...who is rarely really held accountable for anything.

So why are you arguing with me? Do you have a point to make? If you do, I wish you would just come out with it.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Living up here between MN and WI we have pretty much a 50/50 split between both parties. Which in turn pretty much matches my list of friends that hunt and put meat in the freezer. At least with my friends there is no party warfare when it comes to hunting. They all do it as a family activity and to put meat on the table.

As for the original post do I have a easy answer, no. I know what I will do when my daughter is old enough to go out grouse and pheasant hunting with me. Not much different then when my dad and grandfather took me out when I was old enough. Although she will have to take a hunter safety course after that she will carry and I will walk with her. I am certainly looking forward to this next year as a awesome father daughter bonding time.


----------



## AKDan (Nov 8, 2006)

patienz, its already included in our bowhunter ed class. If you didn't know it was fake blood (depending on who made the blood trailing course), you'd think it was real. Shot placement is also gone over in the class though again its 2d (slide show) and 3d on foam. In a perfect world we'd run down to the reindeer farm a few miles up the road and spend a little time with a laser pointer calling shots on real, live, moving living breathing animals. but unfortunately the greenie weenies would have a hissy.

Your point is driven home this course NEEDS to be more inclusive. When you walk into a 8 hour bowhunter education class and they start off telling you, "we're not here to teach you to be a bowhunter" its misrepresentation and quite frankly highly disappointing and one of the bigger reason I ended my time teaching for FG. This class needs more time, more information, and more importantly, more hands on! 

The problem is guys like myself, Chad, and a host of others with years of experience. Some of them are saying no I shouldn't have to take this course. I'm sure it was no different back in the 70's (depending on state) when basic hunter ed became mandated. The only difference is the lack of proficiency testing in basic hunter ed. 

Chad my offer still stands to come up and caribou hunt, its been what 10-12 years or so now since I made the offer. You'll get to see how 'easy' they are to hunt, and how disappointing people can be all in one swing! What you see on the videos and what really happens more often than not are two very different things lol!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

patientz3ro said:


> Are you serious? You're going to wade into this without being fully informed, run your mouth, and make ignorant blanket statements based on your "impressions" rather than actual facts, and you wonder why you're getting pounced on?
> 
> Let me educate you, so you don't have to strain yourself. Personal, voluntary accountability is EXACTLY what we're arguing for. When people like yourself, who jump to conclusions without any knowledge, start demanding that we meet YOUR standards of "proficiency," it's no longer personal OR voluntary. See, voluntary means that I do something of my own free will, while being at LIBERTY to choose not to, should I so desire. I know how much you love to throw that word around in your attempts to belittle those of us who actually know what it means.
> 
> ...


Your idea was pretty good too...except for the government "incentive". Taxes and fees are necessary because somebody has to pay for the party. Government using taxes and fees in an attempt to control behavior is just plain WRONG in my opinion. When they do, it becomes a penalty rather than just paying your way. i.e. As a reward for taking our shooting test we'll let you hunt for free while everybody else pays for it. And if we all take the test or course? Nobody pays?

See, when it comes to government taxes and fees, there's no way to reward one without punishing another. We're already "punished" with extra taxes and fees every time we purchase hunting and fishing equipment, even, if we don't have access to the lands and services the money pays for. Some of us live near good hunting grounds and some of us live near chit. We all pay. It's true, government can screw up anything. Even hunting. 

A bow hunting course is a nice enough thing and the "reward" should be in the knowledge gained and improvement in results. Let the value of the education stand on it's own. Either it's a benefit or it isn't. If the course is good, you shouldn't have to pay people to attend.


----------



## AKDan (Nov 8, 2006)

mgf, if you don't pay to attend the course, whose going to supply the doughnuts ha! All kidding aside....those targets need repaired or replaced, there's a building to heat, power to supply, books to pass out, video to present etc etc, none of it comes free! The last I checked, it was 5 bucks to attend. I think money itself in this case isn't the deterrent for anyone to attend. If you cant afford 5 bucks you likely cant afford arrows, broadheads hunting lisc etc etc etc. 

The reward is access to bowhunting only areas. The 'punishment' if you want to call it that, is having to hunt areas that everyone's allowed to hunt, crossguns, rifles, blackpowder and those who can and cannot pass the bowhunter ed course. It doesn't stop anyone from hunting! I think the reward to hunt the biggest bowhunting only area in the USA for everything from small game up to and including moose, sheep, grizzly, caribou, blackies, wolves, etc should be enough.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Arron said:


> Living up here between MN and WI we have pretty much a 50/50 split between both parties. Which in turn pretty much matches my list of friends that hunt and put meat in the freezer. At least with my friends there is no party warfare when it comes to hunting. They all do it as a family activity and to put meat on the table.
> 
> As for the original post do I have a easy answer, no. I know what I will do when my daughter is old enough to go out grouse and pheasant hunting with me. Not much different then when my dad and grandfather took me out when I was old enough. Although she will have to take a hunter safety course after that she will carry and I will walk with her. I am certainly looking forward to this next year as a awesome father daughter bonding time.


Yes, a lot of us started hunting with our father, grandfather, uncle or whatever. You have to understand that the current trend is to let the family off the hook and replace it with government.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

AKDan said:


> mgf, if you don't pay to attend the course, whose going to supply the doughnuts ha! All kidding aside....those targets need repaired or replaced, there's a building to heat, power to supply, books to pass out, video to present etc etc, none of it comes free! The last I checked, it was 5 bucks to attend. I think money itself in this case isn't the deterrent for anyone to attend. If you cant afford 5 bucks you likely cant afford arrows, broadheads hunting lisc etc etc etc.
> 
> The reward is access to bowhunting only areas. The 'punishment' if you want to call it that, is having to hunt areas that everyone's allowed to hunt, crossguns, rifles, blackpowder and those who can and cannot pass the bowhunter ed course. It doesn't stop anyone from hunting! I think the reward to hunt the biggest bowhunting only area in the USA for everything from small game up to and including moose, sheep, grizzly, caribou, blackies, wolves, etc should be enough.


I'm confused. I never intended to suggest that any course should be free. Pay at the door.

I've never seen a bow hunting only area. We don't have any of those around here...except maybe my back yard but I already paid to hunt that. LOL


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

patientz3ro said:


> Are you serious? You're going to wade into this without being fully informed, run your mouth, and make ignorant blanket statements based on your "impressions" rather than actual facts, and you wonder why you're getting pounced on?
> 
> Let me educate you, so you don't have to strain yourself. Personal, voluntary accountability is EXACTLY what we're arguing for. When people like yourself, who jump to conclusions without any knowledge, start demanding that we meet YOUR standards of "proficiency," it's no longer personal OR voluntary. See, voluntary means that I do something of my own free will, while being at LIBERTY to choose not to, should I so desire. I know how much you love to throw that word around in your attempts to belittle those of us who actually know what it means.
> 
> ...


Listen up Bud.... what are my standards... Educate me... well thank you... where are you starting... ground zero... haha... don't flash your sanctimonious crap at me.

You propose voluntary incentive motivations... great... but I didn't see your post and if that is what you proposed... great.... because that is what this thread, this forum, and this idea needs... something to encourage hunters to be the best that they can be.... but you talk about reading berfore you jump on someone... post where I put out a standard.... or told you to do anything... and if I hurt your poor feeling I'm sorry...


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

itbeso said:


> That is a bogus statement, Capt. We, the few sane people in California, would love to actually GIVE you Feinstein and Pelosi.lol:teeth:


My mistake, but you can keep them, we've got our hands full with Cuomo, Schumer and Bloomberg here already. LOL.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CAPTJJ said:


> My mistake, but you can keep them, we've got our hands full with Cuomo, Schumer and Bloomberg here already. LOL.


The scary thing is that all those nut jobs were voted in by our neighbors. That's why I insist neighbors stay on their own side of the fence.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Nobody shoots live targets better than paper or rubber targets. I always laugh out loud when some nimrod writes in to claim he shoots "fur" better than targets.


Blanket statements are seldom correct. I know guys who don't shoot the greatest on 3D courses, but they kill game consistently. The difference is they don't take the same shots at live game as are presented on the course--they hold out for the shots they can make. How ironic that you call them "Nimrod". Nimrod was described as being "a mighty hunter before the Lord."



> The problem is those of us who are for it, aren't giving you your answer and wont.


Dan, I don't have an answer--I'm against it, period. I haven't seen anyone even attempt to answer my questions. You remember Clay don't you? He said he was a good shot--I have no reason to doubt him--but he was going to qualify with a borrowed compound bow, just to be sure. What good did the test do for him?

It may actually be a good thing, even show some positive results for now...but you give the the gov't an inch, it will take a mile with the wrong person in charge--and it doesn't give back. The amount of good it can do under the best of circumstances is negligible; the damage it could potentially do is unfathomable.


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

Dan/MGF-
I'll be the first to admit that my idea isn't perfect. I'm just tossing out ideas. I'm not suggesting that guys like you or I HAVE to take the course, just that if there were some type of extra incentive, you might choose to do so. Not only is it possible that you could learn something new, I'm sure the guys in the class could benefit from the experience of the guys taking the class just for the incentive. Everybody wins. As for the financial issues, I'm not saying you're going to get a free deer tag, just that if you're going to spend the extra $ for this class, you get a discount on your tags, either sex instead of antlered only, preference points for premium hunt areas, etc.

When I was a kid, my dad took me hunting LONG before I was able to carry a gun or a bow and shoot my own game. I learned how to judge shot placement, how to follow a blood trail and WHEN to follow, as opposed to waiting back for my quarry to bed down and bleed out. I learned a lot about hunting, long before I put my sights on an animal of my own. I was fortunate to have him take the time to teach me, and being able to learn all this in real situations tracking real blood trails and real animals during the hunting season was priceless. Not everyone who hunts is so fortunate. I, for one, am more than willing to take a brand new hunter under my wing and teach them what I can. I think it would be great for all new hunters to have access to the same information and skills. That's what my idea is all about.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

See Bradd, a just a "thread" about a proficiency test has resurected Indian Law and brought out the governments from several countries. Nobody has learned anything from this that they couldn't have learned in World History 101. But on the bright side, bow season opens in 9 days!! And I will be there. All I have to do is get up, drink some coffee, grab my bow and go hunting. Freedom, gotta love it! Speck


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

patientz3ro said:


> Dan/MGF-
> I'll be the first to admit that my idea isn't perfect. I'm just tossing out ideas. I'm not suggesting that guys like you or I HAVE to take the course, just that if there were some type of extra incentive, you might choose to do so. Not only is it possible that you could learn something new, I'm sure the guys in the class could benefit from the experience of the guys taking the class just for the incentive. Everybody wins. As for the financial issues, I'm not saying you're going to get a free deer tag, just that if you're going to spend the extra $ for this class, you get a discount on your tags, either sex instead of antlered only, preference points for premium hunt areas, etc.
> 
> When I was a kid, my dad took me hunting LONG before I was able to carry a gun or a bow and shoot my own game. I learned how to judge shot placement, how to follow a blood trail and WHEN to follow, as opposed to waiting back for my quarry to bed down and bleed out. I learned a lot about hunting, long before I put my sights on an animal of my own. I was fortunate to have him take the time to teach me, and being able to learn all this in real situations tracking real blood trails and real animals during the hunting season was priceless. Not everyone who hunts is so fortunate. I, for one, am more than willing to take a brand new hunter under my wing and teach them what I can. I think it would be great for all new hunters to have access to the same information and skills. That's what my idea is all about.
> ...


Please don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to tromp on your idea. I'm just Leary of the government "subsidy". I can't help it. I don't trust them.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Most hunters I know already realize in order to be successful they need to be sufficiently accurate to place their projectile into the kill zone.

The goal itself influences and drives most hunter's need to become accurate.

There really is no need for a test!

An accuracy test only proves how accurate an archer is at that moment shooting at an unanimated non-living target. That's ABSOLUTELY NO guarantee how they will do shooting at an animal.

Ray :shade:





Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The answer lies in good mentoring!!!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The answer lies in good mentoring!!!
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


That is right on the money Ray.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Most hunters I know already realize in order to be successful they need to be sufficiently accurate to place their projectile into the kill zone.
> 
> The goal itself influences and drives most hunter's need to become accurate.
> 
> ...


I agree.

I think maybe there is a problem here though I haven't seen anybody mention it. It's not wounded deer, although, that might be a sign/symptom of the "problem".

We live in an age of instant gratification. A person sees a big name hunter on TV kill a huge trophy and they decide they might like to do that this weekend instead of going golfing. They drop a bunch of money on all the latest trophy-killing technology, travel, pay guides, buy expensive out of state tags or whatever. That's ok, but then they somehow all of a sudden know what's right and ethical for the rest of us.

I started hunting when it was just hunting. It was better then and I'm glad I was there to see it. Hunting, the way I knew it, is hard to find and it isn't going to be around long.

I think "hunters" today are killing hunting. They can go on about "giving back" all they want but they're just killing it.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The answer lies in good mentoring!!!
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Mentoring is being replaced with regulation.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> We live in an age of instant gratification. it.


I agree. It's human nature and when it's taken to the extreme....we end up with lazy people in many cases.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Mentoring is being replaced with regulation.


Exactly!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

MGF said:


> Mentoring is being replaced with regulation.


Mentoring still happens when family or friends get you into hunting. It's the weekend warrior type that is a huge problem. I run an archery section of a sportsmens club so I see a lot of new bows being shot. Guys but them at Bass Crap or the local hardware store as a package, take their safety course then off they go. No hunting skills, no bushcraft skills, often very little ethics either. They watch a few of the TV idiots on the hunting shows, fancy a bit of that action and for a few hundred bucks they are in the woods. The only thing they are likely to kill is hunting itself if it keeps on like that.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Mentoring still happens when family or friends get you into hunting. It's the weekend warrior type that is a huge problem. I run an archery section of a sportsmens club so I see a lot of new bows being shot. Guys but them at Bass Crap or the local hardware store as a package, take their safety course then off they go. No hunting skills, no bushcraft skills, often very little ethics either. They watch a few of the TV idiots on the hunting shows, fancy a bit of that action and for a few hundred bucks they are in the woods. The only thing they are likely to kill is hunting itself if it keeps on like that.


I guess that's about what I was trying to describe. I agree.

Wounded animals could be one result but they're going to do a lot of things wrong before they shoot anything. They make a mess. Lots of folks who aren't even hunting are out there making a mess of things.

To my way of thinking the ethics, bushcraft skills and hunting skills are all part of the same package.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CAPTJJ said:


> My mistake, but you can keep them, we've got our hands full with Cuomo, Schumer and Bloomberg here already. LOL.


LOL. Anytime I get to feeling sorry for living in the same state as those two, I think maybe it's not the worst case scenario, I could live in New York. Maybe there is something in the oceans water?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The answer lies in good mentoring!!!
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Colorado is one state that doesn't participate in the Families Afield Program neither does Hawaii and we are trying to introduce it through legislation next year. This introduces not only youngsters (1,000,000 new hunters so far since about 2007) but adults who have not been introduced to hunting previously. http://familiesafield.org/

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

patientz3ro said:


> I'm not saying you're going to get a free deer tag, just that if you're going to spend the extra $ for this class, you get a discount on your tags, either sex instead of antlered only, preference points for premium hunt areas, etc.


Free tags would be good incentive I would think. A non compulsory program with mentoring could be effective but the only problem I have with any voluntary (at first) program is that it can turn into a compulsory program when the ppl running them decide they know what is best for everyone. Would you want some of the ppl on this thread running a hunting program? We aren't going to get a vote and history tells us that the ppl who seek the power aren't always the most deserving or even competent.

In the end its still up to the individual to hunt with efficiency so no amount of training will result in better hunting practices or remove any threat of banning.



BLACK WOLF said:


> An accuracy test only proves how accurate an archer is at that moment shooting at an unanimated non-living target. That's ABSOLUTELY NO guarantee how they will do shooting at an animal.


Exactly and 'at the moment' is correct too. Anyone that shoots a bow knows that you vary from day to day so it will prove nothing.

What about an archer that uses a sight on his bow just to pass the test then goes on to hunt without it?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Free tags would be good incentive I would think. A non compulsory program with mentoring could be effective but the only problem I have with any voluntary (at first) program is that it can turn into a compulsory program when the ppl running them decide they know what is best for everyone. Would you want some of the ppl on this thread running a hunting program? We aren't going to get a vote and history tells us that the ppl who seek the power aren't always the most deserving or even competent.
> 
> In the end its still up to the individual to hunt with efficiency so no amount of training will result in better hunting practices or remove any threat of banning.
> 
> ...


You don't actually believe that do you... that


Destroyer said:


> no amount of training will result in better hunting practices or remove any threat of banning.


----------



## AKDan (Nov 8, 2006)

Chad, again Clay is just another reason this kind of thing fails. People will circumnavigate anything to make it easier and in turn the hole point of the course fails them. NOTHING is going to change that! At what point is it worth it? There is a bunch of pit falls, I've listed a bunch of them. I've also listed reasons to do it, so people can make some form of decision, but until you see this first handedly, from a teachers standpoint, and again up on the haul road where there is NO place to hide, its hard to base a good decision on why or why NOT to have any sort of once in a life time proficiency testing! We can in our own little worlds make a decision and until I moved up here 17 years ago I would be saying exactly what you're saying (though without the age old wisdom I've gained in said amount of time about our said government etc lol). I don't believe this is an isolated incident! If you truly believe that testing once in your life is about how good you are as a bowhunter, you're completely missing the hole point of the course and test! 

Chad you're never going to get your answer you've already stated that. Not matter how hard people try to explain why, you're not going to hear it, so the answers go unheard....kind of like the 'if a tree fell in the woods does it make a sound'. 

Patientz has hit reason TO do this over and over again! The problem is the old timers are screaming NO! I'm for the testing and 100% for mandatory hunter ed! LIke has been stated everyone can gain from the experience in many more ways than seem to be face value, getting a card and getting access to a restricted hunt.

We don't live in a time where we mentor like 20 plus years ago. It happens but not to the degree it has in the past. I also was taken along long before I can remember (first memories are around my 3rd so bday chasing hares with my parents before they split). Today the mentorship comes from behind a computer screen. People are experts overnight, yet the foundation of being a bowhunter from behind a screen isn't going to happen. Thankfully today in the info tech age, getting all the tweaking perfection tuning idears is almost instantly found when back in the day (I started with wheels) we spent hours, days, months wearing bowstrings out learning. To me the test has the POTENTIAL to be a real world wake up for many in which I've seen year after year, test after test, its quite disgusting! I don't care if its a peer review, or anything else. Its a simple pass fail class that's is not ment to fail anyone and when people do they are often taken under an instructors wing or pointed in the right direction they shoot again and usually pass, though not always! I've watch kids barely into double digits pass class with little effort, theirs no bow weight requirement to shoot it either as their is no weight requirement for small game.

These class's aren't for the anti's, to be quit blunt they're not for the 80 percenters either. Its for us as a HUNTING (I have no desire to be a target archer) community! Those 80%'rs are going to decide our fate one day. Why wouldn't we make an attempt to better us as a bowhunting community? again until you've seen it making the decision is tough at best. And you're not going to see it sitting in a treestand very often! It just isn't going to happen to the degree it does on the tundra, and again at the class shooting portion. Its like non gun owners trying to regulate guns. Its hilarious! 

The test is NOT perfect! And imho I think every state should have a good bowhunter ed course with at least a shoot day that isn't a pass/go at a minimum. It has a way of showing those who aren't prepared of what's to come. Without saying you cant hunt. 

I'm fortunate enough to have a HUGE amount of bowhunting ONLY areas and I'm sure as heck not going to sit back and loose it reactively! 

ps, people need to relax and stop attacking people, its kind of silly really! A good debate is one thing....attacking those on the same side of the fence puts us even farther behind or worse! I don't hate or dislike anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with me. 

Dan....

still snickering over the spoon comment! LOL!!!


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> You don't actually believe that do you... that


Do I believe...

No amount of training will help? Yep. People who hunt poorly will do so regardless of what training you can give them.

Won't remove the threat of banning? Yep. Those ppl who want to ban hunting believe it should be banned period, regardless of how you control hunting and regardless on how educated a hunter is. Saying that education will diminish that threat is incorrect, its really just an effort to appease those we don't need to and its usually done out of fear.

The same with gun ownership, some think that giving up the 'assault' weapons is ok because it will satisfy the anti's and leave them with some weapons but that is so foolish. Once you prove 'need over want' the end is inevitable. 

Do you have some inside information rat about what is coming?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

See why I like target archery so much? LOL All this hunting business is a buzz kill in the end.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Holy cow, Mac
> You didn't originally say Declaration, you said CONSTITUTION. I hope you know they are two separate documents. It was only in the last post that you SWITCHED.
> I even said in my last post that I was still talking about the Constitution. Why you thought I talked about the Declaration, to which I never even mentioned, is beyond me!
> I can't believe you don't know that the declaration and the constitution are different. This is so sad.
> ...


I apologize. .I thought I had said declaration and states..not just constitution. .

Believe me. .I am more than away of the differences..

Now that we are on the same page..do you or don't you agree with the principles set forth in the Declaration. .?

Mac


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Rattus and Patient, you guys are both on the same side of the fence just using different words...some of them not so nice. Patient has offered a very good start for a solution to be discussed rationally and so has MFG. Maybe you could discuss that instead of throwing attacks or discredits back and forth, and work together to fine-tune something that would work for most?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I guess I'm not so good at time management as some of you because I don't have the time or means to teach the world to hunt or look after every wounded deer personally. LOL

What I've done is get a few people I've known over the years started hunting, including my two kids. I took them through the Il hunter safety course when they were very young. I don't remember whether or not I liked the idea at the time but it was a requirement. I thought it was an ok class for somebody who hasn't spent much time in the woods.

My daughter doesn't have any interest in hunting these days but my son still hunts. He shoots a bow but hasn't done any bow hunting. He found out he might be able to get some time off during deer season and started talking about making a trip with me.

He hasn't been shooting much lately (he has a young family and life gets busy). I suggested that he do some shooting including some bare shafts and broadheads. He was shooting pretty good until he laid off for a while but he wasn't grouping much of anything that day. I shot some bare shafts and broadheads while we were at it...though, I had already been through that exercise with my hunting bow/arrow combinations.

Upon seeing the difference, he decided on his own that it was best not to hunt deer until he gets grouping arrows again and verifies that he can do it with broadheads. I don't know if he'll be able to get that done for this season or not but he should have many more seasons ahead of him. If he does get the chance to join me in "camp", he can still squirrel hunt with his rifle and practice shooting his bow.

I thought everything worked out ok and it didn't require any new laws or government interference.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

patientz3ro said:


> I don't have the patience to dig through this entire thread for the exact words you used. The specifics are pretty much irrelevant anyway. If you look at the original post, you'll notice that he was asking about testing in order to get a hunting license. You made a couple of posts regarding people not being willing to prove their proficiency. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a connection between those two things.
> 
> Having read your last post, I see that testing for a license is not what you meant. Fair enough. Since that's the case, I think that concludes the arguing portion of the festivities.
> 
> ...


What would be proficient to me is for you to be able to hit what you say you will. Hunting is not done in a vacuum. You still have to find the game you are hunting. That too is proficiency; recovering game... proficiency. The more you can train, the more benefit exponentially. Workplace Safety programs prove this in spades.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> What would be proficient to me is for you to be able to hit what you say you will. Hunting is not done in a vacuum. You still have to find the game you are hunting. That too is proficiency; recovering game... proficiency. The more you can train, the more benefit exponentially. Workplace Safety programs prove this in spades.


Exactly what is it you have in mind?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Exactly what is it you have in mind?


Maybe you can get an answer. I couldn't. I thought the questions I asked were pretty simple to understand.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

There is absolutely no way in H.E. Double toothpicks, that a shooting proficiency/accuracy test will ever be an accurate way to determine who should or should not be allowed to bowhunt.

Ever if it were feasible, who sets the criteria for it?

I've seen lots of recommendations for a 5" group at 25 yards. 

What about the bowhunter who can't do that, but can shoot a 5" group in the kill zone at 10 yards. 
He recognizes his limitation, and hunts within it. Some here would advocate this fella be declined a hunting permit. 
Sorry guys, but with all due respect - that is ridiculous. 

I've said it a million times before, and will say it again - 
education & mentoring is the only way this subject should ever be approached, and the only way any kind of positive difference will ever be made.

I don't want, or need you judging me, and you darn sure don't want me judging you. 

Rick


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Actually a great answer.... no wonder I didn't think of it... :grin:


Rattus, if the state requires you to take a driving competency test to drive a car, should they require you take a driving competency test even if you don't drive...?  Can you answer that for me!


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> There is absolutely no way in H.E. Double toothpicks, that a shooting proficiency/accuracy test will ever be an accurate way to determine who should or should not be allowed to bowhunt.
> 
> Ever if it were feasible, who sets the criteria for it?
> 
> ...


This post should really end the thread... there is no way a serious hunter can't be in total agreement with Rick just said


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> Rattus, if the state requires you to take a driving competency test to drive a car, should they require you take a driving competency test even if you don't drive...?  Can you answer that for me!


First... can I assume that you haven't been imbibing? :grin:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Sadly there is no proficiency test for morals.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

grapplemonkey said:


> This post should really end the thread... there is no way a serious hunter can't be in total agreement with Rick just said


 hehe.... is this thread really for the *serious bow hunter?*


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

I fully agree with Rick, but that still leaves for unanswered question(s). How do you determine who is educated and properly mentored from the ones who are not, or bigger question, does that issue really matter and have to be known?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> First... can I assume that you haven't been imbibing? :grin:


You mean, if they make driving while drinking illegal, should they make alcohol illegal?  Oh, the slippery slopes of this world trying to keep it in check.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> I fully agree with Rick, but that still leaves for unanswered question(s). How do you determine who is educated and properly mentored from the ones who are not, or bigger question, does that issue really matter and have to be known?


Unfortunately the matter of ill equipped hunters, regardless the persuasion of tool, will be noted and known. So to answer your question it will be known. Then the result reflects not on the individual but on us all.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> You mean, if they make driving while drinking illegal, should they make alcohol illegal?  Oh, the slippery slopes of this world trying to keep it in check.


Isn't that the answer for gun deaths?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

grapplemonkey said:


> Sadly there is no proficiency test for morals.


If there were we'd have to outlaw roughly half the country.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Isn't that the answer for gun deaths?


Rut-ro, got me!


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

MGF said:


> If there were we'd have to outlaw roughly half the country.


You're generous with that figure, lol.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> hehe.... is this thread really for the *serious bow hunter?*


If you don't agree... would you accept "for those in the know"?


----------



## brd556 (Aug 22, 2011)

WOW.......way late to the party here......I am not sure if I am an "ANTI" or a "PROPONENT" but
I can tell you that a smaller gubment is a better gubment. The less they mess in my stuff the
happier I am.....that is a 100% truthful statement 100% of the time. 

So whatever that makes me....that's what I am. 

LIBERTY FOR ALL!!!!! Not just the ones that pass the test "Big Bro" wants to give you.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

grapplemonkey said:


> If you don't agree... would you accept "for those in the know"?


I'm thinking in my vernacular, that the SERIOUS bow hunter is one who is skilled in his craft. One to which learning is as important as doing and to be able to employ his learning to his craft.. or at least experiment with that which he has learned. A skilled bow hunter is one who knows his effective range and shoots from 5 yards to maybe 50 and all points in between. A skilled bow hunter knows the tracks of his quarry and what an alarmed deer track might look like... is skilled in blood trailing, broadhead sharpening, sign... in other words, a serious bow hunter is probably doing all the things that relate to proficiency and tests himself constantly in order to assure himself of success. Also... I don't think any serious bowhunter would be whining about any kind of a test either.. if someone asks him to shoot 5 into 25 and he can't, like I probably couldn't with some of my equipment he might say .. hey put it at 15 or 10.... and nails it... that is proficiency... the man knows his limitations... :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I'm thinking in my vernacular, that the SERIOUS bow hunter is one who is skilled in his craft. One to which learning is as important as doing and to be able to employ his learning to his craft.. or at least experiment with that which he has learned. A skilled bow hunter is one who knows his effective range and shoots from 5 yards to maybe 50 and all points in between. A skilled bow hunter knows the tracks of his quarry and what an alarmed deer track might look like... is skilled in blood trailing, broadhead sharpening, sign... in other words, a serious bow hunter is probably doing all the things that relate to proficiency and tests himself constantly in order to assure himself of success. Also... I don't think any serious bowhunter would be whining about any kind of a test either.. if someone asks him to shoot 5 into 25 and he can't, like I probably couldn't with some of my equipment he might say .. hey put it at 15 or 10.... and nails it... that is proficiency... the man knows his limitations... :grin:


The serious hunter and woodsman would tell the government to "butt-out" and shove their test up their back side. The serious hunter and woodsman would go his own way and fight anybody who tried to stop him. The serious bow hunter will work to attain the proficiency that best suits his needs.

But, who says that you have to be a serious bow hunter to buy a license and do a little hunting?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> The serious hunter and woodsman would tell the government to "butt-out" and shove their test up their back side. The serious hunter and woodsman would go his own way and fight anybody who tried to stop him. *The serious bow hunter will work to attain the proficiency that best suits his needs.
> 
> But, who says that you have to be a serious bow hunter to buy a license and do a little hunting?*


You make yourself quite clear.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Further... if you think I insulted you, I'm sorry.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

MGF makes a good point--at least this is one thing I got from it. Why would someone spend all that time and money for gear, gas, license, etc. just to go out and miss or wound? That is plain stupid...and as Ron White so eloquently states, "you can't fix stupid".


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> MGF makes a good point--at least this is one thing I got from it. Why would someone spend all that time and money for gear, gas, license, etc. just to go out and miss or wound? That is plain stupid...and as Ron White so eloquently states, "you can't fix stupid".


And what of all those that don't?
:grin:


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

I have to confess... I can't sharpen a broadhead, knife, or anything else worth a damn. 

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Further... if you think I insulted you, I'm sorry.


No real problem here.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

patientz3ro said:


> I have to confess... I can't sharpen a broadhead, knife, or anything else worth a damn.
> 
> Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


You could if you found out how and practiced some.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> You could if you found out how and practiced some.


Preaching what we practice are we.... :grin:


----------



## brd556 (Aug 22, 2011)

I am just gonna put this here......

WHY on earth would you want MORE government involvement in ANYTHING. 

They SUCK at everything they do.....and everything they get involved in turns
into a heaping pile of DUNG??

I cannot believe how many "PRO GUBMENT" people are on a "sportman's" website.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

brd556 said:


> I am just gonna put this here......
> 
> WHY on earth would you want MORE government involvement in ANYTHING.
> 
> ...


How many are there???


----------



## brd556 (Aug 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> How many are there???


One is too many.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Preaching what we practice are we.... :grin:


I'm not sure what you're asking but I can sharpen a blade. In fact, I made most of the knives I use.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

brd556 said:


> One is too many.


well I agree with you... game departments ought to be abolished I think... don't you?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking but I can sharpen a blade. In fact, I made most of the knives I use.


You know... MGF... you overthink in a really big way everything I post. I'm beginning to think that ... well my comment was a backhanded compliment... read it carefully


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

MGF said:


> You could if you found out how and practiced some.


Oh, believe me, I've tried. It just seems to be one of those things that is just incompatible with my hands. Maybe I'll try one of those blade wedge things that holds the blade at the correct angle.

Incidentally, I can't play the harmonica either. Supposedly, it's the easiest instrument to learn... I can pick out a tune on every other instrument I've ever picked up, but harmonicas are my nemesis.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> They are a typical set of logical fallacies of the most egregious to be used.


There are no "fallacies". I didn't state anything as fact, I asked simple questions. Calling my questions "fallacies" is, ironically, a fallacy. 

There was nothing "egregious" about my questions. They are quite plain and simple. Saying my questions were both "egregious" and "logical" makes no sense anyway--logically speaking. 

I think I made my point in spite of all the static. 

If fixing the problem were as easy as making everyone pass a proficiency test, then my questions wouldn't be so hard to answer--even for those who could care less about those of us that hunt. For at least most of us that actually do hunt and care about hunting, we know better. Not to say Dan doesn't care--he's one of the most passionate hunters I've ever had the pleasure to know--which makes his stance that much more puzzling to me.

Dan, if you are still around, here's another thought. I know you remember the guy who wounded a grizz. Didn't he have to pass a proficiency test to go hunting?

As has been said over and over, you can't legislate ethics...and you can't fix stupid.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> There are no "fallacies". I didn't state anything as fact, I asked simple questions. Calling my questions "fallacies" is, ironically, a fallacy.
> 
> There was nothing "egregious" about my questions. They are quite plain and simple. Saying my questions were both "egregious" and "logical" makes no sense anyway--logically speaking.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking that what he meant was, and I'm not certain about the questions he was actually referring to, but some posed to me certainly applied, is questions that beg follow on. For example, the 5 in 25 posing. Ok... standard. What of the guy that can't do 5/25? No pass. For you, that would be a bad thing. For MGF... probably the same... for anyone else possibly too... you have to meet a specific standard. Proficiency is hitting what you say you are aiming for. That actually might be at 10 yards... or 22 in my case. There was someone here who brought up effective range... then the what about up hill, down hill on and on .... I don't know what a logical fallacy is really... but that reference to me certainly would have qualified. The very idea that you bring up the grizzly bear that was wounded... had to show proficiency but still it was lost, I presume... so why show proficiency in the first place right... I mean you can't fix stupid right...??


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

Thank you for the clarification, Mac.

Yes, I agree with the values listed in the declaration, of course that all men are created equal. But there are other, equally important parts. That it is up to the people to decided their laws, and if their government becomes tyrannical, that it is up to the people to abolish. It sends forth the complaints about king George to him, and more then a few are about his abolishment of the local governments for his own control against the people's will.
It is important to know that the government should be in the control of the people, yes, and I would even be willing to agree that there is not enough of that control in our modern government (Though I wouldn't be hasty enough to say that it should be completely re-worked).
But that doesn't mean that government by itself is a wicked thing. In fact, a few of the complaints that the Declaration addressed was that some laws were NOT passed, or not passed fast enough.

But in this current debate, we don't have one tyrannical government arguing with several people who are against him. We have ordinary people debating against other ordinary people. It is the will of the people deciding this current debate, not a tyrannical government. If the will of the people are for it, and the government passes it, then the government has done exactly what was set out to be done by the constitution AND declaration of independence.

My point though, to which we have swayed far from, is that the charters of this country, the federalist papers, the constitution, the declaration, the treatises such as Common Sense, they cannot be your only basis for an argument, for often times they even contradict themselves. I believe I have pointed out at least somewhat adequate knowledge of these subjects and still have come to a different conclusion. Knowledge about the founding of our country is important, but they cannot be your only reasoning behind topics such as this.
And, I think more importantly, that if you want people to respect your opinion, and despise those who try to enforce their opinion on you against your will, you should respect other's opinions, and not insult them.

On an unrelated note, though still addressed to you, Mac, I apologize for how heated I became. I should not have called you pathetic, or sad, or so arrogantly denied your own knowledge on these subjects. I became frustrated, but that is no excuse, and I became increasingly more vehement with each of our posts.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I don't know what a logical fallacy is really


Why would you agree with a statement you didn't understand??



> so why show proficiency in the first place right... I mean you can't fix stupid right...??


I don't know that the shooting in that scenario was being "stupid" or not. I wasn't there. The obvious point is being able to pass a "proficiency test" guarantees nothing.

I've worked in an archery shop, and I own one. I don't know how many stories I've heard about people who emptied their quivers at animals they knew were well out of their range for various reasons. No doubt most of these people, if not all of them, could pass a proficiency test.

My original qustions point out that, obviously, it's not that simple. I think it would be stupid to have to pass a proficiency test to bowfish, or to get a fishing license--but the gov't doesn't operate on common sense. Thank goodness it's not even an issue where I live, at least that I know of, but if other states start incorporating it then it's liable to spread to mine. 

As has been pointed out, laws that affect us are generally influenced by people who have nothing to do with hunting. It's money and politics, not statistics and common sense--gov't as usual.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Why would you agree with a statement you didn't understand??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So lets get back to hunting... I answer stuff all the time I don't understand.... how did you know I didn't understand it? :grin:

You owned an archery shop that had people all the time coming in talking about flinging arrows at game... wounding maybe not recovering possibly... probably likely... but you're saying it's only the money that matters are you? That you get to replace lost arrows and broken blades? That's the bottom line?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

I will ask again rat, do you have insider information or anxiety about the banning of bow hunting?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

rat, money is always the bottom line. Always.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> I will ask again rat, do you have insider information or anxiety about the banning of bow hunting?


Why do you ask?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> rat, money is always the bottom line. Always.


:grin:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...how did you know I didn't understand it?


When you said this:



> I don't know what a logical fallacy is really...


That pretty much gave it away.



> ...you're saying it's only the money that matters are you? That you get to replace lost arrows and broken blades? That's the bottom line?


You know that's not what I said, implied, or meant. Forget it--I have no desire to try and debate your imagination.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> rat, money is always the bottom line. Always.


Of course it is. Tell me, what is it I have to gain?


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Why do you ask?


Concerned...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> When you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, what you said was


LBR said:


> I've worked in an archery shop, and I own one. I don't know how many stories I've heard about people who emptied their quivers at animals they knew were well out of their range for various reasons. No doubt most of these people, if not all of them, could pass a proficiency test.


I don't blame you for not wanting to debate, for a lot of your posts here are debait. We're talking about the health of hunting are we not? We have an actual loss of replacement hunters going on right now where roughly for every 100 of hunters who retire, only 60 are replacing them. Add to this your posted history of hunters above. Irresponsible behavior in my opinion, of the worst order... How do we fix that? Did you do anything to address that with them in any way... you don't allude to that in any positive statement so I am assuming, as was suggested, the bottom line governs. Am I wrong here?

Does that behavior encourage replacement? Does it represent the health of our sport?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Of course it is. Tell me, what is it I have to gain?


 Well for one thing, you support NASP. That future of archery is not the future of hunting, but the approach should really be similar don't you think?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Concerned...


You should be! We are losing ground, losing numbers, and losing influence. If you can believe the studies of the ratio of non hunters to anti-hunters to the ratio of pro-hunters or hunters, and then think about how proficiency might add into the equation, it should start to become clear. :grin:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Government Required Traditional Style Bow Hunting Two Part Exam To Merit Licensing:

Part/Test 1. Brace your Bow.

Part/Test 2. Nock an Arrow.

Note: As of Jan. 1st 2014 all applicants will be required to show proof of healthcare insurance prior to exam per Obama-Care...and remember...Safety First!...as your Health and Welfare IS NOW our primary concern!

If the applicant successfully passes both parts of this test (as outlined above) they are now eligible to get their approved bow hunter licensing certificate for a nominal one time charge of *$100.00 at which point they are now certified to purchase an archery hunting permit available in the sporting goods dept. of most walmart stores.

Addendum 1: States that if the bow hunter desires to "Stand Hunt" they must make available for ANNUAL INSPECTION their government approved SAFE-T-HARNESS (which can be purchased separately in most walmart store sporting goods dept.) where it will be visually inspected for suspect fraying and "Load Tested" for your safety and please be advised these services require an additional *$50.00 Inspection Fee.

*And as a special Thank You for your participation and generosity (as 8% of ALL fee's goes towards wildlife conservation) don't forget to pick up the special gift we have waiting for you at the cashiers booth.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Man this thread lost the plot ages ago but I don't think I have ever come across a more paranoid bunch in all my days. Whoever sold you on the idea that there was a government conspiracy round every corner did a great job.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I think we're losing hunters because there are fewer places to hunt and they're further from home for most of us. As it becomes less convenient and more costly it becomes less attractive.

We might have fewer hunters but much of our hunting land is more crowded and not worth hunting.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Man this thread lost the plot ages ago but I don't think I have ever come across a more paranoid bunch in all my days. Whoever sold you on the idea that there was a government conspiracy round every corner did a great job.


Don't you read the news? There is a government conspiracy around every corner.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Bigjono said:


> Man this thread lost the plot ages ago but I don't think I have ever come across a more paranoid bunch in all my days. Whoever sold you on the idea that there was a government conspiracy round every corner did a great job.


Boy, you got that right! I'm always amazed at the level of paranoia exhibited within the outdoor community's ranks. I read the gun forums also and it's the same gang. No other hobby group is so out of touch with reality it seems to me. I build sailboats and like to fish and sail. I don't see the frightened masses in those two outdoor sports. But the hunting/gun crowd? Pure nuts if you ask me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Boy, you got that right! I'm always amazed at the level of paranoia exhibited within the outdoor community's ranks. I read the gun forums also and it's the same gang. No other hobby group is so out of touch with reality it seems to me. I build sailboats and like to fish and sail. I don't see the frightened masses in those two outdoor sports. But the hunting/gun crowd? Pure nuts if you ask me.


Nobody is trying to outlaw boats or boating. They've been trying to outlaw guns for decades and they've done it in place like Chicago and New York. I don't know of anti-boating lobby but there is a fairly strong anti-hunting lobby.

With hunting land disappearing and more people growing up in cities learning that animals are people too, hunting's days are numbered.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF, the paranoia goes well beyond guns. Every aspect of life seems to be viewed through cloudy glasses by the group Bigjono and I mention. They see the boogeyman everywhere it seems. The Tea Party is just one example and maybe the best. A kooky bunch of paranoid wankers.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Well for one thing, you support NASP. That future of archery is not the future of hunting, but the approach should really be similar don't you think?


You really don't know anything about the NASP, what it does, the reason it was founded, or how it's affected hunting license sales...do you?

Tell me how making it harder, more intimidating, and ultimately more expensive to get a license is going to add to the ranks?

I don't know the answer to getting rid of slobs, but several of us have given a lot of viable reasons why a proficiency test won't fix anything and will likely add lots of problems.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Stone Bridge said:


> Boy, you got that right! I'm always amazed at the level of paranoia exhibited within the outdoor community's ranks. I read the gun forums also and it's the same gang. No other hobby group is so out of touch with reality it seems to me. I build sailboats and like to fish and sail. I don't see the frightened masses in those two outdoor sports. But the hunting/gun crowd? Pure nuts if you ask me.


Well Stone?..remember...you live in the keys...much different world down that way...and you wanna talk "pure nuts"?...how about this....

Opening day...thousands of hunters who spent thousands of dollars on leases, licensing and gear...well hidden in trees...with an array of fancy and very deadly weaponry and?...

100 animal rights activists take a stroll through the woods, screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs all while wildly beating on pots and pans to scare away the game.

Now "THAT" sir?...is pure nuts. :laugh:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, the paranoia goes well beyond guns. Every aspect of life seems to be viewed through cloudy glasses by the group Bigjono and I mention. They see the boogeyman everywhere it seems. The Tea Party is just one example and maybe the best. A kooky bunch of paranoid wankers.


Lol, that's funny. I call the Tea Party the Christian Taliban but I like yours better. They, the NRA and others like them function better if they keep up a steady level of paranoia, they make good money that way. If something like hunting or gun ownership gets reduced or goes away it would only ever be for one reason and that's because those who oppose it would outnumber those who are for it. In a democracy that is how it works, good or bad right or wrong.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, the paranoia goes well beyond guns. Every aspect of life seems to be viewed through cloudy glasses by the group Bigjono and I mention. They see the boogeyman everywhere it seems. The Tea Party is just one example and maybe the best. A kooky bunch of paranoid wankers.


TEA as in Taxed Enough Already? What position do they have that you think is kooky?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Well Stone?..remember...you live in the keys...much different world down that way...and you wanna talk "pure nuts"?...how about this....
> 
> Opening day...thousands of hunters who spent thousands of dollars on leases, licensing and gear...well hidden in trees...with an array of fancy and very deadly weaponry and?...
> 
> ...


And that's where the double sided argument comes in Bill. You think you're sane because you want to kill animals but think they're nuts because they don't want you to. They think you're nuts because you want to kill animals, they think they're sane because they don't want you to. Who's to say who's right or wrong.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> You really don't know anything about the NASP, what it does, the reason it was founded, or how it's affected hunting license sales...do you?
> 
> Tell me how making it harder, more intimidating, and ultimately more expensive to get a license is going to add to the ranks?
> 
> I don't know the answer to getting rid of slobs, but several of us have given a lot of viable reasons why a proficiency test won't fix anything and will likely add lots of problems.


Tell me what I don't know about NASP. Let's start there.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Lol, that's funny. I call the Tea Party the Christian Taliban but I like yours better. They, the NRA and others like them function better if they keep up a steady level of paranoia, they make good money that way. If something like hunting or gun ownership gets reduced or goes away it would only ever be for one reason and that's because those who oppose it would outnumber those who are for it. In a democracy that is how it works, good or bad right or wrong.


But we're not a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. We're a constitutional republic with a constitution that was designed, in part, to prevent mob rule. The idea was to prevent a majority from stomping all over the rights of the individual.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> That future of archery is not the future of hunting...


That statement speaks for itself.

And the "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" bunch are by far the biggest bunch of kooks and scam artists around. At least you aren't forced to contribute to the NRA or the TEA Party if you choose not to.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> And that's where the double sided argument comes in Bill. You think you're sane because you want to kill animals but think they're nuts because they don't want you to. They think you're nuts because you want to kill animals, they think they're sane because they don't want you to. Who's to say who's right or wrong.


I never hard anybody suggest they are insane because they don't want to kill animals. They are a bunch of would be tyrants because they want to stop me from killing animals.

Incidentally, their antics are what led to the passage of all of out hunter harassment laws some years back. I remember prior to that when they were doing things like protesting and disrupting father and son dove hunts and stuff. They're pretty low people.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

MGF said:


> But we're not a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. We're a constitutional republic with a constitution that was designed, in part, to prevent mob rule. The idea was to prevent a majority from stomping all over the rights of the individual.


You are not an absolute democracy but you are a democratic republic which for all intents and purposes is still a democracy.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

There is no double sided argument. They don't have to hunt if they don't want to and I can hunt if I want to.

We'll be fine if they stay on their side of the fence and leave me be.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

LBR said:


> That statement speaks for itself.
> 
> And the "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" bunch are by far the biggest bunch of kooks and scam artists around. .


Now that I agree with you on.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> That statement speaks for itself.
> 
> And the "global warming/global cooling/global climate change" bunch are by far the biggest bunch of kooks and scam artists around. At least you aren't forced to contribute to the NRA or the TEA Party if you choose not to.


Hahahaha.... right... don't you have enough guts to post the whole sentence.... that lack of context speaks for itself doesn't it... hahahaha.... yeah... carry on there LBR carry on :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> You are not an absolute democracy but you are a democratic republic which for all intents and purposes is still a democracy.


No it isn't. In a pure democracy the people vote on each issue and majority wins. In such a model, lynch mobs are fine. If a majority od us decide you should hang, you hang.

We have a constitution that lays out guide lines that are not supposed to be up for a vote. The constitution is there to put limits on what the government and "majority" can do.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> You are not an absolute democracy but you are a democratic republic which for all intents and purposes is still a democracy.


How so?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

MGF said:


> No it isn't. In a pure democracy the people vote on each issue and majority wins. In such a model, lynch mobs are fine. If a majority od us decide you should hang, you hang.
> 
> We have a constitution that lays out guide lines that are not supposed to be up for a vote. The constitution is there to put limits on what the government and "majority" can do.


And in a modern democratic system the majority votes on a government to run the country and make decisions on their behalf. Unless I missed something that sounds like the way your system works.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Well for one thing, you support NASP. That future of archery is not the future of hunting, but the approach should really be similar don't you think?


You mean that one? I do support the NASP--my wife and I are the reason my county has it in all it's schools. No idea what you mean other than that.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> How so?


What makes the US a democracy is giving the governing power in the hands of representatives that are elected by its citizens via elections held every number of years.
It is not an absolute democracy but more of a mixture of democracy with other elements such as socialism, communism and dictatorship thrown in.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> And in a modern democratic system the majority votes on a government to run the country and make decisions on their behalf. Unless I missed something that sounds like the way your system works.


But the government is supposed to operate within the limits imposed by the Constitution. We're a constitutional republic. Let go of the democracy thing. LOL, it's just mob rule and it's very bad for anybody who values individual liberty.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> What makes the US a democracy is giving the governing power in the hands of representatives that are elected by its citizens via elections held every number of years.
> It is not an absolute democracy but more of a mixture of democracy with other elements such as socialism, communism and dictatorship thrown in.


They're starting to mix in some socialism and communism (over the last 70 or 80 years) but that what some of us are trying to stop. 

BTW, do you know anything about Plymouth Plantation? William Bradford wrote how they almost starved when they tried socialism. Everybody got the same whether they worked or not...nobody wanted to work. Those that did, realized they were being taken advantage of by all those who didn't. The solution was to have everybody produce for themselves. Socialism doesn't work.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> What makes the US a democracy is giving the governing power in the hands of representatives that are elected by its citizens via elections held every number of years.
> It is not an absolute democracy but more of a mixture of democracy with other elements such as socialism, communism and dictatorship thrown in.


With member states we are a republic. We vote, and winner takes all.. that is true... but we are not a Democracy.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Bigjono said:


> And that's where the double sided argument comes in Bill. You think you're sane because you want to kill animals but think they're nuts because they don't want you to. They think you're nuts because you want to kill animals, they think they're sane because they don't want you to. Who's to say who's right or wrong.


Ummm..."God"...to be specific?...

Genesis 27:3 "Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me [some] venison"

but okay...I'll play...in which case if that is okay for them?...then it should be okay for me to pee all over their veggie garden on harvest day...right?...I mean just think off all those poor pepper's, carrots, onions, green beans and cabbage...and their methods are so brutal?...I hear some boil them alive in huge pots of salted water...dang?...gotta go...just made myself hungry. :laugh:


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Bill, now you're killing me with the god business. LOL Ordering your life around the words of old men who wrote centuries ago about their particular mythology is no way to go through life. We should all think for ourselves. Nobody ever had to tell me the difference between what was right or wrong. That's a natural thing for a normal, healthy human being. Most of us are decent from birth and need no scary tales from long ago to keep us in line.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Stone Bridge said:


> Bill, now you're killing me with the god business. LOL Ordering your life around the words of old men who wrote centuries ago about their particular mythology is no way to go through life. We should all think for ourselves. Nobody ever had to tell me the difference between what was right or wrong. That's a natural thing for a normal, healthy human being. Most of us are decent from birth and need no scary tales from long ago to keep us in line.


Stone....if I could edit that for you?...I would...but I can't...so?...

I'll pray for you.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Stone....if I could edit that for you?...I would...but I can't...so?...
> 
> I'll pray for you.


Thanks, Bill. I know you mean well.

Now since this thread is completely off the rails, how about them Devil Ray's? I still call them Devil Ray's. It's just the way I am. LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Thanks, Bill. I know you mean well.
> 
> Now since this thread is completely off the rails, how about them Devil Ray's? I still call them Devil Ray's. It's just the way I am. LOL


I don't understand the reference. What are "Devil Ray's"?


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

*I don't understand the reference. What are "Devil Ray's"?*

That's what them damn commie pinko socialists have been beaming at my head since I sent that letter to the White House! Joke's on them, though. Longs as I'm wearing this hat, they ain't stealing MY thoughts!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Ummm..."God"...to be specific?...
> 
> Genesis 27:3 "Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me [some] venison"
> 
> but okay...I'll play...in which case if that is okay for them?...then it should be okay for me to pee all over their veggie garden on harvest day...right?...I mean just think off all those poor pepper's, carrots, onions, green beans and cabbage...and their methods are so brutal?...I hear some boil them alive in huge pots of salted water...dang?...gotta go...just made myself hungry. :laugh:


Scriptural references don't hold weight with people who don't believe in God.

I think it's enough to say that I eat meat and, in order for that to happen, something has to die. It just so happens that I prefer to kill it myself.

A person who is thinking for himself might reason that it's not wise to get between a predator and his meal. But...everybody should do as they think best as long as they're will to live with the consequences.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

I have a question for all, do you think anybody could stop a person from hunting that was willing to die to keep doing it?? Anybody on here want the job of doing that? The "debate" is fun for many of you, I'm sure, but you don't really realize what a can of worms something like this would open. It would be localized at first, but would spread quickly. And Stone, I would rather go through life with hope and faith in GOD and be wrong in the end, than not believe and be wrong. Good luck. Speck


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

patientz3ro said:


> *I don't understand the reference. What are "Devil Ray's"?*
> 
> That's what them damn commie pinko socialists have been beaming at my head since I sent that letter to the White House! Joke's on them, though. Longs as I'm wearing this hat, they ain't stealing MY thoughts!
> 
> Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


You know... the last guy had voices in his head now has the white house, democrats, and all of the liberal media back on calling an 870 remington an AR15 Assault Rifle... reminds me of the article "Is my daddy's Duck Gun an Assault Weapon?"


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

patientz3ro said:


> *I don't understand the reference. What are "Devil Ray's"?*
> 
> That's what them damn commie pinko socialists have been beaming at my head since I sent that letter to the White House! Joke's on them, though. Longs as I'm wearing this hat, they ain't stealing MY thoughts!
> 
> Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


I don't think so but they are tracking your phone, internet and probably travel activities though. 

They don't want to steal your thoughts. They want to provide you with the "proper" thoughts.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> Scriptural references don't hold weight with people who don't believe in God.
> 
> I think it's enough to say that I eat meat and, in order for that to happen, something has to die. It just so happens that I prefer to kill it myself.
> 
> A person who is thinking for himself might reason that it's not wise to get between a predator and his meal. But...everybody should do as they think best as long as they're will to live with the consequences.


Scriptural references hold weight for those who employ them. Scriptures are also lessons. For those, maybe like you, who disrespect those references, also seem to disrespect those those that employ them and yet then expect others to respect your own point of view. Laughable.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Speck1 said:


> I have a question for all, do you think anybody could stop a person from hunting that was willing to die to keep doing it?? Anybody on here want the job of doing that? The "debate" is fun for many of you, I'm sure, but you don't really realize what a can of worms something like this would open. It would be localized at first, but would spread quickly. And Stone, I would rather go through life with hope and faith in GOD and be wrong in the end, than not believe and be wrong. Good luck. Speck


Look, they're already getting away with telling how to manage your health risks and deciding for you what kind of insurance you MUST by. If people will tolerate that, they'll tolerate just about anything. Heck they've been confiscating 15% of our income for decades to "manage our retirement"

They don't care as long as they have a couple of cars, a TV set in every room, a football game to watch and maybe an Obamaphone. 

I have absolutely no confidence that our "neighbors" are prepared to stand up for themselves in any way shape or form. Nothing would happen if they ended hunting except some fluctuations in a few economic indicators.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Scriptural references hold weight for those who employ them. Scriptures are also lessons. For those, maybe like you, who disrespect those references, also seem to disrespect those those that employ them and yet then expect others to respect your own point of view. Laughable.


When did I ever disrespect those references?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> You know... the last guy had voices in his head now has the white house, democrats, and all of the liberal media back on calling an 870 remington an AR15 Assault Rifle... reminds me of the article "Is my daddy's Duck Gun an Assault Weapon?"


Didn't Biden say to go get a shotgun? I guess this guy listened.

He said to shoot it on the porch though but I wouldn't recommend that. I just don't think the town cops would take that very well. LOL


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> When did I ever disrespect those references?


Sorry... I must have been dreaming... I thought you sayed... nah... must have been out of my mind... I would have sworn someone sayed that scriptural references don't hold weight for those that don't believe in God. But I don't remember saying you disrespected them, do you respect scriptural reference MGF?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Sorry... I must have been dreaming... I thought you sayed... nah... must have been out of my mind... I would have sworn someone sayed that scriptural references don't hold weight for those that don't believe in God. But I don't remember saying you disrespected them, do you respect scriptural reference MGF?


You weren't dreaming. You just misunderstood my post. I posted that after reading stones reply of....


> Bill, now you're killing me with the god business. LOL Ordering your life around the words of old men who wrote centuries ago about their particular mythology is no way to go through life. We should all think for ourselves. Nobody ever had to tell me the difference between what was right or wrong. That's a natural thing for a normal, healthy human being. Most of us are decent from birth and need no scary tales from long ago to keep us in line.


The scriptural references clearly hold no weight with him.

As for me, you should look up some of my posts in some of the religion debate threads in the anything forum sometime. I'm fairly handy at finding my way around a Bible.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Speck1 said:


> I have a question for all, do you think anybody could stop a person from hunting that was willing to die to keep doing it?? Anybody on here want the job of doing that? The "debate" is fun for many of you, I'm sure, but you don't really realize what a can of worms something like this would open. It would be localized at first, but would spread quickly. And Stone, I would rather go through life with hope and faith in GOD and be wrong in the end, than not believe and be wrong. Good luck. Speck


Willing to die for it Lol, yeah right. 
Other side of that god thing is devoting your life to it then when you hit that moment of death, nothing, what a pis**r that is. The gamble is there to take and it's each to his own as long as both sides resect the views of the other.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Speck1 said:


> I have a question for all, do you think anybody could stop a person from hunting that was willing to die to keep doing it?? Anybody on here want the job of doing that? The "debate" is fun for many of you, I'm sure, but you don't really realize what a can of worms something like this would open. It would be localized at first, but would spread quickly. And Stone, I would rather go through life with hope and faith in GOD and be wrong in the end, than not believe and be wrong. Good luck. Speck


Amen Speck1!...I had a drill instructor in the corp I (and many others) had the utmost respect for...for two reasons...

1. He survived some of the most brutal battles Vietnam had to offer and?...

2. Every Sunday morning he would step out of his quarters to inform us we had our choice...1 hour of "Free Time" or?..."Go To Chapel"...and he would urge us all (with many expletives) to go to the Chapel reminding us all that...

*"There's One Thing you'll never find in the heat of battle...an Atheist...cause once the lead and body parts start flying?...

they all scream for God!"*

On commencement day?...I asked him about a certain commendation he acquired...for single handedly clearing an LZ for medevac choppers and taking 12 prisoners in the process...he said when his squad got the lat/long orders to do so?...there were 4 of us...but by the time we got there?...I was the only one left...and I prayed for guidance...and noticed that....every time the choppers got close enough?...they would open fire on the choppers...I listened to where they were...slung my rifle and drew my .45...and one by one?...I snuck up behind them and gave them my "Yoo-Hoo" whistle...and when their heads popped up from the brush to look?....BAM!

at this point he asked me if I ever saw the effects of what a .45 round does to a small human head at close range...(I shook my head no)...when he informed me..."imagine shooting a water balloon with a .22 they just explode and sprays blood everywhere".....as he went on to tell me that after killing (6) this way?...their cong buds got to see them heads explode...and they had no idea it was just one pistol wielding marine when the last 12 suddenly just stood up hands held high surrendering to him.

He's also the same guy that told me that while a marine can be physically and mentally strong...but...if your not spiritually fit?...there's the kink in your armor...and in the heat of battle?...chances are you will be consumed by your own fears...hence his high value on spiritual strength.

After all...exactly how powerful can any army be who's soldiers are ruled and commanded by fear?...verses an army based in Faith?

The top right pic is him shaking my hand on grad day...D.I. Fanger


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> You weren't dreaming. You just misunderstood my post. I posted that after reading stones reply of....
> 
> The scriptural references clearly hold no weight with him.
> 
> As for me, you should look up some of my posts in some of the religion debate threads in the anything forum sometime. I'm fairly handy at finding my way around a Bible.


So too I'm finding out are most/many Atheists... :grin: Far more scholarly than I on the Bible... :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I've shot groundhogs in the head with about every handgun caliber there is from .22 up to a 44 mag and their heads don't "explode". I shot one with a 44 mag 240 gr Spear hollow point propelled by 24 gr of Winchester 296 and a CCI 350 primer. The bones were pretty much pulverized (it was kind of like a water bag) but the head was mostly intact. That's a whole lot more hydrostatic shock than you'll get from the MUCH slower 45.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> So too I'm finding out are most/many Atheists... :grin: Far more scholarly than I on the Bible... :grin:


I'm not an atheist. I haven't met everybody but I've never come across an atheist who knew much at all about the Bible. There are some well known atheists who lie a lot about what's in the Bible and a few atheists/socialists on the radio who claim to know what's in the Bible but they don't...well, either they don't or they intentionally lie.

We're going to get this thread shut down if we aren't careful but this is important. In order for one side of our political spectrum to ever get very far with their agenda they absolutely MUST kill religion, especially Christianity. Those who trust in God and family just don't need to depend on the government. They need you to trust in the government first.

If you read some of the socialist writings you'll see where this all comes from. Somebody like Bill Press would like you to think that he's encouraging you to think for yourself but that's not at all what he's up to.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Bigjono, you think you might be able to make to the Trad World in 2014? Speck


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Speck1 said:


> Bigjono, you think you might be able to make to the Trad World in 2014? Speck


Not sure yet, depends on time and money why?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> I've shot groundhogs in the head with about every handgun caliber there is from .22 up to a 44 mad and their heads don't "explode". I shot one with a 44 mag 240 gr Spear hollow point propelled by 24 gr of Winchester 296 and a CCI 250 primer. The bones were pretty much pulverized (it was kind of like a water bag) but the head was mostly intact. That's a whole lot more hydrostatic shock than you'll get from the MUCH slower 45.


Oh dear Lord...Okay Sherlock...you caught me....I'm lying...do you really think a groundhogs head comes even remotely close to resembling the structure of a human cranium?....here's a hint sport....

Groundhog Head: Small Brain...Mega Bone Mass

Human Head: Huge Brain...Thin walled cranium with lots of expansion joints to facilitate head growth.

gimme a break here...maybe he (and/or I) should've just said that it caused enough "matter to go flying" that "It made for quite the sight"...just so all you expert reloading groundhog hunters don't question a marines earned glory...jeese. SMH


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Oh dear Lord...Okay Sherlock...you caught me....I'm lying...do you really think a groundhogs head comes even remotely close to resembling the structure of a human cranium?....here's a hint sport....
> 
> Groundhog Head: Small Brain...Mega Bone Mass
> 
> ...


I don't think you were lying. It's just that in stories and movies everything blows up when you shoot it. In real life, almost nothing except maybe a jug of water does. But no I don't think a human head would make much more of a "visual" effect than a groundhog head.

I've shot just about everything under the sun, including things like propane tanks, trying to get something to blow up and nothing ever did. LOL


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Oh dear Lord...Okay Sherlock...you caught me....I'm lying...do you really think a groundhogs head comes even remotely close to resembling the structure of a human cranium?....here's a hint sport....
> 
> Groundhog Head: Small Brain...Mega Bone Mass
> 
> ...


I don't know mulch about groundhog heads, but I DO know that the .45ACP was created specifically to do rotten things to the human body. There's not much that was designed in 1911 that's still around in the same form today, but if it was good enough for the prophet John Moses Browning, then by God, it's good enough for me. 

The testimony of a few gator freighters full of Marines doesn't hurt either.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> I'm not an atheist. I haven't met everybody but I've never come across an atheist who knew much at all about the Bible. There are some well known atheists who lie a lot about what's in the Bible and a few atheists/socialists on the radio who claim to know what's in the Bible but they don't...well, either they don't or they intentionally lie.
> 
> We're going to get this thread shut down if we aren't careful but this is important. In order for one side of our political spectrum to ever get very far with their agenda they absolutely MUST kill religion, especially Christianity. Those who trust in God and family just don't need to depend on the government. They need you to trust in the government first.
> 
> If you read some of the socialist writings you'll see where this all comes from. Somebody like Bill Press would like you to think that he's encouraging you to think for yourself but that's not at all what he's up to.


You might spend a little time over on the anything goes forum.... :grin:
I agree. In the early 1960's, the Communists published a design for the USA... It's an interesting read and you can see the results of their efforts have taken fruit.... :grin:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

patientz3ro said:


> I don't know mulch about groundhog heads, but I DO know that the .45ACP was created specifically to do rotten things to the human body. There's not much that was designed in 1911 that's still around in the same form today, but if it was good enough for the prophet John Moses Browning, then by God, it's good enough for me.
> 
> The testimony of a few gator freighters full of Marines doesn't hurt either.
> 
> Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


But that doesn't say much about the actual ballistics. Speaking in round numbers and from memory the 44 mag and the 45 are comparable weight and diameter but a "full load" 44 is going about twice as fast? The 44 will definitely put on a better show.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> But that doesn't say much about the actual ballistics. Speaking in round numbers and from memory the 44 mag and the 45 are comparable weight and diameter but a "full load" 44 is going about twice as fast? The 44 will definitely put on a better show.


 a 45 ACP is a personel round, 45 colts and 45 win mag are probably both anti personel and fair hunting round. 44 mag aren't maybe the end all, but they'll definitely end anything with 100 yards... :grin:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

Too far off topic. Please reel it in or I'll shut it down.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

:lock1:


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

MGF said:


> But that doesn't say much about the actual ballistics. Speaking in round numbers and from memory the 44 mag and the 45 are comparable weight and diameter but a "full load" 44 is going about twice as fast? The 44 will definitely put on a better show.


True, but with the .45, I can confidently put all 8 rounds in the 10 ring in roughly the same amount of time it takes me to get a .44 back on target after the first one! For me, the 1911 in .45 ACP is the way to go. The lower pressure round generates less felt recoil, and a 1911 seems to be more of a straight push back, rather than a lot of muzzle flip. I've also got kinda small hands, and the single stack just fits. I don't have anything against the .44mag, but I think you'll agree that it's not for everyone.

It doesn't hurt that my 1911 was built for me by my girlfriend's dad, so it's pretty special. 

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## patientz3ro (Jul 25, 2013)

Double S said:


> Too far off topic. Please reel it in or I'll shut it down.


Oops! Sorry. I saw this AFTER my last post.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> Thank you for the clarification, Mac.
> 
> Yes, I agree with the values listed in the declaration, of course that all men are created equal. But there are other, equally important parts. That it is up to the people to decided their laws, and if their government becomes tyrannical, that it is up to the people to abolish. It sends forth the complaints about king George to him, and more then a few are about his abolishment of the local governments for his own control against the people's will.
> It is important to know that the government should be in the control of the people, yes, and I would even be willing to agree that there is not enough of that control in our modern government (Though I wouldn't be hasty enough to say that it should be completely re-worked).
> ...


Apologies accepted. .I too can get a little aggravated. .

Now..as to how this applies to bow hunting. .

I'm glad you agree with the assertions put forth in the Declaration of Independence. That is very important. .

Since you do. .we have no need to argue. .since the founding fathers all agreed and signed the contract. .that's what it really is since they declared to the whole world that is what this country stands on to give the rebellion lagitacy. That document is the very best way to run this nation..it is the moral foundation on which it was built. .regardless what some special interest groups say and promote.

Since they believed in mans inalienable rights..as well as the 3 they put down...these rights are those that can not be litigated away.in this case our right to put food on the table for us..and our family, This right is forever guaranteed. While many may argue this. .it is declared so..It doesn't matter that we have a job or funds to purchase it. .because it is our right to be able to if we didn't have the funds..It means exactly what it says then..as well as now..

When folks truly understand that hunting for food is a declared right by those whose signatures have been inscribed on that document. .perhaps they will be a little more hesitant to give up theirs. .because they cannot give up what doesnt belong to them..mine..just because they don't agree with me..ir because of someone who can't shoot very well. The animals don't have the rights. ...each citizen of this country does..they are individual rights, not social property..I can hunt to eat..to use the animal for sustenance. .

Ask your professors this..You'll see. .

Now..when people who insist that hunting isn't a right just because it isn't protected under the constitution. .or the bill of rights..they are not correct in that..no it is not spelled out nor is there a amendment to the same. .it is not needed in this case..because in the context of what was declared. .it is already said and sworn to by those who signed the Declaration. .and is indisputable..regardless of what a few folks like to believe. .this is why it is so important to understand this. .

Mac


----------



## Darkwoe1209 (Jul 17, 2013)

What you say actually does make sense in this case. 

But unfortunately it cannot be that simple, as much as I would like it to be. Were there an innumerable amount of animals on this planet, and chance of long-term harm to both animal populations and human populations, I would agree.
It should be obvious that it is your right to have food, yes, no one can deny that.
But if you do it in a hasty and thoughtless manner, well, then no one will have food.

Poaching, hunting illegally, has been around forever, back in the Roman times because it was actually considered theft. But more importantly, it was a crime in Britain and France because of food shortages. You can argue that it is the same case now as well. Were there no regulations to hunting whatsoever, it would not be long before there is nothing left to hunt.
This, combined with the fact that hunting is more a sport then a necessity nowadays (honestly, do you NEED to hunt tomorrow? Like actually NEED? Or could you last awhile?) merits the requirement that there be some regulations. 
In order to benefit the majority of people in the long-term, these regulations have been put in place. Every right has limitations, including those inalienable rights.
Everyone has the right to life, yet there are death penalties.
Everyone has the right to liberty, yet there are prisons which restricts nearly all of it.
Everyone has the right to arms, but that doesn't mean you can own a tank
Everyone has the right to speech, but you can't yell fire in a full building.

These ideas have been agreed upon time and time again, in the judicial system, in several rulings of the supreme court, even in the Federalist Papers and John Locke's Common Sense. 
A hunting license and hunting seasons are the most efficient way of enforcing these regulations for the betterment of all (though how much you have to pay for a friggin license is ridiculous) and they can be revoked should you hunt in an irresponsible or unsafe and wasteful manner. Partly because of safety reasons for those around you, and partly because there isn't a limitless amount of animals. You might have found that Bow-hunting season is longer then gun hunting season, which is because it simply is harder to hit an animal with a bow, and thus less are killed this way, so they can afford for the season to be longer.

The idea of people proving that they are capable of hunting, and thus lowering the chances of wasting that food that you want on the table, I think is a reasonable IDEA that should be discussed, though I have not, and still will not, explicitly say that I agree with it and want it installed.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> What you say actually does make sense in this case.
> 
> But unfortunately it cannot be that simple, as much as I would like it to be. Were there an innumerable amount of animals on this planet, and chance of long-term harm to both animal populations and human populations, I would agree.
> It should be obvious that it is your right to have food, yes, no one can deny that.
> ...


Your forgetting 1 thing. .it doesn't matter if I need to. .or you need to. .I know for certain someone needs to. .and as such it is not up to any person here to deny this right. 

Now. .I also know this. .there are a few draconian states that feel that only they have complete sovereign rights and the citizens have no say in the matter..this is the mindset that is being challenged in and out of the courts..

I don't know if you have yet, bht if you want a eye opener, look up what the original 13 charters had to say on the matter..this is what I was saying to do before..

I do wonder something. .I wonder how many of the 17 states that have a hunters right written into their constitution, require testing for proficiency. .as apposed to those who have no provisions. Something to find out. .

I hate the idea of denying on the basis of just proficiency. ..unless they are allowed other means to archery hunt.. that they are proficient at.. to some here..that might 
seem ludicrous. .but is the most far and balanced way of doing it I guess..but unless all of us step up and help teach..there might not be any other choice..

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Darkwoe1209 said:


> What you say actually does make sense in this case.
> 
> But unfortunately it cannot be that simple, as much as I would like it to be. Were there an innumerable amount of animals on this planet, and chance of long-term harm to both animal populations and human populations, I would agree.
> It should be obvious that it is your right to have food, yes, no one can deny that.
> ...



Now..if I want to and can afford to. .I can own a tank...lol

Majority rules doesn't strip individual rights automatically. .and you really need to rethink some of what you saying. .

Do I need to hunt to survive. .right now. .no..but..just because I don't. .does not absolve me to take away someone else's rights..You have to understand the differences between this, ,nor does it mean I won't ever have to. .but if it ever comes down to being between hunting legally or illegally to survive..that's a no brainer..

I don't want more legislation that we have no say in the matter..and if left up to the political area..we only get more when not needed. .This isnt needed IMHO..


Mac


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF said:


> I don't understand the reference. What are "Devil Ray's"?


The Major League baseball team in Tampa, Florida is called the "Rays". They used to be called the Devil Rays after the fish. But the evangelical whack-jobs in South Florida complained it was un-godly to use the word devil. So the team buckled under the pressure of fools and dropped the devil part.

Bill and I are from South Florida. "How about them Devil Rays?" was a joke based on the old line by Billy Crystal in one of his skits long ago when in an awkward moment he turns to one character and asks: "How about them Yankees?" It was his way of escaping a bad situation by changing the subject.

If you have to explain your jokes it kinda losses something I think.


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> Now..when people who insist that hunting isn't a right just because it isn't protected under the constitution. .or the bill of rights..they are not correct in that..no it is not spelled out nor is there a amendment to the same. .it is not needed in this case..because in the context of what was declared. .it is already said and sworn to by those who signed the Declaration. .and is indisputable..regardless of what a few folks like to believe. .this is why it is so important to understand this. .
> 
> Mac


Mac
I think what you are trying to say is that the need for people to provide for themselves the means to survive (i.e. food) is a “natural” right. There’s no need to enumerate this in any document. Clearly the founding fathers understood this to be so. Any reasonable person would or should understand this. In this, I’m in agreement. 

However, having said that, in the state in which I reside, as it pertains to hunting, this “right” requires the individual (with certain exceptions) to pay a “tax” or if you prefer, a “user fee” in order to secure this right. Given this fact; is the “right” to hunt still a “natural” right? Or is it a “restricted” right? If we can agree that the right to hunt is “restricted”, at least in my jurisdiction, is this not the definition of a “privilege” under the law? If I may paraphrase Dr. King, is a right restricted; a right denied? 

One can engage in hunting without paying these fees, however if caught doing so, he/she would be subject to fines/penalties, and possibly prosecution. I happen to live in a state that has incorporated the “right” to hunt in our state constitution. But I can find nowhere in the case history where this premise was used as a successful defense to prosecution, let alone allowed as a legitimate one. 

I guess my question is this: Can something be a “natural” right, if I have to pay a fee to secure it?


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

pokynojoe said:


> Mac
> 
> I guess my question is this: Can something be a “natural” right, if I have to pay a fee to secure it?


Yes.

There are "natural" rights that have been allowed to become restricted. The restriction does not change the basic nature or character of a right. Is a car engine no longer an engine when we forget to put gas in the tank? Is a human no longer a human when he puts on a gorilla costume? 

Yes, simplistic examples, but you get the idea.

As to the original question, "Where do we draw the line?" we draw it here, now. No more.

No problem that is detrimental to society that would be corrected by proficiency testing has even been defined. If there is a problem, it has not been shown that proficiency testing would correct it. 

The needless proliferation of additional bureaucracy, and government control of people's lives is not called for. 

I say we lock this thread and delete it before some outsider sees it and gets the idea that the thing to do is to enact and enforce even more regulation that NONE of us would like.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

pokynojoe said:


> Mac
> I think what you are trying to say is that the need for people to provide for themselves the means to survive (i.e. food) is a “natural” right. There’s no need to enumerate this in any document. Clearly the founding fathers understood this to be so. Any reasonable person would or should understand this. In this, I’m in agreement.
> 
> However, having said that, in the state in which I reside, as it pertains to hunting, this “right” requires the individual (with certain exceptions) to pay a “tax” or if you prefer, a “user fee” in order to secure this right. Given this fact; is the “right” to hunt still a “natural” right? Or is it a “restricted” right? If we can agree that the right to hunt is “restricted”, at least in my jurisdiction, is this not the definition of a “privilege” under the law? If I may paraphrase Dr. King, is a right restricted; a right denied?
> ...


I'm not sure. .to be honest. .

I do know some cases have been argued before the supreme court regarding having the fish and game department demanding the right to search vehicle's and their contaners for wildlife when no just reason was given. .That individual lost..since he had been seen pulling his boat out of the water. .

As to paying a fee..just to hunt..especially on your own land..I don't agree with it. .but know that a good portion of the revenue collected goes back into the accessible lands and water for the animals we hunt and fish..

One of the big issues I have. .is out of state fees to hunt on federal lands we all own regardless of what state it is in..and getting worse by the year. .

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I agree Bender. .

Mac


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Bender,

The thread hasn't been talking about gov control for a very long time. No fees have been introduced. It's been talking about By the People, For the People and how or not. (Mostly in a rational, non-threating, non-discrediting way.)

'Right' is not entitlement. It's what IS right for the benefit of a like-minded majority of people, through a democratic process, as a 'common' sense. Individual (What IS) rights is what has been taught by parents, school and learned by experience - sometimes the individual revolts against what they are being taught if the opposite makes more 'common' sense determined by what they have experienced or observed(a change of mind), which still may not be what is right for a natural 'common sense', if they are influenced in any way by gov, media or peer pressure. Thus, listen, pay attention, make up your own mind in the efforts to bring all minds as one. We can even disagree on the individual 'what is right' because it's emotionally based, but still go along with what is right for the benefit of all involved as it is 'common' sense based...IE..BY the people, FOR the people.

They only time something has to be regulated is when 'some' refuse to follow the majority of like-minds (can't control themselves as individuals or as a group), when it is against the 'common' sense of safety to human or wildlife. Many times though, the gov rules in favor of profits, rather than common sense.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Bender said:


> Yes.
> 
> There are "natural" rights that have been allowed to become restricted. The restriction does not change the basic nature or character of a right. Is a car engine no longer an engine when we forget to put gas in the tank? Is a human no longer a human when he puts on a gorilla costume?
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

bradd7 said:


> Bender,
> 
> The thread hasn't been talking about gov control for a very long time. No fees have been introduced. It's been talking about By the People, For the People and how or not. (Mostly in a rational, non-threating, non-discrediting way.)
> 
> ...


:thumbs_do I.E. Socialism.


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> I'm not sure. .to be honest. .
> 
> I do know some cases have been argued before the supreme court regarding having the fish and game department demanding the right to search vehicle's and their contaners for wildlife when no just reason was given. .That individual lost..since he had been seen pulling his boat out of the water. .
> 
> ...


Mac
Thank you for your sincere and cogent reply. I'm not sure either. I'ts always a dilemma when our natural rights conflict with our legal ones. I guess that's why we have a Supreme Court. 

Just to reiterate what I said in my post in the previous thread, I'm not for any testing, I am, however, a strong advocate of those programs that we administer on a voluntary basis that encourage hunters to be good stewards of our wildlife resources, and NOT as a bar to ones "right" to hunt.

Just as an aside, you might find it interesting that here in our state the fish and game wardens have "warrentless" search powers. They are the only law enforcement agency in our state to possess these extreme powers of search and seizure.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

Just going to add to the train wreck...

There are a couple, literally a couple of people on this tread who have actually been involved in "the system", myself included. 

First, when I was giving the bow hunter safety course, I never saw or spoke to "the government".
It was run at and by our archery range, by bow hunters. All we did was mail in the paperwork, but I guess "the government" got that.

The written test was there to make sure the students stayed awake during the lectures and demonstrations. 
Yes Virginia, there are new "hunters" out there who actually don't have the genetics for innate field safely, shot placement, tracking or gutting skills. 
We couldn't teach them everything, but we could get them started. 
I know we saw more than a few light bulbs go on during the classes.

The shooting test was a skill assessment, more than anything else. 
The requirements were pretty basic, and IHMO (just to piss some guys off), if you couldn't keep arrows in a vital zone up to 15 yds, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be hunting. The fact of the matter was that anyone who couldn't pass the shooting test first time out was either given shooting help on the spot or invited back to the club to further training. I don't recall too many people who didn't pass sooner or later. 

BTW - Back when I was doing it, the course and testing were free (but donations to the club ere cheerfully accepted), the "taxation" were the license fees, and we had nothing to do with that. Are fees getting more and more expensive, well it's not like we're paying $4 / gallon for gas, is it???

Personal comment. 
When people start referring to "the government" or "god" in a debate, it usually means they've run out of logical arguments. 
*
Yes, the government secretly wants to stop hunting, a proven means of conservation and revenue. 
Makes perfect sense when you think about it.* 

Carry on.

Viper out.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

bradd7 said:


> They only time something has to be regulated is when 'some' refuse to follow the majority of like-minds (can't control themselves as individuals or as a group), when it is against the 'common' sense of safety to human or wildlife. Many times though, the gov rules in favor of profits, rather than common sense.


I can tell you right now that I've never been any good at "following the majority" and I never will. I'll go my own way and others will go better if the leave me be. Most things in life just shouldn't require a vote. Just a decision by an individual about what's best for the individual.

Our rulers have seen fit to do their very best to join us together at the hip in so many things that just don't require being so joined. I don't want to be joined by the hip to you people. Go your own way.

I, and I alone, will decide whether or not my shooting is good enough to hunt. I do the shooting and the tracking alone so it's none of the next guys business. Season dates, bag limits and so on are necessary to insure we don't run out of game. The shooting of an individual just doesn't enter into it.

Force me to take a shooting test to qualify and I'll pass the test. I always pass tests. But, then I'll be in a bad mood and use my superior shooting ability to aim at tails. I'll have every deer in the state running around with an arrow sticking out of his butt.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Man this one rumbles on through some twists and turns doesn't it.
I was bored last night so re read most of it and came to this conclusion about it all. I know for a FACT that huge numbers of bow and gun hunters are no where near the level of proficiency they should be both in their shooting ability and wood lore trade craft. I know that places like Bass Pro and high street stores add to the problem because that is where the weekend warrior goes to get his kit and I've stood watching some numpty in there teaching someone how to shoot the longbow they just bought, 50# Bear with a dozen .300 spine arrows fitted with blazers and their own make snap on impact broad heads????
I also know that non hunters and anti hunters are a growing number. The movies are bringing in loads if new archers but most of them are interested in target stuff not hunting.
I hear your comments about government interference and yes it is often not a good thing but it is inevitable at some point, it just is. It may start with gun control but will end up taking in all types of hunting in some way. I guess there are two ways of dealing with it, head in the sand pretending it will never happen until its too late or looking at ways to self regulate the sport so you have a case for being left alone when Uncle Sam comes knocking. 
I am a confirmed agnostic so talk of god given anything just makes me laugh (and no Jinks, in the heat if battle I never came across anyone who suddenly found god, just the opposite in fact), but I also know that spiritual belief plays a huge part in some people's lives so I'd never question that, we all need something to get through the day.
Although the standard is low I accept that to ask the old guys who have been hunting a lifetime to suddenly take a test is not going to work but it may be an idea to introduce something for new licenses so the future standards of both hunting and shooting skills are raised then in 20yrs time this whole debate may be over, even if this thread isn't


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> Guys -
> 
> Just going to add to the train wreck...
> 
> ...


I'm content enough to leave God out of it but government requirements are the topic.

I'm completely in favor of courses like you describe. Not everybody grows up tromping the woods with their father like I did. I'm just not in favor of it being a requirement set forth by...who?...the government. Except where it directly applies to your effect on the safety of others. It's probably a good idea to try to prevent folks from hunting if we have reason to believe that they are going to cause injury to others. Our hunting lands are only getting more crowded and the hunter should know how to avoid shooting other users of that land.

Oh and there are more than a few elected or appointed members of our government as well as numerous lobby groups with lots of money to throw around who absolutely DO want to end hunting. They don't even make that any kind of secret. Refusing to acknowledge their existence doesn't make them go away.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

Think about it for a minute.
How do you separate the guys like you who grew up tromping the woods with their dads from the guys who grew up in the big city and only saw trees in a park, but for some reason want to hunt? 

Answer, you really can't. 

Give everybody who wants to or needs to hunt public land a standardized course and rudimentary skills test and see what happens. 
For the experienced, it a mild annoyance, for the novice, it can make a difference. 

BTW - we always got a number of new club members from the courses we gave. 
That also says something.

Sorry, I'm not seeing a down side. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## pokynojoe (Feb 2, 2006)

Bender said:


> Yes.
> 
> There are "natural" rights that have been allowed to become restricted. The restriction does not change the basic nature or character of a right. Is a car engine no longer an engine when we forget to put gas in the tank? Is a human no longer a human when he puts on a gorilla costume?
> 
> Yes, simplistic examples, but you get the idea.


Bender
Thank you for your reply. I'm still not convinced a "right" can remain a "natural" one if restrictions are placed upon it. In fact, one could make an argument that, under the law, it's almost "exclusionary", by that I mean, if I don't pay the require fees to engage in my "natural" right to hunt, I'm barred from doing so. At any rate, it's just an academic argument, nothing more, nothing less. Not sure about your analogies though, I think they're just a tiny bit specious. I wouldn't advise using those as a remedy to prosecution.

Thank you again, for your thoughtful reply.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Man this one rumbles on through some twists and turns doesn't it.
> I was bored last night so re read most of it and came to this conclusion about it all. I know for a FACT that huge numbers of bow and gun hunters are no where near the level of proficiency they should be both in their shooting ability and wood lore trade craft. I know that places like Bass Pro and high street stores add to the problem because that is where the weekend warrior goes to get his kit and I've stood watching some numpty in there teaching someone how to shoot the longbow they just bought, 50# Bear with a dozen .300 spine arrows fitted with blazers and their own make snap on impact broad heads????
> I also know that non hunters and anti hunters are a growing number. The movies are bringing in loads if new archers but most of them are interested in target stuff not hunting.
> I hear your comments about government interference and yes it is often not a good thing but it is inevitable at some point, it just is. It may start with gun control but will end up taking in all types of hunting in some way. I guess there are two ways of dealing with it, head in the sand pretending it will never happen until its too late or looking at ways to self regulate the sport so you have a case for being left alone when Uncle Sam comes knocking.
> ...


That's kind of what some states did with the hunter safety courses and I guess they have bow hunter education classes now. Il, for example, required anybody under a certain age getting their first hunting license to pass a hunter safety course. Indiana is similar. I considered hunting Kentucky this year and below a certain age they require evidence of having passed a hunter safety or bow hunter ed course.

I'm old enough that no state I hunt in has picked on me, although, I took my kids through a hunter safety course when they were young. I had to be there anyway so I took the course with them.

When we took the course it was as much about how to not get lost and freeze to death as anything else. The city folks who watch a TV show and head for the woods could be headed for real trouble without some instruction. That's not for the deer. It's for their safety, the safety of the rescue workers and tax payers who pay them. Of course another solution is just to let folks know that if they get themselves in, they have to get themselves out. That's simple enough.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

We all read and add to these threads for reasons of our own. Mostly when I see a running wreck like this one, I start looking for literary gold - you know, funny stuff. Bigjono's last sentence ends with, "in 20 years this whole debate may be over, even if this thread isn't."

Now I found that funny and the only reason I read this crap in the first place.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Give everybody who wants to or needs to hunt public land a standardized course and rudimentary skills test and see what happens.
> For the experienced, it a mild annoyance, for the novice, it can make a difference.



How about letting those of us who actually hunt decide? At worst, make it voluntary and you pay your own way. I already pay taxes to support public land.

My dad didn't roam the woods with me--he was busy trying to make a living, and never bowhunted at all. Somehow I've managed not only to bowhunt (and kill deer, pig, grouse, rabbit, squirrel, fox, etc.) but run a sucessful archery business, be involved with the top bowstring material manufacturer in the world, be involved with the fastest-growing archery-based sport in the country (NASP) in a few different ways, put two instructional DVD's on the market,...even have quite a few plaques and trophies on the wall...and I never once had to pass a proficiency test or have someone else who never has or never will accomplish a fraction of what I have in the sport tell me what to do. God played a major role in all of this, and the gov't did not--keeping the gov't out as much as possible has made things go consideraly better for me, IMO.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> MGF -
> 
> Think about it for a minute.
> How do you separate the guys like you who grew up tromping the woods with their dads from the guys who grew up in the big city and only saw trees in a park, but for some reason want to hunt?
> ...



I see a couple of problems.

First, many of the people who get themselves in trouble in the outdoors aren't hunters at all. They're hikers and bikers and bird watchers and whatever. As much as anyone, they would benefit from what I saw taught in the Il hunter safety course but I don't hear any talk of requiring them to take a course or test before they head out for a hike. They don't need a license.

BTW, why don't they need a license? Much of these lands are purchased and managed using money paid primarily by hunters and anglers. Why do we pay and everybody else gets to use it for free?

Second, the standards of the rudimentary skills test can be set such to disqualify anyone or everyone. I don't think it's something that we can trust our current government with.

If such a course has real value, it shouldn't be too hard to get people to take it voluntarily. Most people don't want to get lost and die of exposure or go hunting and never hit anything. If folks don't want to take your course, maybe there's something wrong with the course or the way you're presenting it. Some of the people teaching bushcraft and "survival" are busy and raking it in. Put your product out there and compete. Some of us should stop assuming that we know what's best for the next guy better than he does.

When the government gets their hands on it, there's little or no competition, quality goes down and price goes up...like health care.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> How about letting those of us who actually hunt decide? At worst, make it voluntary and you pay your own way. I already pay taxes to support public land.
> 
> My dad didn't roam the woods with me--he was busy trying to make a living, and never bowhunted at all. Somehow I've managed not only to bowhunt (and kill deer, pig, grouse, rabbit, squirrel, fox, etc.) but run a sucessful archery business, be involved with the top bowstring material manufacturer in the world, be involved with the fastest-growing archery-based sport in the country (NASP) in a few different ways, put two instructional DVD's on the market,...even have quite a few plaques and trophies on the wall...and I never once had to pass a proficiency test or have someone else who never has or never will accomplish a fraction of what I have in the sport tell me what to do. God played a major role in all of this, and the gov't did not--keeping the gov't out as much as possible has made things go consideraly better for me, IMO.



See but a lot of what's going on today is based on the assumption that the individual isn't smart enough to decide for himself. I, for one, find it insulting. Insulting me is just no way to get on my good side. LOL


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> *If such a course has real value, it shouldn't be too hard to get people to take it voluntarily. *Most people don't want to get lost and die of exposure or go hunting and never hit anything.* If folks don't want to take you course, maybe there's something wrong with the course or the way you're presenting it*.


Right on the money! Why would you have to force people to participate in something so great and wonderful?



> See but a lot of what's going on today is based on the assumption that the individual isn't smart enough to decide for himself.


Maybe they are speaking from their own perspective? Not everyone has to have someone holding their hand to get through life.



> I, for one, find it insulting. Insulting me is just no way to get on my good side.


Any thinking person would find it insulting.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> We all read and add to these threads for reasons of our own. Mostly when I see a running wreck like this one, I start looking for literary gold - you know, funny stuff. Bigjono's last sentence ends with, "in 20 years this whole debate may be over, even if this thread isn't."
> 
> Now I found that funny and the only reason I read this crap in the first place.


This thread is no more of a wreck than our society in general.

The fact is that we don't all have the same values and we don't all want to live the same. That's ok as long as you can run your house as you wish and I can run mine as I wish.

What we have happening is that some people (and the government) are trying to force their way into the next guys house to run things for him. People aren't going to get along that way. The solution is to stay out of the other guy's business.

We are divided and we should be. Not into two sides or three sides but into 300,000,000 sides. We need to go back to respecting the individual and leave the next guy some breathing room to live his own life.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

Have you ever been to a commercial archery range? 

There are always young bucks who believe they can shoot (or hunt), just because they have male gonads. 
Unfortunately ego plays a pretty big role. 

The difference, from a legal standpoint, is that hikers and bikers aren't carrying weapons. 

Again, you're missing the point. 



> *Yes, the government secretly wants to stop hunting, a proven means of conservation and revenue.
> Makes perfect sense when you think about it.*


You know that was a joke, right?
I seriously doubt the "government" wants to stop hunting, but I don't think they are above making a few bucks off of it. Just reality and a fair amount of that does go back in to maintenance/management. 
Given what a lot of people spend on bows, arrows, accessories (a lot of which are hype) and hunting trips, in most cases, the "fees" are really just a few bucks by comparison. 

By the way, we occasionally set up targets on the hunter course that could not be successfully taken. They were used as a shoot/don't shoot test. 
In my mind, the guy who refused to take the shot, got an immediate pass. (But in reality, he still had to finish...but he got brownie points)
Again, the course was set up and given and tested by bow hunters, not some guy in a nebulous "governmental" cloud. 

I can understand your indignation, but I think I've become more of a realist as I've gotten older.

BTW - when I was younger and really into bow hunting, I thought taking those courses and tests, and even my instructors' tests were really cool. Never a negative thought about it. But hey, I was a city kid. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


Viper1 said:


> Guys -
> 
> Just going to add to the train wreck...
> 
> ...


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> MGF -
> 
> Have you ever been to a commercial archery range?
> 
> ...


Yes I've been to commercial ranges and club ranges.

If you're a lousy shot, you won't bring home much game and that's incentive in itself to become a better shot.

When I took my kids through the Il hunter safety course, only a small portion had anything to do with shooting safety. Most of it was general outdoor safety.


> Again, you're missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right and I think the only reason we're still hunting is that it's an industry of some size. The government isn't one mind but many and some of them do want to end hunting. Fortunately the manufacturers and groups like the NRA are out there greasing palms. Of course there are also some down sides to the commercialization.

Courses and tests are fun. Teach a course and give a test at a place and time that I can manage and I'll take your course and test. Just don't have the government demand it. I've had about enough of that.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF said:


> This thread is no more of a wreck than our society in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

A quick note on the subject of commercial ranges. there's no clubs around here that I know of but we do have a new(ish) archery shop in town.

It's 99% compound stuff but I've been trying to do a little business with the guy. That's where I got that glass bow and I bought the PSE stalker from him. I've shot in there a number of times when either trying out a bow or arrows.

Where I'm going is that a commercial range like that is a GREAT place to put an example out there. As I said, there's NO "trad" stuff going on there but when I show up, stand at 20 yards (that's all they have) and start sinking them in the 5-spot, it gets some conversation going.

I don't want to pay to shoot there but if I spent a couple evenings a week shooting there we'd probably end up with a handful of guys shooting stick bows around here. I'd bet a little money that they would want to learn to hit the 5-spot too...without a law that says they must.

I think the best way to lead is by example.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

Unfortunately, the guys with testosterone induced ability to hunt and shoot are also usually the most dangerous in the field - more so to themselves. 
No one believes that you can "fix" everybody, but you can give it your best shot. That's what we tried to do. 

The "Hunter Safety Courses" have a syllabus that supposed to be followed.
However as in most things, the actual delivery and weight of each section is based on the instructor's preference and perceived need. 

In my area, you can take the courses at a number of ranges and shops. 
It will be slightly different in each place depending the location and instructor. 

Our outdoor club for example does do tracking and blood trailing in the field, but that's only a slide show or talk with props in the indoor ranges. 

Look, it's not perfect, and you can't cover everything a 12 hour course, but the guys I know doing it these days (and when I was doing it) are the ones who love hunting and care about it's future. I can't say it's that way everywhere, because I don't know "everywhere" but I gotta think the guys volunteering to do that a couple or more times a season have to care about it. 

Thanks man, believe it or not, that means a lot. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Is it hunting season yet?


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

*closed!.*


----------

