# Profficiency testing for traditional shooters?



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

No to testing...Van


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

seems fair, if you can't hit kill zone stay out of the woods. careless hunters who think they might hit vitals and wound animals give ethical folks a bad rep, in this day and age we don't need any more anti-hunting nuts to have a reason to shout. we are trying to keep our sports clean and enjoyable not to mention safe. just my opinion.:darkbeer:


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

Good grief. Millions of firearms hunters take to the field every year. No one is tested. Gazillion animals are wounded. Why on earth should we target traditional archers?...Van


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

Am I the only Republican here ;-)...Van


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

not just for archers but everyone


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> No to testing...Van


I have to agree--for several reasons.

1) Depending who gets elected, it can be used as a foot in the door for anti's, and lead to more and stricter regulations. Politicians wind up making the rules, and they are not always hunters or true conservationists.

2) Just because someone can hit a target at 15 yds doesn't mean they won't fall apart on an animal, and it won't keep a slob from flinging an arrow at an animal well beyond their accurate range.

3) Many traditional hunters realize their limitations and stick to them. A shot may not feel right at 15 yds, so they wait until it's a 10 yd (or whatever it takes) shot. 

4) In states where you have to pass a test, you may wind up with a complete incompetent in charge of whether or not you get a hunting license. Your "instructor" may be someone who never has and never will draw back an arrow on a live animal, and he will be in charge of your hunting future. Do you like the idea of some nut who slips around in green tights on the weekends deciding if you get to hunt or not? 



> Am I the only Republican here ;-)...Van


I consider myself to be a Conservative Independant, but I wind up voting mostly Republican.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

We aren't talking firearms here, we're talking bows and arrows, what they do does not concern us, nor does politics for that matter............and this is the traditional archery forum.........I put this here for a reason.......each and every day we give out info to help others become better shooters, why because we and they want to......now wouldn't the average archer feel more confident knowing they passed a simple profficiency test? confidense is a lot in any type of hunting.......and would'nt the general public view us in a better light knowing we had to take that test?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

I agree with Van.

So a guy can put 4 out of 5 in a 10" circle at 15 yards? What's to stop him from wounding animals with 30- or 40-yard shots? When it comes to shooting proficiency, it comes down to knowing and staying within your effective range. Proficiency tests may have some value with respect to determining your effective range, but don't do anything about making someone stay within it. I've known a lot of archers -- traditional and modern -- who could easily pass that test yet wound numerous animals every season. I remember watching a traditional bowhunter on TV several years ago state how he had a 20-yard effective range on mule deer, and then proceed to airmail 14 consecutive shots at much longer range (wounding and losing one deer) until he finally killed a doe. What proficiency test would have prevented that? 

And then you have the problem of who decides the test criteria. Want to greatly reduce the number of hunters in the woods? Institute mandatory proficiency tests and then make the criteria to pass increasingly difficult until fewer and fewer people qualify. I'm not interested in opening that door, especially since I see no benefit in the tests themselves.

Personally, I'm very critical of myself with respect to my shooting. If my accuracy were to fall below a certain point (the specifics of which are not important here) I'd stop hunting until I was back to shooting above that level. But that self-imposed cutoff point is mine alone, and not something I would ever consider imposing on another. I would much rather share the woods with someone who has a 10-yard effective range and stays within it than a person who can tear up fletching at 20 yards but wounds animal after animal at 40.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

No ... you can't legislate against idiocy regardless of an archers competency .

Obviously if you did mandate a test for such ... it'd be the 300 round.:wink:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I do not agree with testing and would be against it. That being said, I would love to see the elitists who are against every thing from compounds to crossbows, from treestands to groundblinds, from deer cams to camo, from baiting to hounds, etc... - have to face an accuracy test - and then we would see who the "ethical" hunters really are.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Nice Ken ... speaking of baiting .....


----------



## Beeatease (Jan 7, 2006)

I live in Oregon...they don't do a proficiency test for a concealed carry permit....Why would they for traditional bow hunters who only have a couple of hunts to choose from each year?

I think it's a good idea for all hunters to be proficient and out of respect for the animal to have a clean kill. That's why I'm *not* using my recurve until I am confident I can hit consistently. This year it's the compound.....


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Chad , you have some valid points, but should we overlook testing because of someones irresponsibility?......anything can be cheated on if one would choose to do so.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Van/TX said:


> Good grief. Millions of firearms hunters take to the field every year. No one is tested. Gazillion animals are wounded. Why on earth should we target traditional archers?...Van


:thumbs_up !!!!!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

lol benofthehood -


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

btw - a 10" circle at 15 yards - holy crap if a guy cannot do that with every arrow with one arm tied behind his back and using his teeth to draw the string - he should not be allowed in the woods


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> should we overlook testing because of someones irresponsibility?......


I think testing would get the camel's nose in the tent--once that happens, there is no backing out. Tests wouldn't prove or prevent anything meaningful, and would wind up being a tool for politicians. Power is power, and they will take what they can get and they are laible to appoint whoever is best at kissing their butt rather than a competent sportsman/hunter to be in charge. 

Lots to loose, nothing of value to gain that I can see.

Chad


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> Seems we are in a debating mood........So what do you think about profficiency testing to get your hunting license if you shoot a stickbow?....... for or against and why please.......
> 
> Myself, I think it would be a good Idea..........maybe 4 out of 5 arrows in a 10" circle at 15 yds......yeah I know there's a heck of a difference between paper and fur, but if they can't hit a simple plate , do you really want them out in the woods possibly wounding animals?


This should be interesting.... the Army suggested that all hunters up at Pohakuloa Training Area go through a Bowhuntes Course before being able to hunt on the property... Talk about protest....  Be accountable? Don't make a shot through a steel pig/deer/sheep horrors.... 

On the other hand, I go bear hunting with a muzzleloader and they insist on proving my ability to shoot first. Most hunters will check their equipment before they go hunting after traveling somewhere to go hunting...

I don't have a problem with proving you can do the job, but the problem is that it has nothing to do with hunting.... well it does in the sense that you have to be able to hit what you release on, but what I meant was, judgement and the fortunes of the Gods.

I'm inclined to have people take a bowhunting course relevant to the area you are hunting or a comprehensive advanced bowhunter course that has realistic content for what you're hunting in your state.

Otherwise, I don't see too many hunters supporting this idea of proving their "worth" :grin:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Ok then, what about passive testing?.... set up a target at a local shoot and see who can do it? just for fun .....right?........ but it will let the shooter know if he needs more practice..............


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> btw - a 10" circle at 15 yards - holy crap if a guy cannot do that with every arrow with one arm tied behind his back and using his teeth to draw the string - he should not be allowed in the woods


Even better Ken ! .....
thats your best one for a while !


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"I'm inclined to have people take a bowhunting course relevant to the area you are hunting or a comprehensive advanced bowhunter course that has realistic content for what you're hunting in your state."

We have the bowhunting safety course here, it's not mandatory, and we don't shoot a single arrow.............. kinda like a driving course without driving the car.......


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> "I'm inclined to have people take a bowhunting course relevant to the area you are hunting or a comprehensive advanced bowhunter course that has realistic content for what you're hunting in your state."
> 
> We have the bowhunting safety course here, it's not mandatory, and we don't shoot a single arrow.............. kinda like a driving course without driving the car.......


 Our hunter education doesn't even let one touch a firearm.... though I let people abuse my bows.... well not real abuse... :grin:... but we do an advanced Bowhunters course that takes two days and involves a fair amount of hands on instruction and a 3D set up around the course. This is kind of a fun course and you do get some idea of what it might be like to do blood trailing, shooting from a treestand, some shoot don't shoot scenarios, and some lost arrows... :grin:

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

This is funny because I have hunted on many military posts which require you to his a pie plate stuck to the vitals on a 3D deer at 20 yards. You would not believe how mad some guys get when they can't qualify. The line you always hear is, "I can shoot targets, but if it's got hair on it I kill it." I say, BULL! If you can't hit a pie plate (9" diameter) with 3 out of 5 arrows then you are missing a lot of deer and wounding a lot. "Momma Gue never raised such a fool." 

That being said, I'm against standardized testing.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

That would be a great start, I've seen way too many hail mary's, and tracked poorly shot deer because of them to not bring this topic up,...but you can't fix stupid, and that's a fact.....


----------



## elk country rp (Sep 5, 2005)

in my brief time hunting without training wheels, i've come to believe that the _very few _of us out there with sticks & strings are on the better end of the spectrum compared to the wheeliebow crowd. it seems that most of the stickbow hunters i meet don't fire a shot all season, they've mostly just picked a lighter bow to take a walk with (most of my hunts are really just taking my bow for a walk). but i also meet some hardcores who always seem to get it done with trad gear (once in awhile i actually count myself in this group). 

to answer the question at hand, i'd say that trad hunters are the least likely to need a proficiency test. if it were me, i'd make the pumpkin army test out first & foremost.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Surely we need better education rather than more legislation . In a world overpopulated by excess government etc hunting seems one of the last great freedoms ... and now we dilute the whole process with 'standardized ' testing .:sad:
If you can't hit your intended target regularly at your given maximum distance then you have no business releasing an arrow at an animal . But , IMHO , those distances are up to the individual and I would continue to rely on people's integrity to maintain such . Those who choose to act otherwise will continue to do so regardless of any "test" .


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Ranger B said:


> This is funny because I have hunted on many military posts which require you to his a pie plate stuck to the vitals on a 3D deer at 20 yards. You would not believe how mad some guys get when they can't qualify. The line you always hear is, "I can shoot targets, but if it's got hair on it I kill it." I say, BULL! If you can't hit a pie plate (9" diameter) with 3 out of 5 arrows then you are missing a lot of deer and wounding a lot. "Momma Gue never raised such a fool."
> 
> That being said, I'm against standardized testing.


 I don't have any kind of a problem with this at all... There have been a number of studies on wounding, the first of which I remember reading was the Camp Ripley Study, and a whole bunch since then by states to compare among other things, the rate of wounding between compound and crossbow. If you won the property (military) then you hunt by their rules.... perfectly ok with me.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

benofthehood said:


> Surely we need better education rather than more legislation . In a world overpopulated by excess government etc hunting seems one of the last great freedoms ... and now we dilute the whole process with 'standardized ' testing .:sad:
> If you can't hit your intended target regularly at your given maximum distance then you have no business releasing an arrow at an animal . But , IMHO , those distances are up to the individual and I would continue to rely on people's integrity to maintain such . Those who choose to act otherwise will continue to do so regardless of any "test" .


 That would be effective range.... :grin:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

No to any type of testing...any time or anywhere. 

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> No to any type of testing...any time or anywhere.
> 
> Mac


 Oh? Why for?


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> That would be effective range.... :grin:


 Am I missing something ? 
Apols ... a bit slow today ...


----------



## Nam Nguyen (Jan 29, 2011)

around here you'd need a test for compounds too lol


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

benofthehood said:


> Am I missing something ?
> Apols ... a bit slow today ...


 Not at all.... it's just you was saying...


> If you can't hit your intended target regularly at your given maximum distance then you have no business releasing an arrow at an animal . But , IMHO , those distances are up to the individual and I would continue to rely on people's integrity to maintain such


 and I was just sayin...


> that would be [your] effective range


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

thanks for the clarification and the paraphrasing . 
I suppose ...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

benofthehood said:


> thanks for the clarification and the paraphrasing .
> I suppose ...


Let me ask you as question. When you were mentioning your *given* maximum range, who's doing the giving?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sligtly different attitude in Europe, nearly all European Bowhunting countries (around 12) make you do a bowhunting awareness course with a test at the end. 

Estonian gov has agreed to allow Bowhunting but fine details need to be sorted before law is passed, I was told the same bowhunting awareness course has to be done but no shooting test is required if your an 'A' class Field Archer, all Archers in Estonia shoot IFAA Field.


----------



## hillwilly (May 20, 2011)

I've actually been shot at by a guy with a bow, lucky he's a bad shot. People like that should not be out of the house let alone trespassing and shooting at god knows what. That guy is sooo stupid that he even asked me to help find his arrow. IMHO people need some kind of testing, tell you what sunshine!


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

I am not in favor of proficiency testing to qualify for a bowhunting license; although I must admit that the idea does have merit, but in thought only. However, I would be completely supportive of the person having to obtain a certain IQ and maturity score to be eligible.


----------



## 9 point (Apr 23, 2005)

Van I was a republican till Kasich won in Ohio. Now I am not sure. lol Cant vote Dem for Pres though Just govener from now on. And I say that all archers should be tested including the crossbow hunters that shoot at deer at 60 yrds.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

The testing doesn't change the wounding. I've heard more compound guys wounding due to the shot selection. While in VA last year I sat at a table and listened to guys brag about "hitting" deer at 50+ yards all year. "I hit him in the butt but man I hit him." I couldn't sit there so I told them how sorry they were and that they were huntings worst enemy. They said, "But it doesn't matter, the deer are overpopulated here anyway." Guys who can easily qualify still have to choose the shot and be disciplined.


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

im for it.
you have to to take a driving test to get a drivers license  Im not afraid of takin a shootin test to get a hunting license


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

There is no way to say who wounds more deer - it is just guessing - and if I were to guess - or bet - I would put my money that more trad guys wound animals than compound - I go to lots and lots of 3D shoots - and only the very top trad shooters manage to average a vital hit on each target - nearly all compound shooters average a vital hit or better. That is why I just cringe when I hear trad guys bashing compounds and talking about what superior hunters they are and how "ethical" they are compared with compound hunters and they don't even realize what fools they are making of themselves when the compound guys they are preaching too know full well that these guys can't hit the broadside of a barn!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> There is no way to say who wounds more deer - it is just guessing - and if I were to guess - or bet - I would put my money that more trad guys wound animals than compound - I go to lots and lots of 3D shoots - and only the very top trad shooters manage to average a vital hit on each target - nearly all compound shooters average a vital hit or better. That is why I just cringe when I hear trad guys bashing compounds and talking about what superior hunters they are and how "ethical" they are compared with compound hunters and they don't even realize what fools they are making of themselves when the compound guys they are preaching too know full well that these guys can't hit the broadside of a barn!


Acutally there is a number of studies that prove just that. Camp Ripley, and a number of states have conducted these studies to study the effects of the crossbow.

As for traditional versus compound and whos better and who's using target shots as a critieria, I'd not be bragging on how good compounds are too much because once in the field, those comments of yours don't stand up.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

" Surely we need better education rather than more legislation . In a world overpopulated by excess government etc hunting seems one of the last great freedoms ... and now we dilute the whole process with 'standardized ' testing "

This is a very good point benofthehood, ..."Hunting seems to be one of the last great freedoms".... but one thing about being one of the last, you know your time is coming up soon..........and that's kinda the point of my post, we have enjoyed this freedom as a country for 235 years now, populations are growing by leaps and bounds, woods are decreasing at an alarming rate, leasing has gone through the roof, many places that were hunted by farmer john and his family are now being reserved for businessman bob and his deep pocketed fellas, while ex-farmer johns family buy their food from some of the people they may have sold to......just another redistribution of assets that our free country has become famous for, now I said I thought testing would be a good Idea, I never said I'd vote for it if given the chance, that I really believe needs to be done in house, by us, before someone we don't want does it for us.............but then that kinda falls into the big tent theory, just imagine archers banding together for a common cause, ......big tent or not, that will happen too, trouble is will it happen before there are only a handfull left? .....myself I am in favor of doing something pro-active instead of waiting to be re-active and having to fight for it.......


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

While the idea is sound, the thought of implementing another government program makes me sick.


----------



## Okie1bow (Jul 26, 2006)

voodoofire1 said:


> Seems we are in a debating mood........So what do you think about profficiency testing to get your hunting license if you shoot a stickbow?....... for or against and why please.......Myself, I think it would be a good Idea..........maybe 4 out of 5 arrows in a 10" circle at 15 yds......yeah I know there's a heck of a difference between paper and fur, but if they can't hit a simple plate , do you really want them out in the woods possibly wounding animals?


No thank you. I do not wish to see any additional layers of the Governments bureaucracy, paid for with our taxes and/or fees ,intruding into our lives. They are allready after our guns; bows would be next followed closely by cross bows, then it would expand to a knief, spears, whips.......... no....please!!


----------



## Okie1bow (Jul 26, 2006)

hillwilly said:


> I've actually been shot at by a guy with a bow, lucky he's a bad shot. People like that should not be out of the house let alone trespassing and shooting at god knows what. That guy is sooo stupid that he even asked me to help find his arrow. IMHO people need some kind of testing, tell you what sunshine!


Is he still lying in the woods, bleeding and bruised?


----------



## Runningbuck (Mar 11, 2009)

I don't know about government testing only because they can booger up a free lunch. But, in my home state they have had a hunter ed class for bowhunters since christ was a private. All kidding aside, there is nothing wrong with seeing how much a new hunter knows or how he or she shoots. In some cases a bowhunters ed class my be the only instruction or information the person gets for a given time. Not everyone that applys stick with the sport, success rates are low for newbies and some take up gun hunting later on. As far as the wounding or ethics issue, no amount of preaching in a classroom is going to change the inner person. The need for success(bringing home any game) sometimes out weighs common sence ( being caught up in the moment).


----------



## NHBarcher (Feb 2, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> There is no way to say who wounds more deer - it is just guessing - and if I were to guess - or bet - I would put my money that more trad guys wound animals than compound - I go to lots and lots of 3D shoots - and only the very top trad shooters manage to average a vital hit on each target - nearly all compound shooters average a vital hit or better. That is why I just cringe when I hear trad guys bashing compounds and talking about what superior hunters they are and how "ethical" they are compared with compound hunters and they don't even realize what fools they are making of themselves when the compound guys they are preaching too know full well that these guys can't hit the broadside of a barn!


I find myself agreeing with oneshar... oops, I mean Sharpbroadhead. Skill level matters. I live in a crowded state where a lot of the hunting is suburban. Deer walking around with arrows sticking out of them, or dying next to Timmy's swingset, is bad for the sport and the deer. The Hunter safety class has a proficiency test for archery, entirely reasonable, and the course is given by experienced volunteers, not politicos. 

We have privately-run managed hunts that require proficiency tests, non-permanent treestands, and that you're actually successful at killing a certain number of does. The goal is to reduce the deer population without P.R. problems. 

Of course you can't test out stupid behavior like iffy shots, but that's no reason not to have some baseline standards.


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

When a hunter goes into the woods he polices himself. cause odds are you ain,t going to to see a co in woods asking to see your test results. Why would want the goverment telling you you are a bad shot. Hunter safty coasres are great idea but no to testing. Don,t want big brother or anybody else in my outdoor hunting events. If want to stop wounding anaimals give up driving your cars an trucks. Are you people nut,s an testing you cause the price of licence to go up. The best shooters in world miss an wound game. The really bad just miss.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Oh? Why for?


Because it is total BS that's why..The majority of states already have some type of hunter awareness course..that you either have to pass or pass one in your home state..and those that don't are looking at it...or already have and nixed it..No test..will ever fix stupid..no test..and there will always be some nimrod pass one...and still wind up shooting something he isn't or wounding something he should never have taken a shot at...and then they will start in wanting to regulate our equipment.....What law is going to stop stupid..unless it is one to ban shooting all together.....All what a new law means is more of our tax dollars spent on something it shouldn't be..or isn't needed...and congress loves to spend our tax dollars...and all the anti's want is to regulate us out of hunting..all the sporting goods stores out of business..and use our money for PETA...No Thank You...not only would I vote against it...but you could be damn sure I would start a grass roots tea party up and help campaign against it.. Folks have got to understand...if you give the people who want to ban all hunting any excuse to stop people from hunting..they will and will only keep at it until all hunting is stopped..We shouldn't make it easy for them..but hard on those that want to stop all hunting..

Now...why don't people vote to put extra tax dollars at work in a real and meaningful way...Vote to put some real teeth into the poaching laws...vote to send more money to the states wildlife offices to hire more fish and game people..We have laws on the books already..but there is never enough manpower to enforce them for the amount of hunters in this country and what laws are there..they can be plea bargained down.....Nimrods won't go where there are lots of conservation officers..and those that do..don't usually come back..Lastly...if something as stupid as this ever really did happen...and don't anyone believe for a second that there wouldn't be cases headed to court within a day to make it happen....it would make it easy for the anti's to push these types of test on all shooting sports..and give those who want to strip us of our second amendment rights ammunition to get legislation passed for the same test for gun owners..and eventually gun ownership then our bows...It's in their manifesto......We all know there are stupid people who should never venture out with anything sharp or dangerous in their hands...it's something we have to live with and police on own own..and I cannot believe anyone that believes in the 2nd. Amendment and hunting would ever consider something as dangerous as what this idea is..

I got to ask..who in their right mind wants to be regulated out of gun ownership and hunting all together.....If anyone here is in favor...raise your hand..and I would really like to know how gullible those people here are..If any are in favor..or thinks this isn't a bad idea...go to any of the anti hunting groups web sites..and look at what their stated ultimate goals really are...and how they want to get their version of America enacted..Then tell me you think this is a good idea then..cause if you do...I would like to see your PETA Membership Card...cause your only masquerading as a hunter here..

Mac


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

Any possible “good” that might seem to exist with the concept is exactly the rope that will be used to hang all hunters. Even if hunters chose to do this voluntarily and the practice started to spread, policy and practice eventually overcome “the best of intents”…then you have rules, and laws will emerge. This same toe-hold practice of “for benefit of all” allows “those opposed” to have the appearance of “do-gooders” whether they openly support such an initiative or lay silent and just wait for the momentum to swing in their direction.

Sorry folks, but there is nothing new about what I’ve just outlined…or the fact that there are lots of people who are heavily invested in many areas of social change (…and from estimates I’ve seen there’s about one for every hunter). I can only suggest that it is wise to know your enemies…they know you.

But getting back to “The Proficiency Test”…in actuality, any test would only impose an artificial ceiling…that hovers around: “How many times can I take the test?” IMO, in all probability, given a “reasonable” number of attempts only a lesser percentage will remain that either decide to put in more practice…or go on to pursue other interests. (Also problematic to the nature of "testing" is too high a success ratio could likely equate to arbitrary movement of the stake...then "the test" becomes more important than it's purpose.) 

And lastly, although there is a connection between the two, I believe a thoughtful person can make two different subjects out of “shooting proficiency” and “hunting proficiency”…while others have zero inclination to be so generous. Take Care, Rick.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

northern boy said:


> When a hunter goes into the woods he polices himself. cause odds are you ain,t going to to see a co in woods asking to see your test results. Why would want the goverment telling you you are a bad shot. Hunter safty coasres are great idea but no to testing. Don,t want big brother or anybody else in my outdoor hunting events. If want to stop wounding anaimals give up driving your cars an trucks. Are you people nut,s an testing you cause the price of licence to go up. The best shooters in world miss an wound game. The really bad just miss.


It's funny to see these responses.... Makes me wonder just how good shooters really are...

For those that use the excuse of government intrusions, I'm assuming you're all republicans when it comes to testing, but all democrats when having to prove it... It comes down to personal responsibility. True, hunting is a personal thing and you can miss, wound, and draw blood on more than one animal in the the... field with no consequence. I've come to conclusions that those that don't want testing don't have confidence in themselves as shooters, and one thing I *do know* is that the best shots are confident in their shooting. Those that aren't so good, not so much in the confidence department and I don't remember who said it, but practice, practice, practice, is one of the requisites of accuracy and confidence. Could it be that many of us here aren't practicing effectively enough?

Getting back to the 300 for a moment, I can guess that a 300 round doesn't do a whit for a hunter shooting from behind a bush in a sitting position on his/her butt with a backpack on. Practice, practice, practice... and doing it in your hunting duds.... we preach it, we teach it, but how many really reach it?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> Because it is total BS that's why..The majority of states already have some type of hunter awareness course..that you either have to pass or pass one in your home state..and those that don't are looking at it...or already have and nixed it..No test..will ever fix stupid..no test..and there will always be some nimrod pass one...and still wind up shooting something he isn't or wounding something he should never have taken a shot at...and then they will start in wanting to regulate our equipment.....What law is going to stop stupid..unless it is one to ban shooting all together.....All what a new law means is more of our tax dollars spent on something it shouldn't be..or isn't needed...and congress loves to spend our tax dollars...and all the anti's want is to regulate us out of hunting..all the sporting goods stores out of business..and use our money for PETA...No Thank You...not only would I vote against it...but you could be damn sure I would start a grass roots tea party up and help campaign against it.. Folks have got to understand...if you give the people who want to ban all hunting any excuse to stop people from hunting..they will and will only keep at it until all hunting is stopped..We shouldn't make it easy for them..but hard on those that want to stop all hunting..
> 
> Now...why don't people vote to put extra tax dollars at work in a real and meaningful way...Vote to put some real teeth into the poaching laws...vote to send more money to the states wildlife offices to hire more fish and game people..We have laws on the books already..but there is never enough manpower to enforce them for the amount of hunters in this country and what laws are there..they can be plea bargained down.....Nimrods won't go where there are lots of conservation officers..and those that do..don't usually come back..Lastly...if something as stupid as this ever really did happen...and don't anyone believe for a second that there wouldn't be cases headed to court within a day to make it happen....it would make it easy for the anti's to push these types of test on all shooting sports..and give those who want to strip us of our second amendment rights ammunition to get legislation passed for the same test for gun owners..and eventually gun ownership then our bows...It's in their manifesto......We all know there are stupid people who should never venture out with anything sharp or dangerous in their hands...it's something we have to live with and police on own own..and I cannot believe anyone that believes in the 2nd. Amendment and hunting would ever consider something as dangerous as what this idea is..
> 
> ...


 Sad.... You should involve yourself in the making of rules and regulations. I can see that by your responses you are not involved in the mechanics of these efforts. I can see why, though... because it is hard work. Tests... oh yeah.... total BS.


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

I believe that a driving test should be required to either get or renew your driving privileges since we all drive on the same roads and HUMAN BEINGS are at risk. Politically that is not going to happen but it is how I feel.

Conversely, I disagree with a any shooting test (regardless of weapon) because everyone's effective range is different depending on skill and situation. You can't impose common sense (I do wish it came in a aerosol spray can that could be applied directly to my teenager girls . Some bowhunters won't shoot at anything over 10 yards and others will empty their quiver at anything within 100 yards. We also have more game laws on the books then our conservation officers could ever effectively enforce given most states financial situations. I'd rather see them spending as much time as possible convicting poachers.

I saw an earlier post about 3D accuracy (or lack of) of stickbow shooters and need to respond. As a serious 3D shooter I am comfortable shooting at a foam shaped animal out to about 40 yards. Worst thing that can happen you lose an arrow and/or take a little light hearted ribbing from your companions. Shooting at a live animal is a whole different story and I limit myself to 15 yard maximum shots when hunting. I'm not trying to play the ethics police or impose my limitations on others. Just want to clarify that what is attempted on the 3D range is not what is always attempted in the field.

My 2 cents worth...


----------



## longbowdude (Jun 9, 2005)

Thats fine put a test in. Twenty years from now when compound technology has advanced so much that golfball size groups at 150 yards are common. The 15 yard test will be a 50 yard test for all archers. Tradbows will probably be illegal to hunt with since they are not as accurate as the advanced 2033 model mathews bow with laser guided arrows.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

sharpbroadhead - my point is that it's not about the ability to qualify. It is the choice of shot once in the woods. Many compound guys can drill the target but they wing an arrow at a deer at 50 yards in the woods just because they might hit it. I concur that there is no way of knowing but I believe more compound hunters wound animals because there are so many more of them hunting. In TN I would be we have 10 times more compound archers in the woods than trad guys - maybe much more than that. So there are more guys to wound animals. I also agree with you that there are many many trad hunters that can't hit the vitals. I personally know a lot of guys that qualified on the pie plate with a compound and then hunted with a recurve because they couldn't qualify with a recurve. It's sad but I do believe that the qualification would eventually be used against the hunters. Oh, and most of the compound guys in VA I shot with didn't even hunt. The hunters didn't shoot many of our shoots.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

It's not anybody's job to tell me if I am capable of shooting good enough groups to go hunting it's my job. and we better get together on this or somebody is going to try. this could start WW3. Lets quit telling each other what to do and just go HUNTING


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> I believe that a driving test should be required to either get or renew your driving privileges since we all drive on the same roads and HUMAN BEINGS are at risk. Politically that is not going to happen but it is how I feel.
> 
> Conversely, I disagree with a any shooting test (regardless of weapon) because everyone's effective range is different depending on skill and situation. You can't impose common sense (I do wish it came in a aerosol spray can that could be applied directly to my teenager girls . Some bowhunters won't shoot at anything over 10 yards and others will empty their quiver at anything within 100 yards. We also have more game laws on the books then our conservation officers could ever effectively enforce given most states financial situations. I'd rather see them spending as much time as possible convicting poachers.
> 
> ...


While I might agree with you on testing for hunting per se, I don't discount the necessity of pre-emptive arguments in support of hunting. Hunting opportunities are being limited, not expanded in America, and the current administration does little to embolden the prospects. The current administration and the current democratic congress are also strong animal rights supporters. Seeing this thread alone, I can see the headline on PETA's newsletters.... *Hunters Object to accuracy testing with hunting equipment*... because they know that they will wound more than they kill!! or something similar. To object to testing on grounds of the Bureaucracy is laughable. If you were given permission to hunt on Private land, would you subject yourself to a proficiency test? I have to prove I can hit a 6" target with my muzzleloader when I go bear hunting... what then? Would you on principle say "Hell no! I can shoot!" and they calmly tell you ... "Of course... but you're not going hunting.... and... sadly... you have lost your fee..... "sniffles".... well probably not... no one likes tracking wounded bears.

I don't support testing for hunting ONLY for the reason of the you cannot apply a standard for common sense and ones own personally imposed limitations and effective range are different for each individual and there is no way you can measure that. On the other hand, there is a proposal to have hunters required to have physicals. Wait till 0bamacare gets into full swing, you've no idea what regulations that come down from inhouse that were never voted on... 

Hunting is a sport that we are blessed with the ability to enjoy right now, but there is constant threat. To me, when hunters vociferously object to standards, makes me wonder what they have to hide... and this is from another hunter. How many of you even know your effective range in hunting drag.... I'll bet that 75% of you do not.

Lastly, while I do not support testing to ALLOW you to go hunting, I'm not averse to having one just see where their effective ranges are either. To have one last look at what your actual performance is on the morning of your hunt doesn't hurt. I do this when I hunt anyway because I rove while I hunt. I get a clear picture of where I am capability wise on every hunt, and for me anyway, it changes... not only from hunt to hunt, but during the hunt sometimes too.... and it is different with each piece of equipment I may be hunting with.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## rraming (Aug 5, 2006)

Never going to happen - I'd be fine with it as long as all shooters had to do it - Including firearm hunters, never going to happen!!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

This is interesting on opinions. Texas recently dropped all DW requirements on archery season, much less ever having any proficiency requirement. Much to the contrary from views here, and in this instance, it seemed more to have rankled the seasoned guys based on views of ethical regulation of bowhunting - not enough regulation to suit them - "Every idiot will be out there with a 15# bow and wounding deer." I guess opinion is based on which side of the "regulation" you fall.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> This is interesting on opinions. Texas recently dropped all DW requirements on archery season, much less ever having any proficiency requirement. Much to the contrary from views here, and in this instance, it seemed more to have rankled the seasoned guys based on views of ethical regulation of bowhunting - not enough regulation to suit them - "Every idiot will be out there with a 15# bow and wounding deer." I guess opinion is based on which side of the "regulation" you fall.


 I agree with the idea that you choose what you can hunt with. Arizona or Nevada have similar caliber restrictions.... that is there aint none... Hunters who are hunters should know what works... and who's to say that someone who prides himself with a 22 can't drop an elk with it better than someone with a 50 cal BMG.

I've met several Texas Wildlife types and Hunter Ed Instructors at our Conferences... Texas IS different in lots of ways... I'd love to be living there.

The problem with rules are hunters. When hunters do stupid stuff, people write rules to stop it or ultimately, stop hunting. No hunting, no need for guns.... it's not just animals rights folks out there plotting.

As for this thread, if some state required you to take a proficiency test would you quit hunting instead?


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

There is no standard in hunting you police your self we don,t do it for you. If you think you can hit a deer at 30 yd,s you take the shoot or if you know your only good out to 15 yd,s you pass up the shot. no body hiding anything . You are putting your hunting values on everbody else. What you are starting is pure nonsense. Hunting standards in hitting a target for sissys an anti -hunters. don,t shot a duck with a shotgun you might put a pellet in the wrong spot.


----------



## MISSOURIBOY (Aug 20, 2010)

Van/TX said:


> Good grief. Millions of firearms hunters take to the field every year. No one is tested. Gazillion animals are wounded. Why on earth should we target traditional archers?...Van


I am with ya!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Van/TX said:


> Good grief. Millions of firearms hunters take to the field every year. No one is tested. Gazillion animals are wounded. Why on earth should we target traditional archers?...Van


 I missed this.... Archery is the animal rights and PETA's first choice to attack.


----------



## whitewolf1 (Jun 28, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> I missed this.... Archery is the animal rights and PETA's first choice to attack.


Maybe we should target them and force them prove proficiency in being a worth while human before they are allowed to breathe our air.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

whitewolf1 said:


> Maybe we should target them and force them prove proficiency in being a worth while human before they are allowed to breathe our air.


Well when they elevate animals above human in "rights", you wonder certainly as to their objectivity and reality quotients....


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"You are putting your hunting values on everbody else."............Nope, not even close.........I haven't dropped the string on a deer in 4 years because I was not comfortable with the shot opportunities presented........and no it had nothing to do with the size of deer, I don't eat antlers................

And Mac, this has nothing to do with the second amendment or politics, this can be done without any government interferance what so ever, and the grass roots thing you suggested would be used by the anti's against bowhunters as a whole........... think about it...........if you want to start a grass roots thing, do it to help,not hurt..............it would be nice though to see the laws we have now properly enforced......... that would change things a bit too..........


----------



## Clang! (Sep 29, 2007)

Two reasons against and one reason for

Against
1) What standard are they testing too? Pie plate sized groups at 40 yards are much easier with a modern sights, stab, and release compound bow then with an unsighted, finger shot, stickbow.

2) I believe that demonstrating shot placement, shoot/no shoot judgement, and competent (safe) bow handling are more important then accuracy. That being said, setting up targets at 10-15 yards to test these isn't unreasonable.

For
1) We've all shared the ranges with archers who are about to go hunting but spends more time behind the target looking for their arrows then on the shooting line. Do you really think they're going to be able to make a good shot on an animal if they can't hit a 4 foot wide bale?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Something for those that are for more regulations.

Do more gun laws stop gangbangers and crooks from getting guns?

Do stricter fines stop drunk driving?

Has the "War on Drugs" stopped illegal drug use in the U.S.?

Who really pays any attention to laws, rules, and regulations: honest, ethical, law abiding citizens or slobs, crooks, and thugs?

If you gave an honest answer to the above, what in the world makes you think more laws and regulations will affect the slobs and poachers amongst us?

So what if you have to hit a pie plate at 20 yds. Go borrow a compound, pass the test, then hunt with your trad bow. So what if the test is super easy, a 10" circle at 10 yds--what's to keep a slob from flinging an arrow at a deer from 50 yds. with hopes of at least wounding it?

IMO some folks are putting way too much faith in the gov't. We can police ourselves. Peer pressure, kicking people out of clubs for being slobs, fines for wounds on leases or in a club, etc. There are much better ways than getting the gov't involved, but I don't know of a worse way.

Chad


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"There are much better ways than getting the gov't involved, but I don't know of a worse way."

I agree 100%!!


----------



## whitewolf1 (Jun 28, 2006)

Clang! said:


> For
> 1) We've all shared the ranges with archers who are about to go hunting but spends more time behind the target looking for their arrows then on the shooting line. Do you really think they're going to be able to make a good shot on an animal if they can't hit a 4 foot wide bale?


Just an observation question I guess, but how many of those folks would you consider to be good hunters other than their shooting? How many do you think would be able to consistently get within bow range of deer or elk to shoot that poorly at anyway?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LBR said:


> Something for those that are for more regulations.
> 
> Do more gun laws stop gangbangers and crooks from getting guns?
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up !!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I am for making Bowhunter Education mandatory for ALL archers. Don't agree one bit with mandatory testing.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I like Hunter/Bowhunter education, especially in today's society where kids don't seem to always have a dad/uncle/grandpa to teach them the ropes. That, to me, is totally different.

If I may rant a little more...

I may have already touched on this, but if I did it's worth saying again. If you get a buracracy in charge of "proficiency" testing, what will be the requirements for the "instructor"? Remember, this is the guy/gal who will be in charge of deciding if you get to bow hunt or not. Will it be someone required to give actual hunting credentials? Will it be someone who just has to study a book and pass a test? Or could it just be someone's brother-in-law, nephew, or just the one who was best at kissing a higher-up's butt? Will they have to prove they aren't anti-hunting?

Slippery, slippery, slippery slope--I'm not for it at all, at least not from a mandated by the gov't position.

Chad


----------



## emac396 (Jul 7, 2010)

No I want less govt not more


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Sad.... You should involve yourself in the making of rules and regulations. I can see that by your responses you are not involved in the mechanics of these efforts. I can see why, though... because it is hard work. Tests... oh yeah.... total BS.


In this you are totally wrong...I am involved..in every way I can be..I see any intrusion as something bad...no matter how much common sense there is to it. This is the tactic of those who want to take away our rights use with those in this country that don't own a gun..a bow..or hunt.We are their enemies...We are the people they despise...*Our way of life is in direct violation of what they have sworn to protect..and they put the lives and rights of all animals above ours...and when you forget that simple fact...they are on the road to convincing you to give up the fight against them*... .I have fought the anti-hunting..anti 2nd amendment people every chance I get..I understand how and "why" they use their tactics..We hunters and as people who believe in no government intrusions into our lives know full well that a right lost..is never returned.Even when laws are passed to return it..Look at at our wonderful city of Washington DC if you believe for a second I am wrong..Ask your local NRA representative about this...if you think I am making things up. 

Until you all who think a little regulation like this is not bad..understands that we are the minority in this country...and our way of life is being threatened at every corner..you will never fully understand how something like a simple proficiency can open the doors to all kinds of anti hunting and anti gun ownership laws... Hunting and gun ownership in this country is inexplicably linked...and bow hunting is factored in with all of this and what laws and regulations are passed for one that curtails usage or ownership..will be so with the other eventually.

We already have those working against us wanting to take our rights and freedoms away from outside the archery community...they are trying their best at every opportunity to stop us from hunting...to make getting a tag more difficult..to harassing us when we do hunt and have ever legal right to to do so...and even owning guns & bows is coming under fire...where we can shoot..where we can hunt..everywhere from the local laws and ordinances..to the state level..to the federal level......Why in hell would I be for something I know can be used against us later on ? More importantly...why would a hunter be for it ? At best..it might save a few animals every year..at it's worst..can be used to not allow someone to hunt..and eventually be used to deny ownership..You have to realize this is what the anti's want..and both PETA and any anti gun group work together for 1 common goal...and that is the total banning of all sport hunting and all weapon ownership...and this includes all manner of bows..from the most primitive..to the most sophisticated..Like it or not..the 2nd amendment fight is our fight too.. and it's high time people here understand this sad fact. We can longer sit back and say..." It won't happen to us..." cause it already is...

Don't tell me I am not involved sir...get off your duff and get involved yourself..because the rights you help preserve..may someday be your own

Mac


----------



## ryanw505 (May 14, 2010)

I'm against testing, for many of the reasons already posted. A few examples of why:

1) I have been out hunting for elk with my longbow for one season only. During that season, I have come within twenty yards of a bull nearly every day of my hunt and never drew back. Why? They were bad shots. Thick timber, quartering towards me, etc.
2) During my last hunt with my longbow, I encountered a compound bowhunter who "Shot a bull in the head" at 50 yards. Really? What would posses someone to take a shot at 50 yards? At the head, nonetheless? I inquired and the response I received was "I have a pin set at 50". You can't teach common sense. Likewise, some people have a hunter's ethic, others don't. THey just want to kill.
3) My hunting buddies practice to 60 yards with their compounds and drill the target every time. They also practice standing up and aiming for as long as is necessary for them to feel good about the shot. I've watched some of these guys send an arrow from less than twenty yards at a bull we've called in and completely miss. This leads me to believe that practice can make perfect in a perfect situation. Hunting is not that. 

I'm hunting with a compound bow this year because I can hit my target out to forty yards after sprinting up a hill, sitting in front of a bush, shooting at angles in wooded terrain, etc. When I can do the same with my longbow, I may bring it hunting.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Mac, Thank You for your efforts, much appreciated, keep up the good work!


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

LBR said:


> Something for those that are for more regulations.
> 
> Do more gun laws stop gangbangers and crooks from getting guns?
> 
> ...



Agree!...Van


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> In this you are totally wrong...I am involved..in every way I can be..I see any intrusion as something bad...no matter how much common sense there is to it. This is the tactic of those who want to take away our rights use with those in this country that don't own a gun..a bow..or hunt.We are their enemies...We are the people they despise...*Our way of life is in direct violation of what they have sworn to protect..and they put the lives and rights of all animals above ours...and when you forget that simple fact...they are on the road to convincing you to give up the fight against them*... .I have fought the anti-hunting..anti 2nd amendment people every chance I get..I understand how and "why" they use their tactics..We hunters and as people who believe in no government intrusions into our lives know full well that a right lost..is never returned.Even when laws are passed to return it..Look at at our wonderful city of Washington DC if you believe for a second I am wrong..Ask your local NRA representative about this...if you think I am making things up.
> 
> Until you all who think a little regulation like this is not bad..understands that we are the minority in this country...and our way of life is being threatened at every corner..you will never fully understand how something like a simple proficiency can open the doors to all kinds of anti hunting and anti gun ownership laws... Hunting and gun ownership in this country is inexplicably linked...and bow hunting is factored in with all of this and what laws and regulations are passed for one that curtails usage or ownership..will be so with the other eventually.
> 
> ...


 Get off my duff??? Its easy enough to check me out 'Bub... Maybe you should look up your facts before you go off on some high horse.... and it also shows your inexperience in and on the issue of hunting.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

rattus58 said:


> I've come to conclusions that those that don't want testing don't have confidence in themselves as shooters, and one thing I *do know* is that the best shots are confident in their shooting. Those that aren't so good, not so much in the confidence department and I don't remember who said it, but practice, practice, practice, is one of the requisites of accuracy and confidence. Could it be that many of us here aren't practicing effectively enough?


Well, rattus58 I'll give you one thing - you've got some endurance. There are 80 posts on this thread thus far and just under 20% of them are yours. Not trying to hurt your feeling just impressed at your enthusiasm. 

Two points. First I am in the Armed Forces so all those Posts I've hunted on are not just me following the rules. I can influence those rules, but the bigger issue of standardized testing is much larger. I am relatively confident with my shooting, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my objection to the testing. Testing is a knee jerk reaction solution to what would appear to be an issue but as has been eloquently argued already is not. Here is how these rules get made.

Martha is tending to her roses and a deer runs through her yard with an arrow sticking out of its guts. Martha freaks and calls the authorities. They come out but no crime has been committed so Martha goes to the city counsel meeting where she has influence because she plays tennis with the Mayors wife. She raises a ruckus about the good for nothing hunters that wounded bambi. "Why they might shoot Fluffy", her full sized poodle. So the Mayor and other city counsel officials are concerned and feel that they have to do something because their wives expect action. Trouble is none of them hunt so they don't know what to do. But they are problem solvers so they put their heads together and they decide that they should first define the problem.

Problem - Animals get wounded by inept hunters

So now we need a solution. Again, they brainstorm.

Solution - "Well, let's make sure that they can hit what they are aiming at if they are going to hunt." "We need a test." "Yep, let's make them test out to hunt."

Does this open the door to further legislation? Perhaps. What I do know is that those of you that are so eager to jump on the test bandwagon need to think through the second and third order effects before jumping on Martha's bandwagon or you might hurt us all out of ignorance. Just because you know you can hit it and want to show everyone that you can is not the right reason to make the rule. Ever heard the expression, just because you can doesn't mean you should?

Hope I didn't step on too many toes but the beauty of these forums is that it enables us to express our thoughts openly and make sure we've considered the issues from all angles.
I'm off to New York to shoot the IBO Worlds catch you guys later.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Good luck and great shooting Jimmy!



> I've come to conclusions that those that don't want testing don't have confidence in themselves as shooters,...


You managed to completely ignore all the very valid and legitimate REASONS and invent this excuse, based on???

Why not address the actual points made against testing? Or just this one: Who will be affected by regulations--honest, law-abiding, ethical hunters or poachers and slobs? 

Chad


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Ranger B said:


> Well, rattus58 I'll give you one thing - you've got some endurance. There are 80 posts on this thread thus far and just under 20% of them are yours. Not trying to hurt your feeling just impressed at your enthusiasm.
> 
> Two points. First I am in the Armed Forces so all those Posts I've hunted on are not just me following the rules. I can influence those rules, but the bigger issue of standardized testing is much larger. I am relatively confident with my shooting, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my objection to the testing. Testing is a knee jerk reaction solution to what would appear to be an issue but as has been eloquently argued already is not. Here is how these rules get made.
> 
> ...


Here is the original post... or the portion of it that is relevant... *Seems we are in a debating mood........So what do you think about profficiency testing to get your hunting license if you shoot a stickbow?....... for or against and why please.......*

When you get a pistol certification you have to demonstrate that you can manage your firearm.... except in Hawaii that is.... Range time. This isn't new. I have my own reasons for objecting to a proficiency test to get a license, but I'm a long way from saying that we don't need that proficience or further, knowing how proficient you really are.

Proving proficiency for hunting in a number of circumstances is not new, so I'm surprised that you have folks with a "no way, no place, no time"... mindset/attitude. I'd like to know what these same folks would do if it in fact became a requirement... would they refuse on principle and hang up or give up their bows?

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Good luck and great shooting Jimmy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 What points have I ignored? What am I to address? You are saying that honest law abiding ethical hunters shouldn't have to prove their proficiency to anyone? Why not? While you're at it, please tell me if I support proficiency testing for getting a license.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Get off my duff??? Its easy enough to check me out 'Bub... Maybe you should look up your facts before you go off on some high horse.... *and it also shows your inexperience in and on the issue of hunting*.


Funny..



> Proving proficiency for hunting in a number of circumstances is not new, so I'm surprised that you have folks with a "no way, no place, no time"... mindset/attitude. I'd like to know what these same folks would do if it in fact became a requirement... would they refuse on principle and hang up or give up their bows?


I would fight to get the laws or requirements changed..and if that doesn't work..help whoever is running against the person/s who got the laws/regulations inacted. It is something I have done over my life span.._being involved_...fighting against those in power whose ignorance seems to be the rule..instead of the exception.

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> What points have I ignored? What am I to address? You are saying that honest law abiding ethical hunters shouldn't have to prove their proficiency to anyone? Why not? While you're at it, please tell me if I support proficiency testing for getting a license.


Because we are a nation of individuals...not just a nation of people..We don't live by someone elses leave...or approval of what we do..We have individual rights...not collective rights..We got away from a monarchy onece..and will do my best to keep us go back to one or their ways of doing things.

Mac


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What points have I ignored? What am I to address?


Do more gun laws stop gangbangers and crooks from getting guns?

Do stricter fines stop drunk driving?

Has the "War on Drugs" stopped illegal drug use in the U.S.?

Who really pays any attention to laws, rules, and regulations: honest, ethical, law abiding citizens or slobs, crooks, and thugs?

If you gave an honest answer to the above, what in the world makes you think more laws and regulations will affect the slobs and poachers amongst us?

What test is going to keep a slob from flinging an arrow at a deer from 50 yds. with hopes of at least wounding it?



> You are saying that honest law abiding ethical hunters shouldn't have to prove their proficiency to anyone?


Not at all. I'm saying that the honest, ethical, law-abiding hunters are the only ones that would pay any attention to the rules, and they aren't the problem to begin with. You can pass all the restrictive gun laws you want, it won't keep thugs and gang bangers from breaking them--it only puts more restrictions on those who obey the law to begin with.

I'm sure some folks would be nervous about taking a test. I know good shooters that fall apart when shooting in front of strangers or at a big tournament. There are plenty of legitimate and valid reasons to be against tests to worry about that.

Chad


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> Who really pays any attention to laws, rules, and regulations: honest, ethical, law abiding citizens or slobs, crooks, and thugs?


Using that logic, we don't need any laws at all... breaking laws is what makes someone a criminal. No laws, no crime !

I don't know if it's true ( I bet it is), but I believe drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities have been decreasing for decades because of stricter laws and better enforcement. 

I guess don't have an opinion about an accuracy test for bowhunting... but I hope they use a 300 round and post the scores!:jksign::chortle::dancing:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Do more gun laws stop gangbangers and crooks from getting guns?
> 
> Do stricter fines stop drunk driving?
> 
> ...


The "only the law abiding will follow the rules" argument.... Classic!. RangerB actually brought up what I understand is actual scenarios for the imposition of such requirements. I've also mentioned the situations for which they insist on me proving my worth. Hunters who go on safari or trips away for hunting usually will "sight in" their equipment. Why do they do that?

Laws only applies to those that will follow them. So since only the law abiding follow them, why have them? I love the fact that you already are making excuses for folks too... "some people get nervous with tests"... or whatever you said. My answer to that is SO? For that reason we shouldn't have testing?? 

Back to proficiency... So you don't think that anyone need to demonstrate proficiency before going hunting? Cool.

I'm not for proficiency testing to get a license, but I'm not against making sure someone is proficient. I have to do periodically and I do it for myslef every time I hunt... and I do it both with my longbows and my muzzleloaders... just me... not saying it needs to be you.

So what I see here is a demand that anyone be able to hunt without having to have any hands on proficiency because you think that you have the right to hunt however and with whatever skill level you have. Good luck with that.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Arrowwood said:


> Using that logic, we don't need any laws at all... breaking laws is what makes someone a criminal. No laws, no crime !
> 
> I don't know if it's true ( I bet it is), but I believe drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities have been decreasing for decades because of stricter laws and better enforcement.
> 
> I guess don't have an opinion about an accuracy test for bowhunting... but I hope they use a 300 round and post the scores!:jksign::chortle::dancing:


Not true at all..We already have plenty of laws...and only honest legal law abiding folks follow them..that is the point of what he is saying..

If all of the current laws were enforced and fairly..things would be a lot different...and there wouldn't need to be law after law passed on the whims of people who are scared or afraid of hunters...While vastly different...the reduction in drunk driving deaths..have resulted..in tougher laws and penalties past...The difference is what is considered a fundamental right..and if it is constitutionally protected..Hunting has been so-far..but..with each new law and regulation..there is no guessing how long that will remain so....driving is not a right as defined by the current laws...but a privalage....That is the difference here...in this example.

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Arrowwood said:


> Using that logic, we don't need any laws at all... breaking laws is what makes someone a criminal. No laws, no crime !
> 
> I don't know if it's true ( I bet it is), but I believe drunk driving and alcohol-related fatalities have been decreasing for decades because of stricter laws and better enforcement.
> 
> I guess don't have an opinion about an accuracy test for bowhunting... but I hope they use a 300 round and post the scores!:jksign::chortle::dancing:


 hahahaha... :thumbs_up


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> Not true at all..We already have plenty of laws...and only honest legal law abiding folks follow them..that is the point of what he is saying..
> 
> If all of the current laws were enforced and fairly..things would be a lot different...and there wouldn't need to be law after law passed on the whims of people who are scared or afraid of hunters...While vastly different...the reduction in drunk driving deaths..have resulted..in tougher laws and penalties past...The difference is what is considered a fundamental right..and if it is constitutionally protected..Hunting has been so-far..but..with each new law and regulation..there is no guessing how long that will remain so....driving is not a right as defined by the current laws...but a privalage....That is the difference here...in this example.
> 
> Mac


 You are dreaming if you think that hunting is a fundamental right. Your inexperience again.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

It's a right under a number of states' constitutions, but not many.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> So what I see here...


I believe it would be more accurate to say that's what you imagine, because it's not there to see. I made my point, don't see any need to continue with it.

Chad


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Arrowwood said:


> It's a right under a number of states' constitutions, but not many.


 I find that interesting.... Could you please point me to a couple... that would be something I'd love to introduce here in Hawaii.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

A couple aren't on the list that I thought were, but here's a start:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=21237


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> I believe it would be more accurate to say that's what you imagine, because it's not there to see. I made my point, don't see any need to continue with it.
> 
> Chad


You're very hard to figure out who you are responding to, since you don't quote people accurately, but if you are referring to me Please quote me. Actually I'm not imagining anything. You, LBR, have outlined a number of platitudes demanding that I respond to these so called unaddressed points, as you called them. As mentioned by RangerB, situations lead to the creation of rules and regulations. Since you are so opposed to having to demonstrate proficiency, should it ever come to a town near you, I'm confident that you would of course in a fit of indignation, retire your equipment to collect dust and rust. 

In the mean time, you haven't answered my question to you regarding demonstrated proficiency prior to going hunting, and since you choose to ignore that question, one can only surmise... you know.... that anyone is qualified to go hunting just because....

Hunter Education in many states does not required any form of proficiency. This will in my opinion come back to hunters at some point. Urban Deer Hunting I'm told requires participants to attend a Bowhunter Education Course. I don't know how all of the rest conduct their classes, but in our Advanced Bowhunting course, you engage in blood trailing, tree stand shooting, tracking, and participating in a 3D course to learn range estimation and shooting at angles. This is a form of demonstrated proficiency... and I'm assuming that you of course object to such in Urban Areas as well... true?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Arrowwood said:


> A couple aren't on the list that I thought were, but here's a start:
> 
> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=21237


We have a Constitutional Convention that we are supposed to have every 10 years, and it's been defeated ever since 1979 from being revisited, mostly by the Sierra Club, who got some language removed from the Constitution surreptitiously and not debated... such as the original Constitution recognizing game animals as a Natural Resource... now for some reason... absent without debate.... They want the state eradicated of ungulates... any connection... ??

The best that we were able to incorporate in the 1990's was a requirement that the State Preserve, Promote, and Protect Public Hunting. 

Thank you by the way for this site.

Much Aloha,

:beer:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> You are dreaming if you think that hunting is a fundamental right. Your inexperience again.


You haven't a clue Bro...you haven't a clue.I can't help what is or isn't accepted on your island..that is entirely dependant on your voters there..

It is a fundemental right..and has that has been affirmed by several states..and also the federal government...so...who is speaking out of inexperianced...and who isn't.....?

I don't need any one to tell me I must pass any test when it comes to hunting or shooting anything. I abide by those laws and go along with it..untill some of these knee jeck laws can be repealed..Will I retire any of my guns or bows..Not hardly. I have no need to prove to you..or anyone on a state level..local level..or federal level if I posses the needed skill set to do anything I choose to do when it comes to hunting or shooting..My rights are just that...my rights..and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them my rights...not as some like you are acting as a collective rights under the constitution...and that is what you can not understand or acknlowedge.

Mac


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> since you don't quote people accurately,


Where did I misquote anyone?



> Actually I'm not imagining anything.


You "saw" something that does not exist. Call it what you want.



> demanding that I respond


Really? Where did I demand anything? Asking and demanding are two completely different things.



> Since you are so opposed to having to demonstrate proficiency, should it ever come to a town near you, I'm confident that you would of course in a fit of indignation, retire your equipment to collect dust and rust.


Lol--you do have quite an imagination. Your confidence is sorely misplaced.



> In the mean time, you haven't answered my question to you regarding demonstrated proficiency prior to going hunting, and since you choose to ignore that question, one can only surmise... you know.... that anyone is qualified to go hunting just because....


You wouldn't be _demanding_ a reply, now would you?



> You are saying that honest law abiding ethical hunters shouldn't have to prove their proficiency to anyone? Why not?


Now just where did I say that? The same place I made those "demands" and where you are "seeing" things I never said or implied?



> ...and I'm assuming that you of course object to such in Urban Areas as well... true?


I never stated an opinion concerning Urban areas one way or another. For the record, I would be opposed to Federal or State mandates. I would NOT be opposed to local mandates instated for safety reasons; i.e. no use of firearms, no shooting at an animal within so many feet of an occupied residence, etc.

Also, for the record, I'm no longer interested in your opinion or answers to the questions I asked. Don't want you to feel pressured to answer. :embara: 

Chad


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> You haven't a clue Bro...you haven't a clue.I can't help what is or isn't accepted on your island..that is entirely dependant on your voters there..
> 
> It is a fundemental right..and has that has been affirmed by several states..and also the federal government...so...who is speaking out of inexperianced...and who isn't.....?
> 
> ...


 I'd be happy to accept whatever you can cite, as arrowwood did, that shows that hunting is a FEDERAL fundamental right of the citizens of the USA.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Where did I misquote anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 who are you quoting?



LBR said:


> You managed to completely ignore all the very valid and legitimate REASONS and invent this excuse, based on???
> 
> Why not address the actual points made against testing? Or just this one: Who will be affected by regulations--honest, law-abiding, ethical hunters or poachers and slobs?
> 
> Chad


No problem here... and about the only thing you got right here is that these are my opinions... which appears you can't seem to handle... and what is even more amusing, is that I don't support initial testing either... but you can't seem to fathom that tidbit.... Oh well....


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Quite an interesting topic Steve--good fodder for discussion, shows where a lot of people stand and how some of them think (or don't).

I can understand the sentiment of trying to find a way to keep slobs out of the woods, but I think it was sufficiently shown that government mandates are not the answer.

Chad


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> I'd be happy to accept whatever you can cite, as arrowwood did, that shows that hunting is a FEDERAL fundamental right of the citizens of the USA.


The following are a few laws protect the RIGHT to hunt on Federal Land...note the word Right..and also look at what the various laws of each state as well...Hunting is a Right of the individual..and there are penalties for violating these rights on all federal and state lands..Lands each U.S.A. citizens own..not the state..not the feds...all of us..The feds and the states are the caretakers of these lands...nothing more..even though there are members of the state legislators..and of congress and the senate who feel they own it...While each body can restrict acess at certain times under certain conditions..doesn't mean anything in this conversation we are having...the wording is quite clear and specific...These are laws protecting our RIGHTS...not privliages... 

CFR Subpart 4140.1(b)(9) (BLM)
36 CFR222.3(b (U.S.F.S)
Taylor Grazing Act,43 U.S.C Sec.315
Refuge Administration ACT 50 CFR 25-27
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C 1600-1614)

If hunting is a right...which it is as defined by these laws...then the means of hunting should also protected..and any law restricting our rights..should be fought tooth and nail by all.

Mac


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Get caught hunting without a license and try telling the judge it's your right. Same as driving - it's a privilege. This is exactly why some states are making it a right, because it's not spelled out as a right in most places.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Fellas , I didn't start this tread so we could attack each other, we are each entitled to our opinions, right , wrong, or indifferent, please let's keep it civil......

"Because we are a nation of individuals...not just a nation of people..We don't live by someone elses leave...or approval of what we do..We have individual rights...not collective rights.."

Mac, Sorry my friend, but we live by someone elses leave each and every day, our forefathers left us the constitution and bill of rights, did they not?, and many of our fellow citizens felt so strongly about it they gave their lives defending those leaves............

And fellas thanks for dropping the drunk driving scenarios in this discussion, that is a real sore spot with me, and has no place in this thread........

Here in Indiana, they have taken every opportunity to make sure each of us know that we have no right to hunt, Hunting privilages has been pounded into our head for as long as I can remember, and they can be taken away by many different means, yes, we walk on eggshells here to hunt, so we can hunt but are not free to hunt.......

What made me start this thread was the future, the future we will LEAVE our children and grandchildren, one day hunters will be tested for profficiency, not may, or can.... but WILL be tested, like it or not there will be no other choice, our only choice we have is to whether we want do do it on our own, in our own way, or have someone dictate their way to us........You know I speak the truth, Hunting is indeed one of the last great "Freedoms" in this country, and with every other freedom we have being questioned, it's only a matter of time before they get to hunting, seems to me that being pro-active in this would give us the needed ammo for when the government tries to mandate this, and mark my words, one day they will try........


----------



## foxbo (Apr 2, 2006)

I'm 57 years old and have been a woodsman/hunter all my life. Never found a wasted deer as a result of archery equipment. Have found many which were wasted/lost as the result of spraying buckshot. 

See no need for proficiency testing period. Now, if there was a test for the buckshot boys, they'd pass it in flying colors, but it still wouldn't prevent the wounding/lost rate. The shot selection and range is what matters. When the hounds are giving chase, how many deer are standing still when the shots are taken? 

So, if you're looking for wounding rates in eastern Virginia, it ain't the archery equipment, at least not from my experience.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> The following are a few laws protect the RIGHT to hunt on Federal Land...note the word Right..and also look at what the various laws of each state as well...Hunting is a Right of the individual..and there are penalties for violating these rights on all federal and state lands..Lands each U.S.A. citizens own..not the state..not the feds...all of us..The feds and the states are the caretakers of these lands...nothing more..even though there are members of the state legislators..and of congress and the senate who feel they own it...While each body can restrict acess at certain times under certain conditions..doesn't mean anything in this conversation we are having...the wording is quite clear and specific...These are laws protecting our RIGHTS...not privliages...
> 
> CFR Subpart 4140.1(b)(9) (BLM)
> 36 CFR222.3(b (U.S.F.S)
> ...


Ok... I agree that we have fundamental rights that cannot be abriged. That's great! Could you please provide the actual language links that you find these "rights" for me? I've tried to follow the citations you provided and I can't find anything that actually says that we have fundamental rights to hunt or fish. In fact, I've found more actual references as to language suggesting we don't have those "fundamental" rights, so if you have those... I'd be appreciative of it.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> The following are a few laws protect the RIGHT to hunt on Federal Land...note the word Right..and also look at what the various laws of each state as well...Hunting is a Right of the individual..and there are penalties for violating these rights on all federal and state lands..Lands each U.S.A. citizens own..not the state..not the feds...all of us..The feds and the states are the caretakers of these lands...nothing more..even though there are members of the state legislators..and of congress and the senate who feel they own it...While each body can restrict acess at certain times under certain conditions..doesn't mean anything in this conversation we are having...the wording is quite clear and specific...These are laws protecting our RIGHTS...not privliages...
> 
> CFR Subpart 4140.1(b)(9) (BLM)
> 36 CFR222.3(b (U.S.F.S)
> ...


Oh... one last thing... when you say laws restricting "our rights", what exactly do you mean. If a law says you can only shoot 1 deer a year instead of 5, is that restricting your rights or is that management? If a law suggests that you have to "pay to go hunting", is that a law restricting your rights or is that management? Can management laws restrict your right to hunt?


----------



## marc weier (May 26, 2009)

I really don't see the point. I know a guy that can shoot a 300 with 58 or 59 X's any day of the week with his compound but he freaks out on deer and can't hit one at 20 yards. You cannot test how someone will react when they are shooting at a live animal. I don't believe anyone gets better shooting at animals but they do get alot worse!


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> Fellas , I didn't start this tread so we could attack each other, we are each entitled to our opinions, right , wrong, or indifferent, please let's keep it civil......
> 
> "Because we are a nation of individuals...not just a nation of people..We don't live by someone elses leave...or approval of what we do..We have individual rights...not collective rights.."
> 
> ...


Voodoo...we do not live by another's leave...meaning we have a rights to hunt on any state or federal ground and can not be harassed for doing so..or imprisoned unjustly...The king is dead on this side of the pond..Yes...my relatives died helping to establish this nation as a independent country...and in every war or skirmish since then...including the Alamo...I know about the Bills of rights and the constitution...Federal or state lands can not be posted unless they have gone through the legalities of getting an exemption..and even then they can...and are being challenged in challenged in court.There are areas that are set aside for non-hunting..and these areas and reasons are clearly explained.These same laws that talk about our rights are being fought over in the courts under cases like States Rights vs the Federal Government...on a number of fronts..from wolf introductions..to land grabs by oil & timber&gold companies..to water rights to you name it...and we hunters are stuck in the middle just wanting access to these lands...since it is our right..to hunt it..on our lands...The language of these laws is very important to read..this will be especially so once it gets to the Supreme Court (which it is destined to be )..They will review the laws..and not only how they are written...but what they actually say..All one has to do is to look at 2 cases of late that went in front of them......District of Columbia v. Heller...and McDonald v. Chicago...Look at how they deliberated these 2 cases...and why they based their decisions they way they did..

All of these laws state 1 thing...a persons right to hunt...and this is a fact..Sadly we have allowed the states to strip away our rights by brainwashing us into believing it is a privilege..and then passing their own laws stating as such...in clear violation of the federals attempt to assure us of them..What states have enacted a Bill of Rights for hunters are being challenged as well..from every anti hunting gun hating groups and politician...and it will all be at a Federal level within the next 4 years..The democrats do not want to give up control to the Feds on this issue..why...after all of the BS is cleared...it all boils down to money...and who is paying...and how much they are willing to hand it out for those leases..I have talked to enough people both local and state Representatives to understand this sad fact..Money talks...and truth and honesty takes a walk..Those anti's want the court to at-least affirm...United States v. Cruikshank...so that they may limit the type of weapon..and yes..a bow will be designated a weapon..This is how they will argue it..If they win.._then the states can take out any or all classes of bow for what ever purpose it deems appropriate...or in-appropriate_..or apply any restrictions..fee's or yes...even your proficiency testing...but not until that time 

I give Thanks for that...

Hopefully enough states start the ratification process and not give up on it...if enough do..then there can always be a Constitutional Convention or just peruse it at the national level if enough votes can get it on the General ballot in time...That may take some serious door to door signing up to do... 


You are right about 1 thing...and that is being pro-active in all of this...If we bury our heads in the sand..and say it won't or can't happen...is a sure fire invitation for them to try...Edmund Burke said it best..."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Oh... one last thing... when you say laws restricting "our rights", what exactly do you mean. If a law says you can only shoot 1 deer a year instead of 5, is that restricting your rights or is that management? If a law suggests that you have to "pay to go hunting", is that a law restricting your rights or is that management? Can management laws restrict your right to hunt?


rattus...you are correct...there is no 1 big clause that states this fact...what you have to read the language..and where rights are mentioned..and how they are mentioned...

Can states manage game...yes they can..Can the Feds manage game...yes they can..We pay them to do just this with our voluntary taxes...This is what we are paying them to do...besides buy additional lands..and a whole slew of other things..The fees that are collected are used for game management and a ton of other things...Look at the states that have tried unsuccessfully to abscond with it and to put it into their general funds...but were stopped at the federal level...

Mac


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It is our God given right to rule over all the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves upon the ground. It isn't 'men' that originally gave us this right through laws or declarations. It was God who basically told us to be responsibile to manage our enviroment and the animals that live here with us. It is not to be abused. What we can do and should do when it's abused...is to hold those accountable for the abuse so that we can effectively manage as we should.

IMO...everyone has the right to hunt and not abuse it by knowing their personal limitations, doing everything possible to make a quick and clean kill and not causing any animal to become extinct. If a hunter is abusing that and is being careless than it is also our responsibilty to educate and/or discipline them until they no longer are abusing that right.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I agree, but I think those who would have it enumerated in a state or the US constitution would do better to base this right on its self-evident nature, not on a passing reference in a BLM regulation about grazing written in the 1970's. But whatever works, I guess. I don't see how a proficiency test relates, though.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Arrowwood said:


> I agree, but I think those who would have it enumerated in a state or the US constitution would do better to base this right on its self-evident nature, not on a passing reference in a BLM regulation about grazing written in the 1970's. But whatever works, I guess. I don't see how a proficiency test relates, though.


It's just the wording used in those bills that matters..Simply put...when the feds call it a right ( and they did when speaking in those various laws including the grazing rights bill)..when and where it is argued in a court room..anyone will be hard pressed just to say it's now privilege....Black Wolf is correct..in where the right was first given..and those hell bent to eradicate him from all traces of government will sight many things to remove his presence from this as well.In my readings..and from what I have gathered...a full 70% of this nation has no problem with us hunting..even though we number just a small percentage of that number who actually do..We best push the issue before those numbers change and our hunting areas are allowed to be logged out..or mined out and secure our rights either through a national level..or through each state..Personally..even though harder...I would much rather see it on a national level..Various states will fight it though...this I know...Some of these states feel they are the ones to administer all of the federal lands that reside within their boundaries..and dictate who and what is on it....instead of it being for all the people in this country...This has been a issue since the first federal lands have been set aside with them..

Mac


----------



## akduce (Feb 14, 2009)

I just took my proficancy test with a compound but intend to hunt with my long bow. Having said that I will continue practicing with my long bow until I am sure of my ability with it before I attempt to harvest an animal with it. Truth be told if i was using my long bow for the proficancy test id have failed. I can always use my compound until I reach proficancy with the long bow but i NOW have the rating.


----------



## akduce (Feb 14, 2009)

I just read through all the treads and it has come to more of a political issue than a conversation of pros and cons of proficancy testing with traditional vs compound. As I see it all harvest of game no matter if its a sling shot, rock, rifle, or bow depends on the ability of the harvester and his or her honest evaluation of their ability and mind set of a humane harvest. This can not be tested.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Hey, I never thought about that, that could be a requirement too, let's see here......what could we test to make sure the archery hunter can do his or her job?.......Mind set- we could require a visit to a shrink for approval, Camo too- we could have a fashion designer review for proper function, arrows and broadheads- send each and every one to an engineer for certification, String material- again send to a certified proffesional for certification, Boots, gloves, tabs, releases, string silencers, nock points....... how about the area?... we could require a certified biologist to review all property to be hunted by said individual........well heck, we could have each and every deer on that property darted and tested for health............kinda like herding cats isn't it?.......see we can come up with excuse after excuse, and it will come down to that, I'm sure, ...whenever you require a person to show a bit of responsibility, some will throw a hissy fit of the first order, and we wonder why this world is in the situation it is......... this thread started out with a simple question about a simple easy test... putting 4 out of 5 arrows into a 10" circle at 15 yds....and so far, God, Guns, Government, cheaters, rights, wrongs, privilages, what if's, anti's, and I'm sure I missed a few things, have been drug into this.........I've got a kid who would spend an hour arguing over something that could have been done in 5 minutes.......and he used every excuse in the book too, bet that doesn't work so well for him in prison, yep he's in prison till 2013, and the last straw he grabbed was my youngers son's name, a son who had never ever been in trouble, a son who has bent over backward helping not only him but many others too, his name is now ruined unjustly, so why do I bring this up?...Easy.......by a simple pro-active test, we can show the general public, many of whom are on the fence about hunting anyway, that we are responsible users of all our animal resources, see they own these animals too and like it or not have a vote in what we do with them ... We the people, remember that?, it's not We the archers, or We the hunters, it's We the people..........we can show them responsibility on our own, and maybe prevent some crap from being rammed down our throats later , or we can turn the other cheek, till we can't turn it any more, then come out fighting, whipping out excuse after excuse.... and that will show them what exactly?........think about that for a minute.... what will that show the general public about archery hunters? .....Will that really show archery hunters in a good light?.....Fellas, like I said before, it's coming, ...look around....we hear of profficiency testing being used in new areas all the time...and every year more areas are being added to that list.. ever hear of that test being dropped from an area?........... the choice is ours, now I don't want any more government intrusion than any of you, but the way I see it, if we don't do something on our own, that choice will be made for us......... and then we won't have any choice at all..........


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Steve,

"...whenever you require a person to show a bit of responsibility, some will throw a hissy fit of the first order, and we wonder why this world is in the situation it is........."

I think the point being made here is that the type of test you put up for discussion *doesn't[\b] test for responsibility.*


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Well not every responsibility known to man J, ... just the responsibility to put 4 arrows in a 10" circle at 15yds......, nothing more..........There will always be those that can and will abuse any system, heck some people just live for that, so it will do nothing more than test whether a person in responsible enough to do this under controlled conditions.....Granted it is not under actual hunting conditions, but hey who among us has not taken any type of profficiency test in front of another without being a bit nervous.....Archery is about control, if someone can't control themselves in this simple test......would it be a big leap to say they might not be able to do it in the woods either?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

voodoo - so you are actually advocating this test? If such a test were ever passed - I promise you it will not stop at a 10" circle at 15 yards. For one thing - a ten inch circle creates a huge margin of error that anyone could easily demonstrate shows a level of accuracy that is really not good at all. Before you know it it would be a 5" circle at 20 yards - and then only the top trad shooters would be allowed in the woods with a bow.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

No, just trying to get people to think and offer solutions...... but I really do believe it's coming like a train down the tracks, we can feel the vibrations, we can hear the sound,.........but it's still a ways off.........I just believe it would be better to be prepared when it gets here.......but like about anything else that happens in this country..... people will stand there and argue, fight, whine, cry, and moan till it runs right over them.... and then wonder.... what the heck happened? ...am I wrong?......anyone see this not being in our future?....


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> voodoo - so you are actually advocating this test? If such a test were ever passed - I promise you it will not stop at a 10" circle at 15 yards. For one thing - a ten inch circle creates a huge margin of error that anyone could easily demonstrate shows a level of accuracy that is really not good at all. Before you know it it would be a 5" circle at 20 yards - and then only the top trad shooters would be allowed in the woods with a bow.


+1

Not only that...but these so-called test are only the first step in out lawing anything they are associated with..be it archery..shotguns..pistols..rifles..or muzzle-loaders...and while I do think someone should have a certain skill set before taking to the field to hunt is why I also strongly support hunter education programs..that teach....not make a requirement of proficiency of marksmanship...I oppose any testing that will take away tax dollars from a ever decreasing available amount that can be used for more land acquisition..and more State run hunter education facilities..If you want better hunters...build better and more ranges and make more of them available for people to be able to have a place to go and shoot...and there really won't be a need for any proficiency testing..Mandating a certain level of accuracy for a hunting licenses is a loosing proposition all around...We need more staffed public ranges..and qualified personnel to staff them... 

If anyone here blindly accepts that hunting is a privilege...instead of our God given right to be able to feed our families if we so choose..then that is their choice..I certainly wouldn't want to try to tell a landowner/farmer/rancher he can't hunt or shoot the game on his land to feed his family...or cull the animals that are destroying his crops or land...that he can't do so legally until he takes a test to see if he can shoot well enough to satisfy some public official...I have a very good idea of what he would tell you...and I bet it won't be P.C. or for that matter even very polite...


Mac


----------



## Runningbuck (Mar 11, 2009)

Our god given right to hunt is available only after our hard earned cash is surrendered for a hunting licence. In most states one needs to take a hunter ed course to purchase the license. As part of the class one needs to show both safe handling and marksmenship skills.(no test is looking for the next world class shooter) Without mediocre skills why would you allow someone to enter public land with a weapon? Who takes on the liability for issue of the license in the case of a accident? We live in a day and age where everyone has a lawyer in their back pocket and accountability goes farther then the individule who dropped the string. The number of hunters we have in the USA today is a fraction of what we had in the 1960's but the amount of laws regarding hunting continue to grow. As passionate as we are about our sport, we are doing a disservice to all involved if we do not continue to police our ranks with better education and testing.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> Well not every responsibility known to man J, ... just the responsibility to put 4 arrows in a 10" circle at 15yds......, nothing more..........There will always be those that can and will abuse any system, heck some people just live for that, so it will do nothing more than test whether a person in responsible enough to do this under controlled conditions.....Granted it is not under actual hunting conditions, but hey who among us has not taken any type of profficiency test in front of another without being a bit nervous.....Archery is about control, if someone can't control themselves in this simple test......would it be a big leap to say they might not be able to do it in the woods either?


Standing in front of a target doesn't represent shooting from a sitting position with a backpack on either... :grin: I think proficiency awareness is a damn good idea personally.. and I encourage it, but testing for hunting doesn't test for judgement, doesn't test for shooter mental conditioning, doesn't test for vision, and it only allows that you and your equipment can deliver an arrow to a target accurately. I blame the hunter education program myself for not encouraging more of a hands on range awareness before passing. 

A hunter education card allows you to hunt in all 50 states, canada, mexico, some south american countries, Europe and Asia... with just about anything... There are some places that you need a Bowhunter Education Card to hunt, but that is rarely the case. Range time with all types of equipment to familiarize yourself with proper handling of equipment such as bow and arrow, pellet gun even can do the job on teaching fundamentals and actually deliver a bullet to a target, and crossbows I think would round the program. Airguns are legal for hunting in some states now and I'm also pushing that along with crossbows for Hawaii.

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

The last Bowhunter ed class I attended, almost half the participants had never even held a bow, I asked!.....I also asked who was going bowhunting that year, all but two raised their hands..........Well, what happened to the sno-balling in this instance?.......what I mean is... If the government is so concerned with sticking it's nose in things,as some of you have said.... why on earth have they not at least insisted on proper hands on weapon handling, let alone testing in this? ... there is no test what so ever.... you go, you listen, and then you leave with a card........ That means what exactly?... that you sat in a room and listened (maybe) to someone talk about hunting......an education of any kind without testing is meaningless.....and in seeing and experiencing this myself, your government intrusion sno-balling cup, just doesn't hold water.......


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> The last Bowhunter ed class I attended, almost half the participants had never even held a bow, I asked!.....I also asked who was going bowhunting that year, all but two raised their hands..........Well, what happened to the sno-balling in this instance?.......what I mean is... If the government is so concerned with sticking it's nose in things,as some of you have said.... why on earth have they not at least insisted on proper hands on weapon handling, let alone testing in this? ... there is no test what so ever.... you go, you listen, and then you leave with a card........ That means what exactly?... that you sat in a room and listened (maybe) to someone talk about hunting......an education of any kind without testing is meaningless.....and in seeing and experiencing this myself, your government intrusion sno-balling cup, just doesn't hold water.......


What you just illustrated, is what I feel is wrong with the programs, of which I've been a member for 20 years... and keep trying... However, on our Advanced Bowhunter Course, you get all the basics... but we don't provide ANYTHING in the basic Hunter Ed Class along the lines of handling. Like you said... you come, you listen, and you take a written. I'd like to have a range day as part of it to put something in your hands at least.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Runningbuck (Mar 11, 2009)

I took my bowhunters ed class in 1971 and part of the class was stringing your bow(pre compound era) sharpening broadheads and shooting(you had to put 3 out of 5 in the heart/lung area) some kids had to shoot a couple of times before they got a passing grade.


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

The thought of more government involvement in anything is always a concern for me. That being said I do feel that there needs to be some way of setting a minimum standard for those who would be running around the woods with a weapon. I personally have been shot at 3 too many times by some citiot in a mid-life crisis that read someting about hunting and manhood. I think setting up something like drivers ed would work. You would have to seek certification from an approved expert in the private sector. It could be set up to where you simply took a hands-on test useing whatever weapon you wanted the license for and if you passed the test great, if not you'd be required to take a course in that weapon and it's use.


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

If I was sitting in the other camp I would be overjoyed at seeing hunters want to take “the pro-active position of doing the right thing” and “freely submit” to any form of testing…and that such an opening might exist in one of the SMALLEST segments of the hunting community, so much the better. Unlike any high profile, drawn-out, expensive quarrelling with the NRA, this “welcoming” of regulation would cost nothing but accomplish more.

The real problem is many-fold…and as much as I understand “pro-actively doing the right thing” it does, in fact, give recognition to the game and, more importantly, announce the opposing team. Entering this, or any other such game with naiveté, would be poor counsel.

And, just to clarify “the game” a bit more, the “rules of the game” do not follow any sensible course of Game Theory, in that win-win is not in the realm of possibility from the onset. Therefore, the only possible thing that can present is ILLUSION…and, with that said I’ll ask the question, Is the “pro-active solution” being presented an offensive or defensive position? Again, either choice brings recognition to the other camp which, in fact elevates their position on a playing field of THEIR OWN creation.

It is no secret that rules/laws have a psychologically binding effect on good people…but the same can be, and often is, interpreted as paralysis. From years of personal experience dancing with “those opposed” I can tell you that any comfort that comes from playing by the rules hardly measures up to the laughter coming from the other side. Rules and the steadfast righteousness to play by them puts you in a box governed by its limitations…while your opponent HAS NONE, and gains even more freedom to initiate the next attack.

Being that we all have the presumed rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (by reasonable measure, a/k/a “what a reasonable person would do”) I harbor no basic ill-will for those that choose not to hunt, fish, own guns, bows, slingshots, or whatever for their own reasons and/or beliefs. Given a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, there is no justification for me to impose my reasons/beliefs on others…just as there is no justification in others trying to abolish mine and bring me to living my life according to their whim.

Again, as I said, the REAL problem is many-fold…but as much as offering proof of being a proficient shooter/hunter (unkindly translated: killer) might seem to satisfy our own ethical “requirements” and possibly offer favorable recognition to some outsiders…I can guarantee that it will not appease those who have us in their crosshairs. Simply put, their goal is to eliminate us…and, IMO, ours would then need to be NOT engaging them in the game that plays by their rules. In their game they win…period. “Rising to such an occasion” is illusionary…you can only trip and fall. Instead, IMO, the tactic should be giving invitation that allows for displays of anger/hatred…and this will happen of its own accord, shortly after NOT taking the bait. Know your enemies and Take Care, Rick.


----------



## longbowhunter (Mar 5, 2004)

I say No to testing. There are many good shooters out there, that just cannot shoot well when being stared down or in a crowd. I think this is particularly true of newer inexperienced shooters. Fred Bear understood this and was against proficiency testing, as well. Unless someone is a born natural (I sure wasn't), consistently good shooting develops over time, with experience and maturity comes confidence. As long as a bow hunter stays within their personal zone of comfort that is all that matters. 

Editing my post. Because this is a good discussion just the same. When I first started bow hunting in 1970, I did not even have a Bowhunter Ed course per say. All I had to do was buy an Archery Stamp! I wish to God they did have Bowhunter Education then, having no mentor other than my peers and magazines...... all I can say is.. experience is a tough teacher. Make the newbies ake bow hunter education classes, absolutely. Have them take a written test, absolutely. Test there marksmanship with a Bow - NO. Give them the knowledge, the rest regarding skill and ethics is on their conscience.


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

It won,t happen in michigan or alot of other states. They want to sell hunting permit an want your money. If there,s money to made the states will take it. They don,t care if you are a good shot. more hunters equals more money the states so don,t worry about tests for a very long time. An only a fool would want testings cause that would cost you more money. There would be a fee for testing or higher price of hunting permit. Cars an trucks wound more game then hunting by far. So just slow down an go hunting or walk to your hunting spot.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rickstix said:


> If I was sitting in the other camp I would be overjoyed at seeing hunters want to take “the pro-active position of doing the right thing” and “freely submit” to any form of testing…and that such an opening might exist in one of the SMALLEST segments of the hunting community, so much the better. Unlike any high profile, drawn-out, expensive quarrelling with the NRA, this “welcoming” of regulation would cost nothing but accomplish more.
> 
> The real problem is many-fold…and as much as I understand “pro-actively doing the right thing” it does, in fact, give recognition to the game and, more importantly, announce the opposing team. Entering this, or any other such game with naiveté, would be poor counsel.
> 
> ...


Yes...this is what I have been saying all along......


The solution to a mandatory proficiency test....is a national issue...one where all states give the same written test....the same awareness course...but to do that..will require some effort between the states...and since many feel they hold the rights...to not only all of the federal land..but state land..I don't see it happening anytime soon..Now..on a national level...if there were a initiative to make the feds allocate money for their own ranges and training centers along with staffed ranges on B.L.M. Land...that might be a way around it...but then we are right back on the slippery slope already in place with the states vs the feds...The resistance is from the states relinquishing control...and taking land and the revenues earned off of it by drilling..mining..clear cutting..and grazing..... away from some of the states and all of those lucrative contracts for certain special interest companies...It's what I said before...


So...while all of that is going on...we are loosing land to hunt...the animals are loosing their habitat....some archers are worried about the over crowding on public lands and Bambi getting wounded..and want to capitulate and help the anti's by giving them a reason to get this mandatory for all hunting...while not really wanting to fight for our God Given Rights...I'm sorry...but this is what I am seeing here...Well...I have a better idea...why don't we start a campaign to get 1 standard nation wide for Hunter Education with out a proficiency test...Hands on training...yes...a written exam...yes...range time...yes...but the same everyone...in every state...The feds already collect the revenue..and most states have some sort of state run facility paid for by us already...Let's try to make it the same...I say this for a 2 fold reason...If we can get this done for us..the rest of the hunting community will follow...and it will make it easier in the long run if they do..because if we are ever to succeed for a nation wide concealed carry law..this will help...This to me is a common sense approach that can utilize already existing resources..and not take anything away from any state..and take away some ammunition that is holding things up for us.

Mac


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

northern boy said:


> It won,t happen in michigan or alot of other states. They want to sell hunting permit an want your money. If there,s money to made the states will take it. They don,t care if you are a good shot. more hunters equals more money the states so don,t worry about tests for a very long time. An only a fool would want testings cause that would cost you more money. There would be a fee for testing or higher price of hunting permit. Cars an trucks wound more game then hunting by far. So just slow down an go hunting or walk to your hunting spot.



:thumbs_up...Van


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

I'm loving this.. So far everyone is vociferously proclaiming freedom, freedom, hunter responsibility... government no no no.... and the like I may have missed it, but no one is suggesting or affirming that being proficient is a good thing. Mentors tend to provide for proficiency, but I get the impression that mentoring has been declining, and without states like Georgia, Texas and maybe others who are waiving hunter ed requirements for the first couple of years of youngsters getting into the field to do mentoring, it would probably be in free fall.

Proficiency... no one here seems to give a whit, except just don't apply it to me... 

So what is the point of proficiency? What does the word mean? What does it mean to you? Aparently as long as its not imposed, proficiency is a good thing.... Amazing philosophical is what *I'm getting* from this.


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

northern boy said:


> It won,t happen in michigan or alot of other states. They want to sell hunting permit an want your money. If there,s money to made the states will take it. They don,t care if you are a good shot. more hunters equals more money the states so don,t worry about tests for a very long time. An only a fool would want testings cause that would cost you more money. There would be a fee for testing or higher price of hunting permit. Cars an trucks wound more game then hunting by far. So just slow down an go hunting or walk to your hunting spot.


You'll have to pardon this "fool" for thinking that having fellow hunters in the woods that have at least a slight inkling as to what they are doing is a good thing. Requiring first time hunters of all types show they at least have a basic proficiency with their weapon of choice before they can get a license will make the sport safer and will upgrade the public view of hunters in general. I find it scary the number of yahoos around here that have the "if it moves, shoot it " attitude. If you think that those who oppose hunting are going to pick out your average responsible Joe hunters as examples, you are wrong. They will and have used the lowest and most ignorant sob that bought his weapon on Wednesday, took an online course on Thursday, got his license on friday, and is shooting at anything that moves (including you) on Saturday.

I'm not thinking anything more drastic or more complex than getting a drivers license. A written test, a weapons test, and a license.

I have no wish for getting the government more involved in our lives, I'd like to back um up about 50 paces as it is now. But I do feel that if we as hunters will design and do what needs to be done now, we will save having someone elses ideas shoved down our gullets later.

NB, for what it's worth I agree with you about the money, more, more, more. but until we the people call BS and hold the Gov to what's right it will continue.


----------



## SavageBows (Mar 21, 2011)

No, I think testing would be ridiculous for all the same reasons listed above. Traditional archers shouldn't be singled out.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Daidohead said:


> You'll have to pardon this "fool" for thinking that having fellow hunters in the woods that have at least a slight inkling as to what they are doing is a good thing. Requiring first time hunters of all types show they at least have a basic proficiency with their weapon of choice before they can get a license will make the sport safer and will upgrade the public view of hunters in general. I find it scary the number of yahoos around here that have the "if it moves, shoot it " attitude. If you think that those who oppose hunting are going to pick out your average responsible Joe hunters as examples, you are wrong. They will and have used the lowest and most ignorant sob that bought his weapon on Wednesday, took an online course on Thursday, got his license on friday, and is shooting at anything that moves (including you) on Saturday.
> 
> I'm not thinking anything more drastic or more complex than getting a drivers license. A written test, a weapons test, and a license.
> 
> ...


I guess that makes a lot of us here _fools_ then...

Tell me something...How are you going to get all 50 states to administer this test so it will be accepted in all 50 states ? What are you wanting to see happen for those states (and there will be ) that don't have any testing...How will those hunters be able to hunt out of state...? How often will you have to take it...1x...or every year you want to hunt with your bow...and again what about out of state hunters... ? What about landowners...? Are they going to have to take this test every year to hunt on their own property ?

Hunting isn't a privilege...it's a God Given Right...and yes..I know full well we have to pay for that right..if we want to be legal..but never the less...it is still your right to be able to put food on the table if you have to..Now...one last thing...How in the hell is it going to make us look any better in the eyes of those who don't want us hunting in the first place when you still will have slob hunters in the woods...Do you actual think all slob hunters are poor marksmen ?? Answer...it isn't...and there are plenty of slob hunters than are accurate enough to pas any proficiency test given...Do you think they will change from how they hunt now...to being any better...I seriously doubt it...All of the polls I've seen place hunting approval at 70+%...and this includes non-hunters as well...While the animal rights groups are the most vocal..they aren't the majority yet...but are spending millions to be able to take our rights away..or limit us so severely that we give up hunting all together...

I say start calling your State Representatives and get a Hunters Rights Bill passed and written into your state constitutions...There is strength in numbers...and the more that have it the better we all will be...While your at it..call your state conservation department and ask if they have something like this for your schools...http://mdc.mo.gov/education/inside-classroom/missouri-national-archery-schools-program...Let's get all of kids a chance at this..

Mac


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

MAC 11700 said:


> I guess that makes a lot of us here _fools_ then...
> 
> Tell me something...How are you going to get all 50 states to administer this test so it will be accepted in all 50 states ? What are you wanting to see happen for those states (and there will be ) that don't have any testing...How will those hunters be able to hunt out of state...? How often will you have to take it...1x...or every year you want to hunt with your bow...and again what about out of state hunters... ? What about landowners...? Are they going to have to take this test every year to hunt on their own property ?
> 
> ...


My use of "fool" was in reference to Northern Boy's definition, I was refering to myself if that wasn't clear.

I doubt seriously if you'd ever get all 50 states to agree. most game laws are state dictated.

To hunt out of state you'd do the same as you do now, abide by the laws of the state you want to hunt in.

Test only 1 time, At the same time as you'd do your hunter safty course with your first license.

If a land owner needs a license in their state to do what they want to do then they should get one.

It will make us as hunters look better in the public eye because we, as hunters are actively working on keeping our house in order. I said nothing about looking good to those that would shut us down. It's the non hunting, dont care either way public that I feel will be most influenced by our actions, good or bad.

"slob" hunters are what they are and I am not suggesting teaching ethics to anyone. If you want to open the mind of a "slob hunter, take one hunting, show um the right way. ( it does sometimes help)

My thoughts on this subject in this (no dad around to teach me world) were just to help ensure that those that were entering the hunting world had enough basic education in their weapon of choice as to not be a danger to themselves or others.

God given right, I agree. Regulated by the US government. "If we want to be legal".


What would the "hunters bill of rights" have in it?


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

voodoofire1 said:


> No, just trying to get people to think and offer solutions...... but I really do believe it's coming like a train down the tracks, we can feel the vibrations, we can hear the sound,.........but it's still a ways off.........I just believe it would be better to be prepared when it gets here.......but like about anything else that happens in this country..... people will stand there and argue, fight, whine, cry, and moan till it runs right over them.... and then wonder.... what the heck happened? ...am I wrong?......anyone see this not being in our future?....


100% agree, It's coming. I think most just stand there looking at the train.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Although I do think it would be a good Idea from a hunting standpoint, there's just no way it could work with the government involved and keep trad archery alive in the process too..... if it were implemented today.......How many trad archers would we lose because of it?........I'm thinking somewhere in the 25-50% range.......and taking that into account we would be nothing short of targets in a shooting gallery to the anti's once 50% of trad archers were gone, especially if the results for the tests were made public, they wouldn't be gone from hunting though, most would pick up a compound, crossbow or gun and head to the woods anyway.......kinda blows when you really think about it.....as there is no really correct answer......danged if you do, danged if you don't, and if this thread has made you look in the mirror and take a real hard look at your own abilities, that in itself is a good thing, and possibly the best thing that could happen with this thread, so fellas, get out there..... practice and enjoy this freedom while we still have it.........


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

I think I should be in charge of Trad proficiency. The testing would only cost $500 per session and I will fill the gov. agencies with alot of people who know very little about shooting but certainly know how to collect fees. its ok though, the money will go to good conservation causes, trust me. Been to motor vehicle lately? lol.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> I've come to conclusions that those that don't want testing don't have confidence in themselves as shooters,


So Billy or Jimmy or Bob don't want more bureaucracy in their lives therefore they're lousy shots?!?!?!?! That's stupid! By a reasonable extension of that same "logic" all good law abiding citizens should be out there actively seeking to repeal the 4th Amendment and all protection against unreasonable search and seizure. After all we have nothing to hide so bad guys must be the only ones who want those rights.

Pilotmill got it! All those idiot drivers you see every day? They have all been deemed "proficient" by the government. Does anybody here honestly think that any sort of hunting proficiency testing as applied by the government will be one bit better than DMV?

And speaking of such, saw a "Department of Peace" bumper sticker today. Just about fell over laughing. I know the poor ignorant fool sporting that sticker had no clue that it was like something straight out of Orwell's "1984" And yes that's relevant to the present conversation because remember, not all conspiracies are only theories.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Amazing philosophical is what I'm getting from this.


Then you are missing the point by a mile.



> So what is the point of proficiency? What does the word mean?


Exactly--just what is "proficiency"? Who gets to decide? Must you be proficient at your own self-imposed limits, or by someone else's? So you can hit the "kill" every time at 15 yds--who's going to be standing over your shoulder to keep you from launching a 75 yd. hail mary if you are so inclined? I guess we should just be sure and test everyone at 75 yds then?



> I've come to conclusions that those that don't want testing don't have confidence in themselves as shooters,...


Your "conclusions" don't equal fact--far from it actually. A great many of us actually spend a lot of time and money in order to go shoot in front of and with our peers--I've done this for years, travelling to tournaments and rendevous from TX to PA.

You don't have to make any assumptions or jump to any conclusions--simply read the logical, common sense reasoning behind the objections. It's much more accurate that relying on imagination.

Chad


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Ok evidently someone saw this horse twitch again......So...... just imagine for a moment if there were no tests for drivers, they just handed a license out to anyone with a couple bucks and a desire to drive just like they hand out a hunting license.......come on now, what do you think?... would the roads be safer?, would it make any difference at all? or would you hope and pray that your friends and family came home safe every time they left the driveway?........Don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out........Sure the roads are dangerous, it's the nature of the beast when you put a human, who can and does make mistakes, in control of a 4000 pound missle.....How many friends have you seen buried due to motor vehicle accidents?....I've seen plenty.. including my own son..... so by applying the same thinking to motor vehicles as many of you have done with hunting..... why not just abolish driving tests?.....people are killed and maimed each and every day with them, and people will be killed and maimed without them too... so why even bother?............see how stupid that sounds?.......

And there's no room for hail mary shots in archery, so why don't we just test everyone out to 150 yards......then there will be no hail mary shots at all......see there's another stupid statement........I could do this all day long......we could do this the rest of our lives too, but it doesn't change the fact that we should do something before it's done for us......

This could be really simple too, wouldn't take much effort at all to see some results either, and it could be done without any government interference at all.... which is what we all worry about right?......
Well here it is plain and simple.....

.................................................................THE HUNTERS TEST....................................................

.........................................Can you put 4 out of 5 arrows into this 10" circle at 15 yards...................

...............................Taking this test in no way guarantees that you can or will harvest game..............

..........................................it is only here to test yourself, against yourself......................................

........................................and if you fail, do not give up, but please practice more...........................

...........................................and if you pass, please do not practice less.........................................

...........................................there are no guarantees in the woods or fields.............................

............But taking of this test will only let you know whether have the basic capabilities to harvest game......

.....................................................The rest is up to you........................................................................

Now what I've written here is just a suggestion, but take that and put it on a poster board next to a target of your choice at your shoot in a very prominate area, and on that target place a 10" circle ...also of your choice..........and let those that will take it....... do so.......... see we as archers may or may not want to challenge ourselves against other archers, but not a one of us can resist challenging ourselves...........that's why we practice, and as we get better do we not increase the challenge to ourselves, and increase our own standards in the process?..........See I really believe this would work, it's really no different when you think about it than shooting just another target shooting wise, but it is different brain wise.... I believe people will approach this target with a different mindset than just a regular target........granted it won't prevent stupid, but it's a start......


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

I,m not calling you a fool. But why would think testing is in the benfit of hunting. You go hunting to get rid of socity problems an enjoy the woods an widelife getting game is a bonus for the table. I don,t want to be sitting in the woods thinking can I past the test next year or is my last year of hunting. For exsample I test myself an bows with a 300 round at 20 yd,s but I only shoot 20 arrows an times it by 3. This mourning I shoot my quinn stallion an a 234 standing then a shot my maddog longbow sitting on a bucket an shot a 198. a couple of those shots were out of 9 inch 3 point ring. so I just I fail the test an can,t go hunting thanks to you an other like you. Please don,t put your values on other people thats why we end up with stuid laws. I practice to enjoy the sport an not worry about a test. An why would I want to drive somewhere to take this test an waste gas an instructor time. It proves nothing about hunting an is bad thinking. Most trad hunter practice more then the compound shooters already. Why because they enjoy it an getting game is more rewarding to them an a little harder to do. So please don,t try to take freedom from other hunters . Cause you think testing is needed. I will police myself thank you.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"I will police myself thank you."

Did you read my post?.......How about these words right here:"............it is only here to test yourself, against yourself......................"

Is that not another way to say the shooter is policing themselves? ...If I'm wrong about what those words mean, please enlighten me....

And you have no Idea what my values are, and if you knew me even one little bit you would know that I am the last one on earth that would try and take Freedom away from anyone...... unless they were commiting a crime that is......see I come from a long line of fellas that thought Freedom was important enough to protect by serving their country by enlisting, none were ever forced into it by a draft, or in lieu of jail, as some have done, and that includes myself, and my son who died while in service to this country....... see this isn't about taking freedom, it's about protecting the freedom we already have.........there are a whole mess of fellas up in Washington DC who's sole job it is to introduce, and pass laws... their political future depends on it...... sooner or later, as our population gets bigger, our wide open expanses get smaller, and hunting opportunities diminish..... there will be more hunters in any given space........ they WILL focus on us..........there are profficiency tests in many populated areas already........ is it a leap to think it will happen everywhere?......No it's just common sense.......sooner or later our government will implement profficiency testing just like the governments already have in Europe......when?....who knows.... but it will change the way we hunt, and will change who hunts too...... hunting use to be about feeding your family, but that's gone for the most part now....... just look at the hunting shows......the biggest rack is king..........meat and potato how to's barely make a 2 minute segment if they make it at all..... the general population sees this and even if they don't like hunting are forgiving of those who hunt to put food on the table......but not so forgiving of horn porn, and what I mean by that is: killing for food is acceptable to most anyone, killing just because it has a big rack or horns is acceptable to a lot less of them.....we have non hunters and anti's watching our every move and what I have suggested may or may not make a difference in the grand scheme of things to come, but it will at least show an effort, and at most will keep the wolves at bay a little bit longer...and we have to face fact, there are a lot of wolves out there who would like nothing more that a heaping serving of hunters......
You know fool may be the right word, I thought that others would have seen what I've seen, and heard what I've heard, and in turn be open to my suggestion, but in seeing the responses posted, that is just not the case, so I guess I may be a fool to think we can make a difference in our hunting future......


----------



## longbowhunter (Mar 5, 2004)

Wow! I wish other hunting groups like Rifle Hunters, Shotgun Hunters, Handgun Hunters, Muzzleloaders, Compounders.... Wish they all had the same level of scrutiny that our Trad Police dish out. Sorry... I have been a hunter education instructor for 20 years, and a maksmanship instructor for ten years before that. I know I am not the only hunter ed instructor on this site. When it comes to "proficiency" just what is the issue? Wounded game, crippling losses? Ethics? Fact - ethics like values cannot be taught, you reach a certain age and you are expected to know what is right from wrong - period. Mandatory education is great, validating by exam they know it, is great. Mandating the New Sylvan Archers are all Robin Hoods or Howard Hill prodigies is wrong. Give them all the help they need, the rest is a matter of gaining experience and maturity in the sport. Give them all the help they need, but to stand tere and single some out as "good enough" and others as "not good enough" is wrong. Nice way to discourage the next Teddy Rosevelt from the outdoor sports. 

For the record.. Traditional Bowhunters have the lowest percentage f crippling losses for all hunting groups out there, including lower than the compound hunter. Anyone who picks up a stick and string to hunt with, has already reached a plateau in the hunting game that few would follow or accept the challenge. 

Speaking of proficiency... are there any IBO top 10 in the Traditional category on this thread?


----------



## longbowhunter (Mar 5, 2004)

Wow! I wish other hunting groups like Rifle Hunters, Shotgun Hunters, Handgun Hunters, Muzzleloaders, Compounders.... Wish they all had the same level of scrutiny that our Trad Police dish out. Sorry... I have been a hunter education instructor for 20 years, and a maksmanship instructor for ten years before that. I know I am not the only hunter ed instructor on this site. When it comes to "proficiency" just what is the issue? Wounded game, crippling losses? Ethics? Fact - ethics like values cannot be taught, you reach a certain age and you are expected to know what is right from wrong - period. Mandatory education is great, validating by exam they know it, is great. Mandating the New Sylvan Archers are all Robin Hoods or Howard Hill prodigies is wrong. Give them all the help they need, the rest is a matter of gaining experience and maturity in the sport. Give them all the help they need, but to stand there and single some out as "good enough" and others as "not good enough" is wrong. Nice way to discourage the next Teddy Rosevelt from the outdoor sports. 

For the record.. Traditional Bowhunters have the lowest percentage of crippling losses for all hunting groups out there, including lower than the compound hunter. Anyone who picks up a stick and string to hunt with, has already reached a plateau in the hunting game that few would follow or accept the challenge. 

Speaking of proficiency... are there any IBO top 10 in the Traditional category on this thread?


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Well it seems I'm overwelmingly outnumbered by both emotional and very well presented points of view, so as far as I'm concerned this Idea has been "busted", but I gotta say, I ran into this same kind of resistance after my son was killed and we wanted to use our story to try and help prevent other young people from being killed by drunk drivers...... no one would help us, no one wanted to talk about it and even after I secured a venue where 100,000 people over 9 days would see the issue, the biggest anti drunk driving group in the country stood us up 3 times after saying they would be there.....I never understood that and I'll never understand this either, you speak of people being expected to know right and wrong by a certain age, well it seems there is a grey area in between where dirty little secrets are kept that no one wants to touch, look at, or in some cases even speak of......I believe I just found another one of them with this thread............but not to worry... I won't bring this up ever again.......


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

The Fed, State, and local governments tell us where, when, how, and what you can legaly hunt. And your worried that a simple test for new hunters will limit your freedom ? When a fellow hunter that sees what the future may bring and brings up an idea that may in a small way help the general image of hunters and keep some of the uneducated ignorant fruitloops out of the woods until they can show at least a basic knowlage as to what they are doing, they get labled as "ethics police " ? Those that would eliminate our "right to hunt" are working the legal system to do it. The day will come when we as hunters will have to defend our "right to hunt" in a tree hugger friendly court and I hope we can do more than stand and grunt.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

What LongbowHunter said . 
Smart and wise man that Steve !


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Daidohead said:


> The Fed, State, and local governments tell us where, when, how, and what you can legaly hunt. And your worried that a simple test for new hunters will limit your freedom ? When a fellow hunter that sees what the future may bring and brings up an idea that may in a small way help the general image of hunters and keep some of the uneducated ignorant fruitloops out of the woods until they can show at least a basic knowlage as to what they are doing, they get labled as "ethics police " ? Those that would eliminate our "right to hunt" are working the legal system to do it. The day will come when we as hunters will have to defend our "right to hunt" in a tree hugger friendly court and I hope we can do more than stand and grunt.


What good will taking any kind of test do against those who want us to stop hunting completely...?

For the others...

Hunting with a bow is not like driving a car..and can not even be compared to it..and no test is going to make us better hunters...only better education...practice and experiance will.....and getting a good dose of ethics along the way won't hurt anything neither....Some will become better..others won't.

We will never appease those who want to take our God Given rights away..and making any additional requirements is just kowtowing to these groups..and something I refuse to do..

Mac


----------



## Iron drinker (May 12, 2011)

Van/TX said:


> Am I the only Republican here ;-)...Van


No, your not


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

too many trad shooters are afraid they cant put the arrow in a paper plate from 15 yds LOL I dont recall anyone saying they had to be he next Robin Hood. But if you cant hit a 9" target from 45 feet you have no business flingin arrows at live animals. My .02


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"Hunting with a bow is not like driving a car..and can not even be compared to it..and no test is going to make us better hunters"

Mac you are exactly right, in the 110 years or so since it's inception Driving for many has become a nessesity for many, but has always remained a privilage, while hunting has done just the opposite, it started out a nessesity, a god given right if you will, but has now it seems become a sport for pleasure that many view now as a privilage, and you know when I started this thread I truly believed hunting to be one of our rights given to us by our creator, but somewhere along this thread, I don't know where, I don't know with what post, my mind has changed, killing for sport and pleasure should be a privilage, God didn't say go forth and kill because it was fun or because it was big, he gave us the right with our very birth to feed ourselves, but we humans have changed that , we no longer need to hunt for our food, we can just jump in the car, and run down to the store or restaurant and eat your fill.......Hunting has went from a creator intended right to a human changed sport for pleasure........ and I wanted to protect what I thought was a right by showing those naysayers and the general public that we are responsible caretakers of what the creator has provided us by showing just a teensy bit of responsible shooting skill, but it has met with resistance that I never counted on and through these responses it dawned on me that we had changed the game... see the people who really need to hunt food the most, stand in line at the local soup kitchen or food stamp line waiting for their handout while the people who need to hunt the least, do hunt and pay the bills and sometimes donate their kills to those that need to be out there providing for themselves......and this seems wrong to me.......if it is indeed a right why aren't the truly needy given a hunting license instead of a handout?...Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime....I've heard that old saying a million times, and I know what it means, and they were and still are very wise words, but we have changed that old saying to more like, Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, Then tomorrow I'll go out and catch him another fish".......so where is the right in that?.......see I'll fight tooth and nail to protect a right,anyones right, but privilages by their very definition are the responsibility of those who choose take advantage of them......and also... in this thread it has been insinuated that I, by posting my ideas,wish to take away a bit of our freedom.....Well, let me tell all of you something right here and now, I freely served in our military because I believed it was my duty to serve our country and protect the freedoms that are so dear to my family, my mothers family name is Velasquez, and her parents were illegal aliens, but they did not hide, they worked hard, they raised 8 children and not one time did they ever ask for public assistance of any type, and of those 8 children, 5 were sons who served in our military with honor because they felt it was the right thing to do, one of the last things my son ever said to me was this little statement that I had engraved on a big rock at the entrance of our drive...."FREEDOM, It's the best thing in life!".... see my son felt the call to duty too, he asked my permission as we sat and watched the towers fall on 9-11, he left for the army on Oct. 30th...... and died while still in service to our country......Freedoms and our rights have meant enough to myself and my family to step up to the plate for and if needed give their lives to protect as others in my families past have done........to question my sense of freedom is to question my very being as it's a part of me that has been ingrained with blood, Sweat, and Tears...............................Steve E. Hartley,USN 80-83, and PROUD Gold Star Father of Spc.Dustin R. Hartley, Army 1st Cav 01-05


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

longbowhunter said:


> Wow! I wish other hunting groups like Rifle Hunters, Shotgun Hunters, Handgun Hunters, Muzzleloaders, Compounders.... Wish they all had the same level of scrutiny that our Trad Police dish out. Sorry... I have been a hunter education instructor for 20 years, and a maksmanship instructor for ten years before that. I know I am not the only hunter ed instructor on this site. When it comes to "proficiency" just what is the issue? Wounded game, crippling losses? Ethics? Fact - ethics like values cannot be taught, you reach a certain age and you are expected to know what is right from wrong - period. Mandatory education is great, validating by exam they know it, is great. Mandating the New Sylvan Archers are all Robin Hoods or Howard Hill prodigies is wrong. Give them all the help they need, the rest is a matter of gaining experience and maturity in the sport. Give them all the help they need, but to stand there and single some out as "good enough" and others as "not good enough" is wrong. Nice way to discourage the next Teddy Rosevelt from the outdoor sports.
> 
> For the record.. Traditional Bowhunters have the lowest percentage of crippling losses for all hunting groups out there, including lower than the compound hunter. Anyone who picks up a stick and string to hunt with, has already reached a plateau in the hunting game that few would follow or accept the challenge.


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up...Van


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> "Hunting with a bow is not like driving a car..and can not even be compared to it..and no test is going to make us better hunters"
> 
> Mac you are exactly right, in the 110 years or so since it's inception Driving for many has become a nessesity for many, but has always remained a privilage, while hunting has done just the opposite, it started out a nessesity, a god given right if you will, but has now it seems become a sport for pleasure that many view now as a privilage, and you know when I started this thread I truly believed hunting to be one of our rights given to us by our creator, but somewhere along this thread, I don't know where, I don't know with what post, my mind has changed, killing for sport and pleasure should be a privilage, God didn't say go forth and kill because it was fun or because it was big, he gave us the right with our very birth to feed ourselves, but we humans have changed that , we no longer need to hunt for our food, we can just jump in the car, and run down to the store or restaurant and eat your fill.......Hunting has went from a creator intended right to a human changed sport for pleasure........ and I wanted to protect what I thought was a right by showing those naysayers and the general public that we are responsible caretakers of what the creator has provided us by showing just a teensy bit of responsible shooting skill, but it has met with resistance that I never counted on and through these responses it dawned on me that we had changed the game... see the people who really need to hunt food the most, stand in line at the local soup kitchen or food stamp line waiting for their handout while the people who need to hunt the least, do hunt and pay the bills and sometimes donate their kills to those that need to be out there providing for themselves......and this seems wrong to me.......if it is indeed a right why aren't the truly needy given a hunting license instead of a handout?...Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime....I've heard that old saying a million times, and I know what it means, and they were and still are very wise words, but we have changed that old saying to more like, Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, Then tomorrow I'll go out and catch him another fish".......so where is the right in that?.......see I'll fight tooth and nail to protect a right,anyones right, but privilages by their very definition are the responsibility of those who choose take advantage of them......and also... in this thread it has been insinuated that I, by posting my ideas,wish to take away a bit of our freedom.....Well, let me tell all of you something right here and now, I freely served in our military because I believed it was my duty to serve our country and protect the freedoms that are so dear to my family, my mothers family name is Velasquez, and her parents were illegal aliens, but they did not hide, they worked hard, they raised 8 children and not one time did they ever ask for public assistance of any type, and of those 8 children, 5 were sons who served in our military with honor because they felt it was the right thing to do, one of the last things my son ever said to me was this little statement that I had engraved on a big rock at the entrance of our drive...."FREEDOM, It's the best thing in life!".... see my son felt the call to duty too, he asked my permission as we sat and watched the towers fall on 9-11, he left for the army on Oct. 30th...... and died while still in service to our country......Freedoms and our rights have meant enough to myself and my family to step up to the plate for and if needed give their lives to protect as others in my families past have done........to question my sense of freedom is to question my very being as it's a part of me that has been ingrained with blood, Sweat, and Tears...............................Steve E. Hartley,USN 80-83, and PROUD Gold Star Father of Spc.Dustin R. Hartley, Army 1st Cav 01-05


I feel your pain on your loss my friend...and my heart goers out to you...but...that doesn't change how I feel about this.

God gave us dominion over all things on this planet..all animals...We are the stewards...not the government. Has our sport changed to only include the wealthy...yes..it has..and nowhere has anyone ever said that was the right thing to do. I know families that both parents are working 2 full time jobs just to keep the roof over their heads..and food on their table..for themselves and children...and they can't afford to hunt..They can't take off long enough to scout..or practice..I know people who live on the street...with no income..no health insurance..no place to sleep...what do you think would happen to them if they started carrying around a bow and arrows killing game animals without a permit..?

No...there are rights and wrongs in all of our society...adding more buracracy to this already overburdened system will do no one any good..and just make it look like we are more worried how we may appear to a few disgruntled groups than actually fighting for our rights with out capitulating to those very same people who want us to stop hunting in the first place....

While you may have had a change of heart and no longer consider hunting as your right..I haven't...and will bitterly oppose any additional laws or regulations that are frivilous and not needed..

Mac


----------



## Altiman94 (Jun 11, 2007)

I'd say no. The majority of serious trad hunters practice on a very regular basis, I know I do. My estimate is that the average trad hunter shoots at least twice as many arrows as the average compound hunter. We don't have sights that will still be on target next time we go out. It's all feel and practice. 

If you think trad hunters need a prof. test, then so do compound hunters and rifle hunters.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> I feel your pain on your loss my friend...and my heart goers out to you...but...that doesn't change how I feel about this.
> 
> God gave us dominion over all things on this planet..all animals...We are the stewards....and will bitterly oppose any additional laws or regulations that are frivilous and not needed..
> 
> Mac


I think you may be contradicting the concept of stewardship by automatically rejecting regulation. How are you a good steward by rejecting regulation?


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Warbow has a point Mac, think about it.......... if we had no regulation in the recent past, we would have no deer at all now to even hunt......but I am against any more Gov. regulation than we already have.............and knowing that most of you fellas think it's ok for someone to just pick up a bow and go out flinging arrows at animals, while gaining experience to be a profficient shooter kinda worries me.....and to hear such from a hunters ed and marksmanship instructor..... that really sickens me....I mean with that outlook, why are you teaching marksmanship?? or hunters ed..... do your superiors know about this?...... my guess is no......


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Warbow said:


> I think you may be contradicting the concept of stewardship by automatically rejecting regulation. How are you a good steward by rejecting regulation?


WoW...How...by doing everything *I* can to ensure *I* make clean kills..*I *accept my responsibility..and don't depend on others to do so. 

The problem with this type of regulation is that it doesn't ensure anything except a person can hit a mark at a certain distance..and a particular testing station...It does nothing else...so I am against it.

What does it teach ...? Nothing....What have we gained by it...nothing...What have we lost...simple...more of our freedom to be self sufficient without additional government intrusion into our lives...

If we adults can not police ourselves and actually take the responsibility and do something as simple as to report the slob hunters...we will have forced regulation imposed on us...and I think this is what some here are worried about.

I have said it before...and I will say it again...I believe hunting is a right...not a privilege..and while I do have to help pay my share by the fee's...I do this knowing what my money is being used for...and it is not paying for the right to hunt...it is paying to help the state manage the wildlife in my country for me on public lands..That is what we pay for guys...*not for the right to hunt*...

To me..it seems like we want good ethics and people capable of some sort of proficiency the field...but..mandating any type of marksmanship on an individual God given rights gives in to the notion that hunting is a privilege...and is something I am vehemently opposed to.I am also opposed to putting restrictions on a archer based solely of some test. Why...it opens the door to more regulations..Why you folks can't...or won't understand this..is beyond me..

A mandated proficiency test is not the answer to the issue...Involvement is protecting our heritage is..and this means more than passing the buck to someone else to police our own.That is what it boils down to...people don't want to take an active part in doing this..they don't want to get involved...and if we don't...then forced laws and regulations just like this is what is going to happen...or worse...

Answer me this...does taking a drivers licenses test eliminate bad driving ?...The simple answer is no...It is up to the individual to ensure this...not the testing facility...not the state..not the federal government...People have to take ownership of their own lives...and stop making excuses for their actions...People have to get involved in getting rid of those who don't care what they do..or how they do it..A proficiency test is not going to do this..nor is it a first step in ensuring that it will...

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> Warbow has a point Mac, think about it.......... if we had no regulation in the recent past, we would have no deer at all now to even hunt......but I am against any more Gov. regulation than we already have.............and knowing that most of you fellas think it's ok for someone to just pick up a bow and go out flinging arrows at animals, while gaining experience to be a profficient shooter kinda worries me.....and to hear such from a hunters ed and marksmanship instructor..... that really sickens me....I mean with that outlook, why are you teaching marksmanship?? or hunters ed..... do your superiors know about this?...... my guess is no......


Don't equate 1 thing with another Bro...Just because I am against any sort of proficiency testing...doesn't mean I am against doing what is in my power to do to help new hunters..

I am all for hunter education...and for teaching people how to hunt...I you or anyone else can not teach a person to be ethical...We can only hope the person we have taught will have it in their heart to do the right thing when the time comes for them to shoot...What isn't being taught...is to make every person accept their own responsibility..This is what needs to be done..but even then...there is no way of enforcing it..now is there..

What I am against I already posted on and why..If this sickens you..I can't help that..

Mac


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MAC 11700 said:


> WoW...How...by doing everything *I* can to ensure *I* make clean kills..*I *accept my responsibility..and don't depend on others to do so.


That is wonderful, but it isn't stewardship.



MAC 11700 said:


> The problem with this type of regulation is that it doesn't ensure anything except a person can hit a mark at a certain distance..and a particular testing station...It does nothing else...so I am against it.


You may be right on this point. I'm not necessarily for hunter proficiency testing, but I'm not for being reflexively against all government regulation as some people in the thread seem to be ((I'm not saying you are necessarily one of those people.)


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

VERY INTERESTING!!!

Lots of good points and thoughtful arguments being made. Since I've been following the thread without any involvement, I have been thinking about both sides of the issue. The original question seemed to be just food for thought as opposed to an argument for or against the subject so that's how I have been looking at it. 
Is there any possibility of a happy medium somewhere here? Or is there even a need for it?

I think that most people tend to follow the path of least resistance. Hunters are no different. A gun hunter has a much easier weapon to use in killing animals for obvious reasons. If that hunter wants a bit more challenge,then he will usually take up compound bow hunting,and at some point some will want an even bigger challenge-trad gear. Maybe it's just me but I don't see any new shooters who can shoot a trad bow well enough to think that they could kill a barn much less a deer. They all seem to be amazed at how difficult it really is,but can adapt to the compound quite easily. 

Are there really people out there dumb enough to have the desire to go hunting with a stick and string even though they know they can't hit anything with it??? IDK.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Warbow said:


> That is wonderful, but it isn't stewardship.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be right on this point. I'm not necessarily for hunter proficiency testing, but I'm not for being reflexively against all government regulation as some people in the thread seem to be ((I'm not saying you are necessarily one of those people.)


I do what I can to help manage the game animals..for a balanced amount in what ever area I am hunting..How do I do that..by following the advise of those we have running our wildlife management departments..I am not a land owner..so I can not directly help feed animals that are on property I can directly control..so..I do what I can..when I can..and where I can...and that sir is stewardship...I am not taking game out of season...I am not taking any one species in excessive numbers...I am not purposely taking bad shots at game..I oppose the ruining of watersheds on our public lands..and plant trees when and where I can..along with food patches even when I will never hunt them......I try my best to respect the land which in turns feed our wildlife...All of this is stewardship too...

We have enough regulations on us for any hunting in this country...If we want to make it better for our children's children's children...then we need to do something about those who could care less about it...and to do that..we have to get directly involved...and stop turning our backs of those in our sport that are doing us..the land..and the animals harm...Just because some don't want to get directly involved is no longer acceptable...not when we are being put under the microscope...Turn in slob hunters...report those who are breaking the law...If we all did that...there will be no need for any further restrictions...or testing..

Mac


----------



## archer756 (Aug 10, 2009)

Come to NY, one only has to shoot three arrows saftly, no proficiency required, and better than that you certify oneselft for cross bow. Just think, you can be blind and get a license.:tongue:


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

You are not actually required to hunt if you buy a hunting license. Thousands of folks in TX who have never held a bow (and have no desire too) buy a Super Combo license. This gives them permission to hunt with any legal weapon there is. Requiring testing using a weapon that you don't own would be sort of dumb and cost the state lots of money. It ain't gonna happen in Texas ;-)...Van


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Good point, Van. By daughter's WI conservation patron license includes gun deer tags. She's never shot a deer rifle, and won't be hunting with one.


----------



## Forrest Halley (Jul 24, 2011)

I have been deer hunting for 20 years now and am still a young man. I have had the misfortune to clean up after shotgun, rifle, and in some cases pistol hunters, but never a bow hunter. Tests are useless. Anybody can study for and pass a test. Failing said test in one location is not going to keep same said failee from demonstrating his or her non-preparedness to an animal at another. It all has to do with ethics and some have none. To scrutinize the traditional bowhunter and say he especially must be prove himself is to chastise the one group most likely to be properly prepared as a whole. If you choose to pick on a hunting group why not buckshot shot gun hunters? That is the weapon that I have cleaned up after most; following the sparse bloodtrails created by shoddy bark blasters who practice their craft a tubular magazine full at a time on live animals. Some cannot even tell you how many shells they fired or what size shot they were using, let alone the size of their pattern at a given distance or the choke tube in the gun. For these folks there is no test, only rotted carcasses and maimed animals to mark the tale. This entire thread should serve as notice to all who venture out into the wild to prepare themselves for the game they seek to harvest responsibly or confine their hunting to a box with a pause button.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

No one wants to be tested. Good Point... why have to prove you can shoot... certainly unconstitutional.. probably unethical too.

Not too many here seem to be too concerned about proficiency... just that they don't want to have to prove it. All the excuses given of bureaucracy, time, etc, etc, etc, are nothing but excuses. Many if not most shooters can't shoot the game they profess off a bench, never mind in the field. One reason I rove all day hunting is to keep me confident, keep me relevant, keep me as good as I can be and though I've not missed recently, there have been some real headscratchers in the past. 

What should hunters do to keep proficient, or is it necessary? Do you know anyone who hunts this fall, goes the year doin business, and then the night before season, dust off his bow?


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

longbowhunter said:


> Speaking of proficiency... are there any IBO top 10 in the Traditional category on this thread?


Not IBO but current NFAA National Longbow Champion. 
Personally I'm against it as it is clearly discriminatory against Trad shooters and I just plain don't expect the bureaucracy to get it even remotely right.
Beyond that I'm just wondering why this thread is still alive.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> No one wants to be tested. Good Point... why have to prove you can shoot... certainly unconstitutional.. probably unethical too.
> 
> Not too many here seem to be too concerned about proficiency... just that they don't want to have to prove it. All the excuses given of bureaucracy, time, etc, etc, etc, are nothing but excuses. Many if not most shooters can't shoot the game they profess off a bench, never mind in the field. One reason I rove all day hunting is to keep me confident, keep me relevant, keep me as good as I can be and though I've not missed recently, there have been some real headscratchers in the past.
> 
> What should hunters do to keep proficient, or is it necessary? Do you know anyone who hunts this fall, goes the year doin business, and then the night before season, dust off his bow?


To answer your last question first...no...I personally don't know anyone that does this with a traditional bow.......but...compounds,shotguns,pistols,rifles...yes..unfortunatly...

Your very much right about being concerned whither some one is proficient with a bow or not..but I am concerned wither they are ethical enough to actually be hunting with any weapon......and there is no test that will ever enforce this or ensure they are..

The real problem is folks don't want to get involved in removing the slobs from hunting...and I suspect I know why some don't...see..I've been hunting for close to 50 years...a long time...and I've seen just about every type of individual in the woods hunting just about everything we have to hunt( at least where I've lived)...The problem I think is we all know some of these people...they might be our brothers...sisters.. mothers..fathers..cousins..family...along with our neighbors..co-workers...church members...and so on..We don't want to turn them or anyone in...We have it engrained to look the other way for these people..and many go along...to get along...never being a rat......Some of these weekend warriors..think it's not about the hunt..but the social interaction...the party....and having a good time...and could care less what others think about what they do..or how they do it..or the real damage they cause..They are oblivious or complete callous..some may be ignorant of certain facts..but most know full well they are doing wrong...and they just don't care...

These are the types that effect all of the hunting world..and again...no profiecienty test is going to do anything to remove them from hunting...We can correct ignorance with proper education...but we can not fix stupid.

So...I ask you..why is it so important to anyone here..that we in the traditional archery world be forced to prove we can shoot ? How is this going to eliminate the real problem with sport hunting..?

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> To answer your last question first...no...I personally don't know anyone that does this with a traditional bow.......but...compounds,shotguns,pistols,rifles...yes..unfortunatly...
> 
> Your very much right about being concerned whither some one is proficient with a bow or not..but I am concerned wither they are ethical enough to actually be hunting with any weapon......and there is no test that will ever enforce this or ensure they are..
> 
> ...


Has nothing to do with traditional archery. It has to do with hunters in general. Being proficient with your equipment takes practice and dedication. Those of us who love traditional archery shoot probably multiple times weekly and those like me who rove, get to practice shooting at odd postions with their hunting duds on... but target archers, and weekend shooters may not have the art down in the field. So the question I'd have is how do you encourage proficiency? Clubs can do it with shoots that mimic hunting situations... not competitively, but instructively... a sort of.. how well would you do in this situation kinda thing... kneeling, shooting under branches... around rocks and trees... etc...

Those who don't belong... how do you encourage... :grin:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Has nothing to do with traditional archery. It has to do with hunters in general. Being proficient with your equipment takes practice and dedication. Those of us who love traditional archery shoot probably multiple times weekly and those like me who rove, get to practice shooting at odd postions with their hunting duds on... but target archers, and weekend shooters may not have the art down in the field. So the question I'd have is how do you encourage proficiency? Clubs can do it with shoots that mimic hunting situations... not competitively, but instructively... a sort of.. how well would you do in this situation kinda thing... kneeling, shooting under branches... around rocks and trees... etc...
> 
> Those who don't belong... how do you encourage... :grin:


Everyone belongs at some point...it's those who do wrong knowingly that don't..

For every one else I encourage them to shoot when ever where ever they can. Can every one go roving every day or even every weekend...no..not all have the time..or the place to and perhaps the best they can do is to shoot at a 10-15 yards in their yard..or make it to a range a few times a week or month..or even less..Many may never hunt from the ground..and have never tried roving or stump shooting...It doesn't mean they can't shoot....but..these folks aren't the real problem..you or I ain't the problem..I shoot every day rain or shine..in all positions and probably some may never shoot from..I don't hold any 1 person to my standards..just myself..but I still encourage those who don't shoot like I do to try it sometime..

I know people who have shooting for years..and can just keep arrows in the 10 ring at 30 yards..and these folks never take a shot past 15 yards at game..They know their limits..and hold to them...These folks aren't the problem...So...who really is the problem...? I think we and every one else that's read this thread already knows...

Mac


----------



## Leafwalker (Oct 7, 2008)

longbowhunter said:


> For the record.. Traditional Bowhunters have the lowest percentage of crippling losses for all hunting groups out there, including lower than the compound hunter.


I've heard this several times but haven't seen real statistics on it. Did you find any studies or resources that confirm this? I don't disagree, but have been looking for solid evidence to show people who claim otherwise.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Leafwalker said:


> I've heard this several times but haven't seen real statistics on it. Did you find any studies or resources that confirm this? I don't disagree, but have been looking for solid evidence to show people who claim otherwise.


I've seen the stories the anti hunters use...and where they get it from...

I was going to post a like to a youtube video the anti's have out..but,,the watching it only pisses me off to no ends...Not just that they made it..and had a field day with it ......but some of what I call slob hunters...videoing a bad hit..and the aftermath of it..I swear these guys are absolute morons...and should not be allowed to hunt again for videoing something like this and then posting it up..

Anyway...here's where they are getting their above 50% rate for traditional archery wounding..


http://www.animalalliance.ca/deer%20-%20wounding%20rates%20deer%20and%20bow%20hunting1998.pdf

https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/ditchkoff/PDF%20publications/1996%20-%20SEAFWA.pdf

But...casting a different light on the subject

http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=384

http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/MORTON-432-438.pdf

We can't fix stupid...but we need to start slapping the crap out of those who are..then turning them in..

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Leafwalker said:


> I've heard this several times but haven't seen real statistics on it. Did you find any studies or resources that confirm this? I don't disagree, but have been looking for solid evidence to show people who claim otherwise.


 Yeah.... I've been in this business for 18 years and I've seen and collected numerous wounding reports, starting with the first I became aware of, the Camp Ripley Study. Being that during the period that I got more involved with Archery, most of the bows out there, and still today, are compounds, so I'd think the statistic difficult to ascertain at best. There are some statistics I've seen from various states regarding crossbow/compound on wounding that don't address this at all.


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

FORESTGUMP said:


> VERY INTERESTING!!!
> 
> Lots of good points and thoughtful arguments being made. Since I've been following the thread without any involvement, I have been thinking about both sides of the issue. The original question seemed to be just food for thought as opposed to an argument for or against the subject so that's how I have been looking at it.


Forest, here's the orginal question:

*"Seems we are in a debating mood........So what do you think about profficiency testing to get your hunting license if you shoot a stickbow?....... for or against and why please......."*

Van


----------



## Leafwalker (Oct 7, 2008)

Thanks for the info MAC! Looks like doing Internet searches for research yields results from a 7%-50% wounding rate whether it's tradtional or modern equipment. It's tough to compare traditional vs. modern equipment wounding rates when the divide is so great.

Here's another study I found, with wounding rates for compound/crossbow shooters (it tries to compare the results of each, but there were only 5 crossbow to 103 compound - not really a good comparison):
http://www.marylandqdma.com/files/Download/Pedersen-31-34.pdf


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Van and others, FORRESTGUMP, has it right...Food for thought!!.......... and although it has gotten everyone thinking, and some responding, I truly wish I hadn't even posted this question, it has shown me more than I wanted to know about some of the attitudes of my fellow archers, and I find myself appaulled that some here are perfectly happy to see someone grab up a weapon one day, go hunting the next and wound animals, if they hit anything at all.......and all under guise of freedom.......well do what you will, but I will practice till I'm more than satisfied that I have the skill to make the shot, and the wisdom to know my own limits and stick to them, ...whatever you do is up to you......good luck this upcoming season fellas.....


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> Van and others, FORRESTGUMP, has it right...Food for thought!!.......... and although it has gotten everyone thinking, and some responding, I truly wish I hadn't even posted this question, it has shown me more than I wanted to know about some of the attitudes of my fellow archers, and I find myself appaulled that some here are perfectly happy to see someone grab up a weapon one day, go hunting the next and wound animals, if they hit anything at all.......and all under guise of freedom.......well do what you will, but I will practice till I'm more than satisfied that I have the skill to make the shot, and the wisdom to know my own limits and stick to them, ...whatever you do is up to you......good luck this upcoming season fellas.....


Testing really isn't the answer...that's the problem as I and many others here see it..so...I don't know why you would be appalled ...There is no reason to be shocked that many here are opposed to it...Most people understand there is more involved here...than just a simple test...and I believe it's something you don't fully grasp...

I do wonder...just how many people go buy a recurve or long bow..and some arrows..and never shoot it before they go hunting...I'll be honest with you...I doubt very many would..I am sure a few idiots somewhere will and already has...but..in reality...I would wager the % of all traditional shooters would even attempt this stupid stunt is very low......WI also wonder what % that could pass your test would just and limit their shots to where they know they can make a clean kill ? Again...not many...especially if a big buck is involved...No test is ever going to instill ethical behavior in someone...

Mac


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Well Mac, Education without testing is almost worthless, How do you know people actually listened to,or comprehended the information that was presented?, see it's a slippery slope no matter where you look, that's why it was presented as food for thought, it will take a while to get this figured out, and somebody better do it because it's coming, maybe not today, or next week, heck we may be dead before it comes up, but it will, and somebody needs to have some answers ready before the real test gets here......

See I can grasp it just fine, but I'm tired of grasping handfulls of dirt on my hands and knees looking for poorly hit deer by people who have poor shooting skills at best. heck I about had to force some of them to look more than just a few minutes too, we do need education, and a lot of it, but at least test these people on knowledge if you aren't gonna test them on skill........is that really too much to ask?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

voodoofire1 said:


> and I find myself appaulled that some here are perfectly happy to see someone grab up a weapon one day, go hunting the next and wound animals, if they hit anything at all.......and all under guise of freedom.......


I'm sorry...I haven't read EVERY post on this...BUT...has anyone actually said what you just said or are you making assumptions and inaccurately reading more into something than what a person is actually saying? If not and someone actually said what you claimed...could you please post the quote.

I do *NOT* have a problem with someone grabbing a weapon learning how to use it in a day and understanding their current limitations with it and going hunting the next day with it. I've seen people do well with guns and compound bows within their first day of learning to use one and become accurate enough with the weapon to be successful.

I *DO* have a problem with someone grabbing a weapon learning how to use it in a day and *NOT* understanding their current limitations with it and going hunting the next day with it....and carelessly shooting at anything they see...whether they kill or wound the animal.



voodoofire1 said:


> well do what you will, but I will practice till I'm more than satisfied that I have the skill to make the shot, and the wisdom to know my own limits and stick to them, ...whatever you do is up to you.


That's it right there in a nutshell...which is what everyone should strive to do!

The point that many of us are trying to make is that there are certain tests that don't necessarily indicate the outcome or the particular situation and choices the hunter will have to make and perform under.

There are no real guareentees in hunting in regards to the outcome of a decision...but there can be consequences applied to those that *abuse* their God given right and wound animals by continually making poor choices.

Even when a hunter has tried to make all the correct choices...the outcome can be less than perfect.


Ray :shade:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"I'm sorry...I haven't read EVERY post on this...BUT...has anyone actually said what you just said or are you making assumptions and inaccurately reading more into something than what a person is actually saying? If not and someone actually said what you claimed...could you please post the quote."

BLACK WOLF, just returning a little of what has been sent my way..... kinda blows don't it,.... assuming and jumping to conclusions that is, and I wasn't referring to you, just that some have either read what I wrote and it got all twisted around, or maybe just read part of what I had to say, or maybe some just read the title and their off and running......and I have no problem with the conditions you describe, it's relatively easy to learn to shoot a properly set up compound, or crossbow, or gun for that matter in a day or so, it isn't brain surgery, but trad bows are a different thing all together, sure someone can get lucky, but to depend on luck as your "skill" well that's just wrong any way you look at it..... oh well out to practice.........


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

voodoofire1 said:


> but trad bows are a different thing all together, sure someone can get lucky, but to depend on luck as your "skill" well that's just wrong any way you look at it.


I totally agree!!!! :thumbs_up

For example....here's a test I can probably live with if it was ever implemented.

Have a potential bowhunter shoot one arrow at a deer target from 5yrds., 10yrds., 15yrds., 20yrds., 25yrds. and repeat 3 times and than ask the archer where their personal limitations should be to take a shot at a deer?

If the archer consistently hits the kill zone at 5 and 10 yrds. and they say between 0 -10yrds. and not 15 - 25yrds. ...than they pass...but if they say their effective range is 25yrds. when they hit 1 out of 3 shots at 25yrds....than they fail.

If a potential bowhunter misses every kill zone but answers that they need more practice until they can hit the kill zone near 100% of the time at a particular distance before they attempt to kill an animal...they pass.

Set something up similar for gun hunters on a rifle range.

That kind of test I would support.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> Well Mac, Education without testing is almost worthless, How do you know people actually listened to,or comprehended the information that was presented?, see it's a slippery slope no matter where you look, that's why it was presented as food for thought, it will take a while to get this figured out, and somebody better do it because it's coming, maybe not today, or next week, heck we may be dead before it comes up, but it will, and somebody needs to have some answers ready before the real test gets here......
> 
> See I can grasp it just fine, but I'm tired of grasping handfulls of dirt on my hands and knees looking for poorly hit deer by people who have poor shooting skills at best. heck I about had to force some of them to look more than just a few minutes too, we do need education, and a lot of it, but at least test these people on knowledge if you aren't gonna test them on skill........is that really too much to ask?


Education without testing is worthless ? I don't agree with your logic...We are tested...every time we go hunting...Our skills are tested in ways..that no test can match. Education is gold...to those who want to learn the correct way...it's how we apply what we are taught to how we hunt that makes us better...not being subjected to a test just to prove we can hit a target at a set distance..I understand where you are coming at..wanting to weed out those that can or can't in hopes of making a difference...but the difference is going to be negligible.The real root of the cause is those that don't care what they do...or how they do it....Do you honestly think that any test is going to stop all the slob hunters ? Do you honestly think any test is going to instill a ethical attitude in someone ? It's not..and I understand the need to want to see something done..but..more regulations or additional testing is not going to change the outcome..only make things cost more..and give a opening to the anti's..Once you start testing...you have opened a Pandora's box that can never be closed..

I don't really think you do grasp this fact..and are looking at this on how you feel and seen..and are trying to find a easy solution to a very difficult problem...by treating a symptom...not the disease itself... You have to find the cause or root of the problem and address it..before trying to make a cure...so..you have to step back... and look at the entire picture of what really is the cause of the problem..If people new full well they were going to be held responsible for wounding a animal when hunting...think of the difference that would make..People have to be held responsible for their actions..once they are..then the change you want to see will take place..otherwise it is a useless test..

The only way we will really make a difference is for each of us to help police the woods...and until that becomes the norm of how we hunt...all the testing in the world won't make a nickels worth of difference...You want the slob hunters gone...then when they screw up...take away their right to hunt...If they screw up again...take away their right to hunt forever...If people really knew this was going to happen and the other hunters are going to be the ones to turn them in ...they wouldn't be quick to shoot..and those that are..won't be in around long..That's how you make a real difference...

Mac


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I'm done with this.......


----------



## yetanotheryeti (Dec 5, 2010)

yes , and you should resister your bow as well !!!!!


that way when they come take your guns they will be good and sure you are disarmed !


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

*


Ranger B said:



sharpbroadhead - my point is that it's not about the ability to qualify. It is the choice of shot once in the woods.

Click to expand...

*Good point. Earlier, a comparison was made to driving tests. Think of all the people that manage to pass a driving test every year, now think of all the boneheaded things you see those "qualifed" drivers do.

It's not a matter of proficiencey per se, it's a matter of making the correct decisions at the right time. This can't be legislated. Knowing the speed limit is one thing, realizing that you can't do the speed limit on *ice* is yet another.

KPC


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

You know, I believe you fellas may be on to something, testing is just a waste, think about how much time and money is wasted by testing, the school system spends millions testing our kids, heck we don't need that do we, and doctors mess up all the time, even though they are tested in their schooling too, testing serves no purpose exept to line someone elses pockets... so just pitch testing as a whole as it does no good what so ever for anyone, people die anyway, and will people do stupid things each and every day, testing will not prevent that either...what waste testing is, we could use that money and time on other things.......that really make a difference.....


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> You know, I believe you fellas may be on to something, testing is just a waste, think about how much time and money is wasted by testing, the school system spends millions testing our kids, heck we don't need that do we, and doctors mess up all the time, even though they are tested in their schooling too, testing serves no purpose exept to line someone elses pockets... so just pitch testing as a whole as it does no good what so ever for anyone, people die anyway, and will people do stupid things each and every day, testing will not prevent that either...what waste testing is, we could use that money and time on other things.......that really make a difference.....


Bro...I know you see it as helping..but it isn't going to...not just a test...much more is needed...There are too many different ideas of what constitutes a test that each state would have. Look at the bowhunter education programs...they are all different..If this test was the same in every state..that might be one thing..but they won't never be unless mandated by the feds..Each state has it's own agenda...and it's own conservation department...and I don't ever see them all on the same page on any thing...let alone on this unless forced to...

You can not honestly compare the testing a surgeon/doctor has to go through to treat humans ..that is utterly ridiculous...and the same for all of the school testing..Some have said we should test..just like driving a car or truck...BS...we aren't taking our bows out into a populated area using them..and the real danger posed to others by our hunting is minimal as opposed to letting a crappy driver get turned loose on the roads..

People do die...it is the natural progression of life...but..how is just forcing a test on someone to be able to hunt going to change the perception of hunters to the anti's or even save lives ? BTW...how many lives is it going to save every season...? How many people are killed each year in bow hunting accidents where some one was shot...and not falling on their arrows.. ? See...the problem is you or no one else can honestly answer this..and wanting more regulation is just another knee jerk solution..to make us look better in the publics eye...

What I would like to see...is for every state to have the same mandated hunter education program...this I think would be a much better solution than any so-called test..Have testing done..but make it an awards program..that will give the new hunters some extra incentive to do well....eventually...there will be more going through it taking this like this willingly...than as a mandatory pass or fail type of test...It may not stop those who don't care how we look to the non-hunting crowd...but in time it will do more good since everyone will be taught the same thing.Make it mandatory if a minor wants to hunt..for the parent to go through it with their child..It will open the eyes of some folks..I know..both my wife and myself sit through our youngest sons classes..My wife became interested in what he was going to be doing and how he was going to do it..for his safety..and it also gave him some good instructions for firearm safety as well...More people are killed by guns than with bows..so having additional safety lessons on firearms is a big plus in my book..and statistically done more good...and yes..there is a written test that must be passed too.

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> Bro...I know you see it as helping..but it isn't going to...not just a test...much more is needed...There are too many different ideas of what constitutes a test that each state would have. Look at the bowhunter education programs...they are all different..If this test was the same in every state..that might be one thing..but they won't never be unless mandated by the feds..Each state has it's own agenda...and it's own conservation department...and I don't ever see them all on the same page on any thing...let alone on this unless forced to...
> 
> You can not honestly compare the testing a surgeon/doctor has to go through to treat humans ..that is utterly ridiculous...and the same for all of the school testing..Some have said we should test..just like driving a car or truck...BS...we aren't taking our bows out into a populated area using them..and the real danger posed to others by our hunting is minimal as opposed to letting a crappy driver get turned loose on the roads..
> 
> ...


The reason that the hunter education program is accepted in ALL 50 states is that there is a peer review of the program throughout the country... an Audit, actually. We here in Hawaii have had a very poor audit result... and any of the instructors could have told you that that was going to be the result because of the manner the program is conducted. We have excellent instructors and a failing curriculum. 

One of the things we think here in Hawaii... well me anyway... is that some "hands on" is required. Otherwise, just do it online. You can teach, but you can't effectively evaluate without testing... or monitoring at any rate of what your student does with what you teach. Without a "paper" (practical) test, then the result/grade becomes the opinion of the instructor, and is not really a measure of any standard other than his own, and I'd question that blond, stacked painter, that cleaned off the paint of my nosecone with a substance that attacks fiberglass, didn't pass some test somewhere without the instructor knowing what color her eyes were.


My opinions again....


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Saw this thread today and read the whole dam thing - interesting reading and some very good points.

Here are my thoughts - for what they are worth.

1) I have no problem with the concept of a test but, I have a real issue with putting the testing option on the table. In hunters safety you have a written test about the concepts of hunting and gun safety but, no one hands you a 22 and says if you can't hit the target you can't hunt. I think if you put the testing option out there the anti hunting folks with just use it to limit hunting. As Ken said if you make the test 5 arrows in a 5 inch circle every time under pressure dam few people would pass shooting traditional gear.

2) Hunting is a privilege that we need to protect - everything we do and everything we say should be thought out as to how it will effect that privalege.

3) Until last year I was purely a hunting archer and have shot recurves and longbows exclusively for 15 years. I hunt by myself or with hunting partners who shoot compounds. I love shooting bows and practice year round both punching paper and shooting stumps. Over the years I have missed some animals and wounded a couple but, to be honest I don't miss much. But, I had no frame of reference as to how other traditional archer shoot.

Last spring I shot a 3D for the first time and loved it. I drove over to a traditional 3d in Idaho - showed up with my hunting recurve and a bunch of arrows in my back pocket. I asked a group of guys if I could tag along and shoot with them - I didn't know you needed bino's so I just shot the targets like I was hunting. Great guys and I had a fun time but, we were looking for arrows on every target - these were not hard or long shots. 

I figured these guys must be beginners or they must shoot trad for fun and hunt with their compounds - not the case everyone of them hunted traditional. I shot in the low 300's on a 400 point course and came in third - there were 3 guys who shot over 300 at that shoot and then it dropped of precipitously. I have shot 20 or 30 3d shoots since then and have found that there are very few traditional archers out there that average over 300 points on a 400 point course.

It really bums me out to shoot a round with a guy who flat out misses 1/3 of the targets or sticks a target in the but and says "foam is my friend" and then tells you about the Elk he shot last year but, never found. I have a hard time believing these guys put a 15 yard limit on themselves and then won't take a poke at a 140 class buck if it walks by at 32 yards.

I am not interested in debating ethics. But, there has to be a line some where and we all have to find it for ourselves. If you want to set a 10 yard limit on yourself and not go past it more power to you. But, I have a hard time believing people stick to those limits and if you can't hit a foam deer at 20 what makes you think you can hit a real one at ten? Shoot a compound and limit yourself to 20 and under if close is your game.

4) I don't think that traditional archers wound more game - I would just like to see all archers wound less what ever then number might be.

Matt


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Fellas it's not the test that really matters, it's the stuff you learn leading up to the test that does......Who here has ever had a test that questions each and every thing your supposed to know... a test is just a basic overview of what you are supposed to learn.........


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> Fellas it's not the test that really matters, it's the stuff you learn leading up to the test that does......Who here has ever had a test that questions each and every thing your supposed to know... a test is just a basic overview of what you are supposed to learn.........


 Thats correct... and that is why you test... to see if the student has learned from your teaching.... test, evaluation, whatever you want to call it, as long as its not competition, it is a point of reference, qualification, or evaluation of skills. Those who shun evaluations are doing a disservice to all concerned, and like some, might actually be afraid of knowing how they do.... These people should not be hunting is the general consensus of all that I've talked to, but again, is it legal.... that is the only question that matters.... Is it legally right... like my pappy used to say... there is right and there is dead right.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I really figured someone else would come through and say what I did in my last post, but no...took 7 pagesand tons of arguing.. too many jumping to conclusions without concentrating on the journey, see why I posed this to trad archers now?.........think fellas..... K.I.S.S.. remember what that stands for?


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

Matt, I really enjoyed reading your post...Van


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

The problem with proficiency testing is that it is, at best, feel good legislation. 

There are two types of people in this world, those that have a propensity to make responsible decisions and those that have a propenisity to make poor decisions. The idea that the ability to pass a shooting test is going to have an impact on wounding is a pipe dream. 

There isn't a child that reaches 7th grade that doesn't know everything there is to know about making babies, and how to prevent it, and still we have millions of unwanted pregnancies in this country per year. In spite of education, bad decisions create bad results.

Nobody gets a drivers license in this country without first passing a test. Everybody checks the box that says, "don't drink and drive." Everybody checks the box that says "don't text while driving." Everybody checks the box that says "don't do 75 mph in a school zone." Yet, tens of millions of times each year, these things are done, by people who have previously passed a proficiency test. 

People who have a propensity to make bad decisions are going to make bad decisions. Bad decisions lead to bad results.

No matter how many times it's tried, the end result is the same. You simply cannot legislate morality. You simply cannot legislate ethics. You can make yourself feel good by passing laws that attempt to, but at the end of the day, morality, ethics, and even intelligence cannot be legislated. These are personal things that either you have or you don't. Attempts to curtail them are nothing more than one group of people attempting to eliminate things they don't like.

Gun laws and proficiency tests will not stop gun crime.

Nutrition tests and banning Happy Meals will not stop obesity.

Drug laws and education will not stop drug abuse. 

There isn't a person that has graduated from high school in the last 50 years that hasn't learned enough about budgeting to pass the test, yet we have tens of millions of people in this country that somehow think they can spend more money than they make.

The list goes on and on and on....

I have NO fear whatsoever of being able to pass a proficiency test to get a hunting license, nor do I have ANY belief that it will make one bit of difference in wounding rates.

Bad decisions lead to bad results.

KPC


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> The problem with proficiency testing is that it is, at best, feel good legislation.
> 
> There are two types of people in this world, those that have a propensity to make responsible decisions and those that have a propenisity to make poor decisions. The idea that the ability to pass a shooting test is going to have an impact on wounding is a pipe dream.
> 
> ...


 I think that there are two sides to this question of proficiency...

Proficiency testing for the purpose of licensing and proficiency testing for the sake of proficiency.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I have no issue with a test per se in fact I would like to see one both for archers and gun hunters. But, I have a huge issue with putting the test option on the table - nothing good could possibly come from it and I think we as hunters should avoid it like the plague.

Matt


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Matt_Potter said:


> I have no issue with a test per se in fact I would like to see one both for archers and gun hunters. But, I have a huge issue with putting the test option on the table - nothing good could possibly come from it and I think we as hunters should avoid it like the plague.
> 
> Matt


When I PAY MONEY for a hunt, I HAVE to prove my ability to hit something. When I get to hunt for free, I don't.... :grin:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

rattus58 said:


> When I PAY MONEY for a hunt, I HAVE to prove my ability to hit something. When I get to hunt for free, I don't.... :grin:


Which is fine that is the land owners prerogative and more power to them - heck I have a guy who checks how sharp my broadheads are. But, if we are talking about national level legislation I feel this is a bag of worms you just don't want to open.

Matt


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Matt_Potter said:


> Which is fine that is the land owners prerogative and more power to them - heck I have a guy who checks how sharp my broadheads are. But, if we are talking about national level legislation I feel this is a bag of worms you just don't want to open.
> 
> Matt


 They only have to look at my fingers to figure that one out.... :grin:


----------



## swinestalker (Oct 28, 2009)

We are doomed as a free country if we continue to give up our liberty. The only new law I will support is no more stupid laws! We have far too many already, We need a competent government. The USA would do fine if there is never another law passed. I guarantee Barney frank, Pelosi and Obama would think it is a great idea. Freedom people, it was bought with the blood of our forefathers. I beg of you, do not surrender it so easily.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> I think that there are two sides to this question of proficiency...
> 
> Proficiency testing for the purpose of licensing and proficiency testing for the sake of proficiency.


It makes absolutely zero difference as long as you have people with a propensity for bad decisions. Any level of "proficiency" is irrelevant as long as you have those that are willing to surpass whatever that level happens to be. If you are proficient at 5 yards, you shouldn't be shooting 10. If you are proficient at 15 yards, you shouldn't be shooting 20. If you are proficient at 50 yards, you shouldnt be shooting 75. Therein lies the rub. Unless you can legislate decision making, all the proficiency tests in the world mean nothing.

Think about it. Nobody would argue that NASCAR drivers are some of the very best "drivers" in the world. You would think, with all their skill, there would never be any accidents, yet per capita, they have accidents at probably about 1000 times that of the general population. Hmmmm...why is that? Skill and proficiency means Jack when you are constantly willing to push the envelope. 

When there is actually a proficiency test that will accurately guage the likelyhood that someone will make the proper decisions in every situation, then we can talk.

KPC


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

GEREP said:


> The problem with proficiency testing is that it is, at best, feel good legislation.
> 
> There are two types of people in this world, those that have a propensity to make responsible decisions and those that have a propenisity to make poor decisions. The idea that the ability to pass a shooting test is going to have an impact on wounding is a pipe dream.
> 
> ...



Yup I agree..If enacted...it would be a knee jerk reaction to satisfy a small group of people...Just think...then we can look forward to having a proficiency test for fishing...dove hunting...quail hunting...rabbit hunting...squirrel hunting...and every other kind of hunting in this country...oh...I forgot...those here see no harm in doing this test for us traditional shooters...they want to open this Pandora's box for all hunting...and see nothing wrong with suggesting it for them..and enacting this kind of legislation...OH boy...then we can have individual licenses and test for every thing we hunt or fish...since they are all different species ...Won't this be a grand utopia...

Sure...play right into the anti's hands...screw that...*this will be the end result of this stupid idea wither you believe it or not*...and is exactly what those who want to stop all hunting want to put us through...and until those here understand this fact...this debate will continue...You will be opening the door and inviting those that despise the killing any animal to control all hunting... I know this may pissoff a few folks..but I really don't care anymore...and as I said in the beginning of this topic...I will fight tooth & nail to see any legislation of this nature defeated in any way I can...

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> It makes absolutely zero difference as long as you have people with a propensity for bad decisions. Any level of "proficiency" is irrelevant as long as you have those that are willing to surpass whatever that level happens to be. If you are proficient at 5 yards, you shouldn't be shooting 10. If you are proficient at 15 yards, you shouldn't be shooting 20. If you are proficient at 50 yards, you shouldnt be shooting 75. Therein lies the rub. Unless you can legislate decision making, all the proficiency tests in the world mean nothing.
> 
> Think about it. Nobody would argue that NASCAR drivers are some of the very best "drivers" in the world. You would think, with all their skill, there would never be any accidents, yet per capita, they have accidents at probably about 1000 times that of the general population. Hmmmm...why is that? Skill and proficiency means Jack when you are constantly willing to push the envelope.
> 
> ...


 You are absolutely right.... proficiency is a waste of time... what was I thinking....


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

Absolutely amazing.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Daidohead said:


> Absolutely amazing.


:grin:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> You are absolutely right.... proficiency is a waste of time... what was I thinking....


Is this what you respond with when you run out of a reasoned argument?



There may well be reasons for proficiency testing but reducing wounding rates isn't one of them.

KPC


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Increasing kill rates wouldn't be a bad thing.......


"Bad decisions lead to bad results."

And I'm sure glad that is not carved in stone, and an absolutely true statement...........Both good and bad decisions can turn the opposite way in a flash, had it happen myself as I suspect many of you have too...I was young and stupid once, did some real stupid things that turned out really good, but also did some smart things, like marrying my high school sweetheart after 7 years.........which ended in disaster........so good and bad decisions and the outcomes are relative to what side of the fence your viewing them from......


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

voodoofire1 said:


> Increasing kill rates wouldn't be a bad thing.......


That's not what I said Steve. Reducing wound rates *IS* a good thing, it's just that proficiency testing won't get you there, at least to any meaningful degree. 

And yes, we can all cite instances where a bad decision has turned out OK, but as a rule, those with a propensity to make bad decisions, will more often than not experience bad results.

Critical thinking and decision making are learned skills. As I stated before, in my opinion we'd be better served with proficiency testing for *them*. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way of doing that. Being able to put an arrow in a paper plate at 15 yards in a non-hunting situation means very little without the ability to make good decisions when it matters.

Proficiency testing *might* show who knows *how, * but it doesn't show who knows *why* and *when.* 

KPC


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's an example of a test...that can actually determine if the hunter understands his resposibilty as a hunter.

Have a potential bowhunter shoot one arrow at a deer target from 5yrds., 10yrds., 15yrds., 20yrds., 25yrds. and repeat 3 times and than ask the archer where their personal limitations should be to take a shot at a deer?

If the archer can consistently hit the kill zone at 5 and 10 yrds. and their answer to the question is 0 - 10yrds....than they pass...but if they say their effective range is 0 - 25yrds. when they only hit 1 or 2 shots out of 3 at 15, 20 and/or 25yrds....than they fail.

And......If another potential bowhunter misses every kill zone but answers that they need more practice until they can hit the kill zone near 100% of the time at a particular distance before they attempt to kill an animal...they pass.

So basically a student needs to answer where their effective shot distance is by where they can consistently shoot into the kill zone.

Set something up similar for gun hunters on a rifle range.

This example test is by no means a perfect test...because there most likely is no such thing....but...it's a kind of test I would support.

Does anyone have a problem with a test similar to that? If so...pick it apart.

Ray :shade:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"Proficiency testing might show who knows how, but it doesn't show who knows why and when."

Exactly right!!...........and I should have put "either" on the end of my last post as I was just playing off of yours,.....



And Black Wolf, I like that!.. but it would still not address the problems Gerep Stated, .......just as a capability test, it would probably work.........and that does make me wonder if I had used the wrong word in my original post,..... Would it have been better had I used the word "capability test" instead of "profficiency test"?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

> You are absolutely right.... proficiency is a waste of time... what was I thinking....


I honestly don't know...but I'm glad your clear headed now...:icon_1_lol::lol3:

Mac


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Does anyone have a problem with a test similar to that? If so...pick it apart.


Yes, it would still make no difference. The only thing you would determine is who *knows* the correct answer. 

How many people, when asked the question on a test, would say that driving drunk is the proper thing to do? 

Now, how many people do it anyway?

If you had a picture of a speed limit sign on a test, how many people could tell you what it means?

Now, how many people still choose to ignore it?

How is an effective range limit on a test any different than a speed limit sign? 

If you asked 100 people how much money they make, and then asked them how much do they have to spend, how many people do you think would get that question correct.

Now, how many millions of people spend more money than they make? 



KPC


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"Now, how many millions of people spend more money than they make?"

Kevin, you can't use that analogy, look at the example our own elected officials have set for us in leading by example, We as archers are much better than that, give us a little credit......Credit may have been the wrong word to use, but I'm sure you know what I mean.....


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

voodoofire1 said:


> "Now, how many millions of people spend more money than they make?"
> 
> Kevin, you can't use that analogy, look at the example our own elected officials have set for us in leading by example...


Sure I can, and it's quite valid. Didn't your mama ever say *"Well Stevie, if everyone else was juimping off a bridge, would you jump too?"*

You actually illustrated my point about critical thinking and decision making VERY well. If what you are saying is valid, you are actually argueing my point.

Could I not just say that if voodoofire1 can make killing shots at 27 yards (I know he can, I've seen a picture), I should be able to also?

:confused2:

KPC


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> "Proficiency testing might show who knows how, but it doesn't show who knows why and when."
> 
> Exactly right!!...........and I should have put "either" on the end of my last post as I was just playing off of yours,.....
> 
> ...


Nope...not to me...

Tell me...What is this test going to accomplish ? Should we test..no..not on this...because...

This isn't a motor cycle or 2 ton or heavier vehicle driving in densely populated areas...in all kinds of traffic or road conditions
We aren't trying to fly a airplane over a densely populated area..

We aren't trying to carry a loaded firearm in public places...

We aren't trying to do surgery on a living creature..

We aren't dismantling a nuclear bomb..

We aren't trying to get a diploma for 12 years of schooling...

We are frigging bow hunting...with a traditional bow..

If you have a problem with how accurate someone is that takes up the sport....why the hell don't you confront those you feel aren't "good" enough to be out there hunting...instead of looking for a law or regulation to correct this ?

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> Is this what you respond with when you run out of a reasoned argument?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Do you want a reasonable argument?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> Do you want a reasonable argument?


Actually, I said *"reasoned"* not *"reasonable"* but let's not split hairs.

I've given you one. Unfortunately you haven't reciprocated.

:dontknow:

If people drink and drive, text and drive, spend more money than they make, all the while having passed the tests where they answered that these things shouldn't be done, what gives you the idea that a proficiency test in archery is somehow going to magically stop people from making poor shot decisions on live game.

If all you are looking to do is eliminate hunters (which at the core of this issue, I suspect is the real reason), a proficiency test might be effective. If you are actually looking to reduce wounding rates, which was the premise of this thread, it simply won't work.

KPC


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

a


GEREP said:


> Actually, I said *"reasoned"* not *"reasonable"* but let's not split hairs.
> 
> I've given you one. Unfortunately you haven't reciprocated.
> 
> ...


My position on proficiency should be pretty well apparent by now... but since you seem to have missed the point of it all, I'll try to present the reason that proficiency is important.. to the hunter, the institution of hunting, the public, and for those who might care about such things, the animal itself.

A proficiency test is a test of proficiency. That would indicate, can you hit what you're aiming at. This has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with how good a shot you are. That some people maybe would not like to know how good they are are people who should not be hunting but are legally allowed to do so. 

Hunters are a selfish lot, actually, and they also are not willing to stand up for their rights when they need to. They typically let some other guy do their battles for them. This debate of a test, is just another example of the mindset of hunters, those who I've been told, have a right to hunt. Well, I've looked. Some states have maybe constitutionally provided that right in those states, but be out there without a hunting license... You have a right to buy a license... that means to me... you now have a privilage to hunt.... A right is like the right to pray, practice your religion, have a job.... but to hunt? No we don't.

Now that we the opportunity to hunt, that is becoming more and more restricted, you all say that a proficiency test is another way to keep people from Hunting. The implication of that point of view is that there are maybe too many who don't meet the potential standard that might be applied. Right now there is no standard, just the ethics of a hunter to conduct himself within a legal activity. That ethical behavior is the personal action of the hunter. 

Since you seem to think that tests don't provide guidance in the field and that just because you can pass the test to get in that you might not behave when you get there, I ask you, then why let people in in the first place? Becuase they are entitled? We're not entitled, we buffaloed the public to think that what we do is honorable and ethical.... why?.. Because you say so? Because we in the Hunter Eduation Programs around the world say so? No. We are allowed to hunt, for the time being, because we provide funds for Wildlife Agencies and Departments mostly because of SHOOTERS... not hunter dollars anymore. We are living on borrowed time, my friend, the US Fish and Wildlife Program told me that shooting sports, clays, shotgun, trap, and competition has been driving the money... maybe 0bama when he got in.. drove the firearm sales, but that hasn't been the norm... so, being that is the case, it isn't our monies doing the most work for us.

Wildlife agencies are more and more being staffed by environmentalist and animal rights sympathizers. But we have rights. We have nothing to worry about. And proficiency of course only gets in the way. I don't know what everyone here is so paranoid about... but your paranoia is instructive.

One thing having a test does, regardless of what you're doing, it usually culminates after some instruction. Instruction usually gives you the opportunity to instill in the student proper behavior and handling of whatever they are being trained in... whether automobile to a handglider to firearms or hunting. We believe that we know it all. We don't. We believe that we don't need no dang instruction.... We do. Fortunately for us, we have passion for what we do. This passion fuels a Billion Dollar industry of equipment and how to videos, training sessions and seminars. Hunters flock to these seminars and programs, mostly to satisfy their passion and to learn. This is a positive outcome in my opinion.

You mention a littany of examples of bad behaviors, after we all have some instruction. You mention that peer pressure is the manner in which to police hunters. I agree, but the problem with hunting, is that it is not a group sport, or that would work. Hunting is a private endeavor... unless you are on film... and I have seen so many poor presentations on Saturday Outdoor Programs to make me cringe... "professionals" acting like neophytes... How can we win.

I am a proponent of proficiency... you seem to think that is a bad word. Practice, Practice, Practice... sales is location location location... effective range.... how many even know what their effective range is... Blackwolf says that 3 of 3 is proficient... 1 of 3 is not... CORRECT. 10 of 10 is better, but it is your first shot that usually matters. 

Should we promote proficiency? YES... unequivocally so. How do you do it? That would be the question.... Should it be a test? Of course... what is a test? It is an evaluation. Should we be evaluated every once in a while? Absolutely. Can't handle it? You shouldn't be hunting. Simple. You think that you are great.. maybe you are, but are you as good as you can be? You don't know unless you evaluate yourself.. Most hunters don't care. That is their choice. There is nothing that says you can't go hunting with whatever skills you do possess.

However, you are under scrutiny. You have organizations like the HSUS who are at your throat every single day, whether you realize it or not. They are part of the ambient noise, so you don't see the threat.. but they are working on it from 9-5 every single day. Hunters, if they are working on keeping our privilages at all, are usually only doing it from 5-9, at the expense of our families. And who matters the most... family or hunting.... I can answer that for you.

The question is how do we promote proficiency. Clubs, Hunting Fishing, Shooting Sports days.... how many of you are participating in your areas HFSS day? I'm involved... are you? I have in my possession a laser shot game that I take to schools, fairs, and hunter meetings. Is that archery... no its not, but there are programs like that out there. That is a good way to stimulate someone to practice. Club functions, games, competitions supported by gun shops and archery shops and manufacturers are ways to promote shooting. Mathews is way ahead of other manufacturers in that regard too... getting into the Schools program. Proficiency.

3D is another way that we can promote proficiency. Target archery is another, but I don't know much about it or exactly how well it promotes proficiency in hunting... it teaches you to shoot accurately at targets... but is that transferable... ? Don't know... I shoot at tennis balls and buckets... golf balls and pins and rove constantly while hunting.... but you're right... you can practice incessently and still make a bad shot... that is the nature of the game we shoot at... they are not targets that wait for the second shot... or the first one either... so stuff happens... but the question is, yes... life is... and stuff happens... but do we owe it to anyone to minimize the bad stuff that happens?

In my opinion, the answer is yes.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> The only thing you would determine is who *knows* the correct answer.


That's the WHOLE point of it.

Knowledge is power...BUT...it's up to the individual to use it or not.

It won't necessarily prevent anyone from taking inappropriate shots but it does educate them on what they should do.

I've run into people who believe taking 100yrds. shots at elk with a bow is acceptable because that is what they were taught to believe...but if a Hunter's Education course taught what I explained above than they would know 'why' it isn't acceptable.

So do you believe this would be inappropriate to teach in a Hunter's Education class?

Some people are born with common sense while others may need to be taught it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> Blackwolf says that 3 of 3 is proficient... 1 of 3 is not... CORRECT. 10 of 10 is better, but it is your first shot that usually matters.


Those number were just examples. I'm not sure what the best percentage would be to teach in regards to how an archer determines if and when to take a shot in regards to shot distance.

Is it within the range of being able to make the shot 100% of the time? 90%? 80%?

I personally won't take a shot unless I am 100% confident I can make the shot at that time.

Sometimes I will pass on a shot where the distance is a drop in the bucket but the situation isn't.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Those number were just examples. I'm not sure what the best percentage would be to teach in regards to how an archer determines if and when to take a shot in regards to shot distance.
> 
> Is it within the range of being able to make the shot 100% of the time? 90%? 80%?
> 
> ...


yes... but at least they are numbers... if you don't do it.. it is 0% knowledge... :grin:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

That was a very eloquent, if not just lengthy response, but it can be whittled down to the following statements, which we both know are a big fat straw man...



rattus58 said:


> a
> 
> My position on proficiency should be pretty well apparent by now... but since you seem to have missed the point of it all...
> 
> I am a proponent of proficiency... you seem to think that is a bad word...


1. I have not missed any point, but apparently you have. The point of the the thread was simply this. Do we think that proficiency testing is a good idea in an attempt to reduce wounding animals?

2. Nowhere have I said I am against proficiency, or that I think it's a bad word. If you know anything about me, you would know that couldn't be further than the truth. What I said was proficiency testing will do nothing meaningful to reduce the wounding rate.

Nice attempt at trying to steer the discussion away from the original point.

Same with you Ray.

Yes, knowledge is power, and as fantasmagorical is it may sound, NO HUNTER SAFETY CLASS IN THE NATION promotes 100 yard shots with a bow on anything. With all due respect, your argument loses credibility when you come up with such fantastic examples like I know a guy that knows a guy that learned that 100 yard shots on elk with a bow is OK.

Come on.

If knowledge is power as you say, tell me why there are so many millions of unwanted pregnancies when every kid beyond the seventh grade knows just how to avoid them?

If knowledge is power as you say, tell me why so many people drive drunk when every person that gets a driver's license knows it is illegal and unsafe?

If knowledge is power as you say, why do so many people text when they drive when every person that gets a drivers license knows it is is unsafe and in most states illegal.

Knowledge is NOT power. Proper application of knowledge is power. Until you can develop a proficiency test that will insure proper application of the knowledge you have gained, you have nothing.

Like I have said (numerous times), there may well be valid reasons for proficiency testing, but lower wounding rates is not one of them.

KPC


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> The point of the the thread was simply this. Do we think that proficiency testing is a good idea in an attempt to reduce wounding animals?


Proficientcy testing/education as I have laid out as an example...YES.



GEREP said:


> What I said was proficiency testing will do nothing meaningful to reduce the wounding rate.


So in other words...education will do nothing meaningful to reduce the wounding rate. Is that what you also mean?



GEREP said:


> Yes, knowledge is power, and as fantasmagorical is it may sound, NO HUNTER SAFETY CLASS IN THE NATION promotes 100 yard shots with a bow on anything. With all due respect, your argument loses credibility when you come up with such fantastic examples like I know a guy that knows a guy that learned that 100 yard shots on elk with a bow is OK.


You're arguement loses credibility when you make assumptions. I never said that a Hunter Safety class teaches bowhunters to take 100yrds. shots at animals. The teachers that most likely promote that are friends or family members.



GEREP said:


> If knowledge is power as you say, tell me why there are so many millions of unwanted pregnancies when every kid beyond the seventh grade knows just how to avoid them?


Because they aren't using that knowledge. That should be obvious.



GEREP said:


> If knowledge is power as you say, tell me why so many people drive drunk when every person that gets a driver's license knows it is illegal and unsafe?


Because of free will. Just because a person has the knowledge to do right or wrong....does NOT guareentee that they will...but at least they can't use the excuse..."I din't know that" in their defense.



GEREP said:


> If knowledge is power as you say, why do so many people text when they drive when every person that gets a drivers license knows it is is unsafe and in most states illegal.


Again....same as above.



GEREP said:


> Knowledge is NOT power. Proper application of knowledge is power.


Wait a minute...you just said previously that knowledge was power....


GEREP said:


> Yes, knowledge is power


As I previously stated...knowledge is only powerful if used. If it's ignored...than the only person to blame is the person ignoring it.



GEREP said:


> Until you can develop a proficiency test that will insure proper application of the knowledge you have gained, you have nothing.


You can't insure against free will...but you can hold people accountable when they don't use the knowledge taught to them.



GEREP said:


> Like I have said (numerous times), there may well be valid reasons for proficiency testing, but lower wounding rates is not one of them.


Lowering wounding rates...IS a valid reason to educate people.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> That was a very eloquent, if not just lengthy response, but it can be whittled down to the following statements, which we both know are a big fat straw man...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Actually I disagree with the statement that proficiency testing will not lower wounding rates. Knowledge is power, as Ray has mentioned, and until you experience that "power" you can't make an informed decision of your, in this case, shot. I've not done this with others for archery, but I have numerous times for hunting with a muzzleloader and the lessons are the same... In my own case, I learned that shooting with a hard brimmed hat will cause grief on the shot if you don't know the bow string is on its way to disrupt your shot. 

Shooting a Muzzleloader (probably any rifle) with a back pack on can and most likely will change your shot placement over what you expect if you haven't experienced it. Shooting at targets off the bench at 50 yards produces one level of groupings. Offhand, sitting, and kneeling, produce another, and when in full camo, back pack and whatnot on, produces a third that has proven so far with all that I've experimented, to be be outside reasonable shift from the bench at 50 yards... (6"). I realize that this still is within the norm for hunting deer and pigs, but it proves a point and my "students" were advised to practice this till they could keep within that 6" 100%. This usually, as in my case when i was originally brought to task, means reducing the distance of the shot by half..... till you learned that at what distance you could shoot from standing, kneeling, sitting, etc with full pack on to make that quick shot on a walk/stalk type hunt which we do here in Hawaii.

Archery is the same... My longbow hits some hats... and so.... 

Using the information may not be something you can enforce, but it introduces a level of peer pressure as well that you don't get in the field. When you become proud of your shot, you take them. To answer one of your questions/statements of how do you enforce good behavior, the simplest way is to restrict hunting alltogether. Lotteries and Guides.


----------



## Daidohead (Dec 21, 2010)

GEREP said:


> That was a very eloquent, if not just lengthy response, but it can be whittled down to the following statements, which we both know are a big fat straw man...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Imagine what the numbers would be if nothing was taught or tested.

I do not understand the line of thinking that if it doesn't work 100% it's not worth doing.

If we as hunters do not start policing ourselves useing our existing power structure, our power structure is going to continue to police us, right out of existance.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> So in other words...education will do nothing meaningful to reduce the wounding rate. Is that what you also mean?
> 
> *Nope, education might, proficiency testing will not.*
> 
> ...



Is that clear enough?


KPC


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Is that clear enough?


No



GEREP said:


> Nope, education might, proficiency testing will not.


Proficiency testing as I described...IS a form of education. It indicates what the archer can be capable of at specific distances and let's them know what they may need to work on. How they answer the questions in the test I described determines whether they pass or fail...NOT if they can shoot all 3 arrows into the kill zone at 20yrds.



GEREP said:


> So again, what part of a proficiency test will insure that the knowledge is used?


There is no way to ensure that knowledge will be used...BUT..you can hold people accountable for not using it.



GEREP said:


> Correct and no proficiency test is going to change that.


I disagree for those that are open to doing what is right...rather than those that are rebelious and want to do whatever they want.



GEREP said:


> Ok, so how does a proficiency test hold people accountable for taking Hail Mary shots on game? It doesn't and it can't.


But it does to some extent because they can NOT claim ignorance. The only way for us to truly hold someone accountable is through accountability with peers or law enforcement. Some people may deal with some guilt and even than that may not change anything.



GEREP said:


> Educate yes, proficiency test, no.


A proficency test as I indicated is education on an individual basis.

Ray :shade:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

I have to agree with Kevin on this one. I've personally known too many good 3D shooters who wound deer like they're trying to collect a bounty. And yes, I am talking about the original post, not the half dozen other things this has morphed into. On that note, if we're going to be serious about proficiency tests for traditional bowhunters, then let's actually _be_ serious. Four out of five in a ten-inch circle at fifteen yards? Let's make it five out of six, with broadheads, in that same ten-inch circle at forty yards. One try, no retakes, fail and you don't hunt that year. Does it still sound like a good idea? :noidea:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Ray:

I have a lot of experience with going round and round with you and I know it will never end so this is going to be my last response to you.

All of what you are saying about education is correct. Gaining knowledge and then putting into practice is power. The more we know about any given subject, the more likely we are to make good choices. We have no argument there. BUT and this is a HUGE BUT... what you seem to be missing or maybe just not willing to acknowledge is that none of it matters until the person in question CHOOSES to make the right decisions.

People like you and me, who try to make the right decisions, take it upon ourselves to practice, limit ourselves to our known effective range, and do everything we can to avoid low percentage shots, don't need a proficiency test. But still, we do on occasion wound game. It's part of the deal. 

On the other hand, the jackasses who just don't care, take Hail Mary shots on game, drive drunk, text while they drive, and never use birth control are not going to be forced into compliance by any proficiency test. They don't care about the knowledge, they already know it and choose to ignore it. 

It's a lot like gun control actually. If we outlaw guns, the law abiding citizens will no longer be able to have a gun but they weren't the one's we were worried about anyway. The criminals, the ones we are trying to keep away from guns, are going to get them anyway. Why? THEY'RE CRIMINALS.

Proficiency testing like gun control is "feel good" legislation. It makes some people feel good thinking they did something, but at the end of the day the only people that you inconvenience are the ones that you weren't worried about to begin with.

Let's look at an example. Let's say that a certain highway with a speed limit of 70 mph is just having more than it's share of accidents. So, we decide to to change the speed limit to 60 mph, print new signs, and we educate as many people as we can about why we should now go 60 mph. We even go as far as to require anyone that uses that stretch of highway to take a driving test, with a policeman, that shows that you can drive at 60 mph. So, you drive with the policeman, set your cruise at 60, pass the test and he sends you on your way. Now bear in mind, there is no actual enforcement on the highway, you just need to show the cop that you can stay within the speed limit during your test and from that point on you are golden. When left to their own devices, how many people are going to only go 60 mph? Pretty much just the ones that would have done so after just reading the new signs.

Same with proficiency testing. Feel good legislation at it's best.

KPC


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

If you haven't got a license for hunting, do you take a test? The answer in ALL STATES today is yes. Is there field testing? In some states the answer is YES! The question should be, why not in ALL STATES?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> If you haven't got a license for hunting, do you take a test? The answer in ALL STATES today is yes. Is there field testing? In some states the answer is YES! The question should be, why not in ALL STATES?


No..I just go buy one over the counter..and I have never taken a test to get one..You should have said...if you have never had a hunting license and want to go get one now...then you have to take a written test...not actually shoot...


Mac


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> If you haven't got a license for hunting, do you take a test? The answer in ALL STATES today is yes.


Incorrect. Hunter education is only required in Wisconsin for people born after January 1, 1973. In Illinois the cutoff birthdate is January 1, 1980.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> I have a lot of experience with going round and round with you and I know it will never end so this is going to be my last response to you.


I agree...but that isn't necessarily a bad thing :wink:



GEREP said:


> BUT and this is a HUGE BUT... what you seem to be missing or maybe just not willing to acknowledge is that none of it matters until the person in question CHOOSES to make the right decisions.


I'm NOT missing it or NOT willing to acknowledge it. IMO...it DOES matter based on what I have said previously in regards to testing and education. 

I much rather see eduaction and testing put into place to inform those that wish to hunt on how to make good choices...rather than them having to find out on their own after they have wounded animals left and right.

I'm NOT supporting that a future bowhunter needs to show proficiency with accuracy at certain distances. I AM supporting that a future bowhunter at least acknowledge that they know their own limitations and the limitations of their equipment. No...it won't neccessarily keep people from shooting beyond their known limitations...but they won't be able to claim ignorance on their part when they are held accountable.



GEREP said:


> People like you and me, who try to make the right decisions, take it upon ourselves to practice, limit ourselves to our known effective range, and do everything we can to avoid low percentage shots, don't need a proficiency test. But still, we do on occasion wound game. It's part of the deal.


I totally agree! 



GEREP said:


> On the other hand, the jackasses who just don't care, take Hail Mary shots on game, drive drunk, text while they drive, and never use birth control are not going to be forced into compliance by any proficiency test. They don't care about the knowledge, they already know it and choose to ignore it.


I totally agree!



GEREP said:


> It makes some people feel good thinking they did something, but at the end of the day the only people that you inconvenience are the ones that you weren't worried about to begin with.


I don't think it's an inconvienience but I do believe that certain aspects of education and testing are required to some degree or another. I look for a balance...because I believe there can be too much testing and in other cases not enough.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> No..I just go buy one over the counter..and I have never taken a test to get one..You should have said...if you have never had a hunting license and want to go get one now...then you have to take a written test...not actually shoot...
> 
> 
> Mac


I've never been one fer proper language....


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Incorrect. Hunter education is only required in Wisconsin for people born after January 1, 1973. In Illinois the cutoff birthdate is January 1, 1980.


Whatever.... I wasn't thinking of splitting hairs.


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

Proficiency testing will* increase *wounding rates not lower them. More deer will get hit thus more will get wounded:lol3:...Van


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Van/TX said:


> Proficiency testing will* increase *wounding rates not lower them. More deer will get hit thus more will get wounded:lol3:...Van


 It takes an 8th grade education to understand that you know.... :grin:


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

I qualify...Van


----------



## Ybuck (Apr 21, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> No to any type of testing...any time or anywhere.
> 
> Mac


:thumbs_up


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Van/TX said:


> I qualify...Van


 I'm still strugglin with it.... :grin:


----------



## Forrest Halley (Jul 24, 2011)

I made the longbow team twice yesterday from 20y with a 50# Martin Stick and a 60# Ol' Ben 5000. 9/9 in a ten inch circle. Recurve is struggling....why are the little bows so hard to shoot? Better question why can't they just use the same anchor point as the longbows?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Forrest Halley said:


> I made the longbow team twice yesterday from 20y with a 50# Martin Stick and a 60# Ol' Ben 5000. 9/9 in a ten inch circle.


Congrats! :thumbs_up



Forrest Halley said:


> Recurve is struggling....why are the little bows so hard to shoot? Better question why can't they just use the same anchor point as the longbows?


You should be able to use the same anchor point.

Why do you feel you need a different anchor point for your recurve?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Forrest Halley (Jul 24, 2011)

Thanks. 
I don't know why I'd need a different anchor point. I just go off what it takes me to hit the little piece of paper on the target board. If I use the same point as the longbows it all goes high. I haven't got as much time in on the Kodiak Mag. I've got the two longbows set up to shoot the same arrow setup. Yes it was a PITA. I've got the recurve doing the same thing it just runs the arrows high. I'm still working on it, it could be the difference in the grip or my inexperience with it. I'm finding it a lot easier to torque arrows all over the place with the recurve as opposed to the two straight grip longbows.


----------



## Forrest Halley (Jul 24, 2011)

I think I've figured it out. Shut up and shoot is a good motto. I just turned off my mind and shot. No different anchor points and no other bs. In the name of honesty I had two fliers due to conversing with the crossbow shooters next to me on the range.







Five out of seven shots taken at twenty yards. The fliers went wide by a foot each time high left and low right. I believe they were shots two and four. A little more work required I think.


----------

