Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: allan f on May 02, 2008, 08:38:00 AM
-
In Quebec we have to shoot at three targets at 10, 15, 20, 25,30 yards and hit three out of the five to qualify for a bowhunting permit. I think the idea is a really good one (a little hard to screw up if you have a crossbow with sights) and I can't see it being to tough with a compound either.
The targets are 2d animals and get bigger the further away you get ie deer at 10 and moose at 30.
What other systems are in place out there for bow license qualification?
Allan
-
Here in Michigan we have to pass a gerneral Hunters Saftey program before we can get a license of and kind. Although I could see the benifits of having to qualify to bow hunt.
-
We have discussed this before on here. Although it sounds nice, having to "qualify" is not, in my mind, a good thing. Why you ask ?
Well, let's insert one scenario. I am starting out. I practiced real hard and I can shoot really well at 10 yards. I fail the test miserably at 20 and 30 (and who is to say 40 and 50 won't crop up) and that means I don't get to hunt.
Now, I promise to keep my shots to my 10 yards but can't get the license. Some "other guy" passes (remember... you mentioned sights and releases etc) but heck, they shoot out to 65 yards or better.
How has that "test" failed me and the system.
I don't think tests are fair... period.
ChuckC
-
I agree with ChuckC on this.
A few years ago I helped the city qualify archers for the new city deer hunt. The first couple years the test was score based. There was a "PRO" Target shooter that showed up to qualify and try to post the top score. He and I got into a discussion as to how it should have just been a profientcy (sp) test. He ended up with the top score but when he left after our discussion about the people with lower scores not being allowed to hunt he was mad as hell at me and had steam comming out his ears when he left.
-
This kind of testing always reminds me of a compound shooter that came to me for help. After winning trophies in a number of three d events, could not keep it together when a real deer was in front of him. He would get buck fever and as he put it "punt". He thought going to a longbow form would give him less to do and less to screw up. Testing will not do anything except keep some good but nervous hunters and beginners out of hunting. The proposed bowhunter programs in Iowa don't look all that promising either. Supporters of it will turn out a fraternity of target shooters.
-
Having passed the Quebec proficiency test with my longbow, I was suprised to see some compound shooters fail the test. I think it only helps to weed out the "sunday shooters" that pull out their bows from the cobwebs the days prior to the season. We're not talking a FITA round here, just three arrows in a big vital zone (I think it's a circle that contains the lung, heart and liver area).
Too bad the new regs allowing crossbows during the bow season only require the theoretical part, not the abillity test.
Chris
-
Mixed feelings on this one. I think it could help the reputation of bowhunters with the general public, but most people have their minds made up already. As far a from a responsibility standpoint I think it would be a good idea, but as others have pointed out, the test could be made ridiculously hard so as to greatly reduce the number of bowhunters. I'm not sure what a minimum proficiency should be, but I think it isn't unreasonable that someone should be accurate to 20 yards before drawing on an animal. That won't eliminate bad shots on occasion, but would certainly give archers motivation to practice. On the other hand, I would hate to see the number of bowhunters decrease in this political climate for any reason. Sorry, I can't make up my mind.
-
It will eliminate Trad Hunters. 30 yards is too far for a lot of people to be thinking of shooting and to make it part of a proficiency test will either keep them out of archery hunting or force them to compound/crossbow. 30 yards is much farther than most should be thinking of shooting while hunting regardless of the equipment they use especially when starting out but a test like this makes it look like it is ok. We don't need to be weeding hunters out, we need to be adding them if we want to keep hunting alive for future generations.
-
You got me thinking there, vermonster13. I tend to agree with you. Actually, the distances are 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 meters and the vital zone on the moose at 30m is about 24" in diameter. It did stop me from bowhunting until I had the time to commit to a lot of practice since I never shot a compound.
Chris
-
I agree with vermonster13 that 30 is definitely too far for a proficiency test. I also don't want to weed out hunters. That being said, I thind we have some responsibility to minimize the odds of wounding an animal and not recovering. A great target shooter may get nervous and miss a shot, but it is unreasonable to think that someone who can't hit the target at 15 yards under range conditions will be a consistantly great shot under hunting conditions. More wounded deer ruins our reputation with the antihunters and more importantly, with the nonhunters.
-
That is where the bow safety class comes in. I teach effective range and do a shooting safety test. I want to see how they handle the bow and actually hear someone say that a shot is outside their range. Teach about responsibility in the class and talk about how our actions effect our opportunities.
-
To give you an idea. Denmark has a proficiency test and to date only 7 trad shooters have passed that I know of. The national LB champion of a few years actually failed it.
-
Dave, I have to disagree. The test that was talked about in the original post said it was 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 yards (or meters) but you only had to hit 3 out of the 5. In my opinion people taking to the field should be able to hit the vitals at 10, 15, and 20 yards at least. Before I could bow hunt my dad made me shoot until I could consistantly hold 9 inch groups at 20 yards with 6 arrows. He would put a standard paper plate on the target and I would have to hit it will all 6 arrows. The reason for this was that 9" is roughly the size of the kill zone on a deer. Was it hard for me when I was 12? Yeah it was but I am glad he did it and it made me realize just how big of an area I was trying to hit.
Would something like this cut down on the number of hunters? Maybe and probably yes. But if they wanted to be out there doing what they love they would put the time and effort into making sure that they could pass the test. And I am not saying you should make every body that wants to hunt be able to hit a paper plate at 50 yards. But I am saying 20 and closer they should because not many people would have the will power to watch a deer or whatever game they are pursuing come into 15 yards and pass on it cause there effective range is 10.
Sorry for getting long winded but that is my $.02
-
Another problem with that is a guy can borrow a compound, practice a few minutes and than go take the test, than he goes out and hunt with a trad. bow. In NY if ya want to hunt special areas, such as NYC resivoir property and other state game preserves than ya have to pass a test. I believe it is 3 out of 5 in the kill zone at 15 yards. The scary thing is a lot of trad guys can't do that either. Shawn
-
Are you sure it isn't 3 out of five at each distance Tim?
Also to go along with Shawn's statement, they practice with a compound and sites at known distances and pass the test because of the pins and shooting on level ground at a target. Then they go hunt in a tree and miss or wound, the test does nothing but make some folks feel good and chase others away or to other means.
Next thing they do is push KE as a means for what is legal and what is not which the ATA would love because they could then legislate most traditional equipment out of hunting and sell more other "bows".
-
I agree with Vermonster !!
I am totally against profeciency testing.
Its odd; but you could in some places qualify with a compound and then hunt with a trad bow. No doubt; there are a lot of target archers qualifying with their target bow; and then hunting with another compound. How many of us traditional bowhunters would have to qualify with each bow we MIGHT hunt with?
Its cost and time prohibitive; and would require a lot of staffing issues.
3 out of 5 means a 40% chance of wounding
(unless my math sucks).
I have seen superior target archers totally miss at 20 yards on a live deer.
But it is more and more an issue that we will be facing. If it came down to testing or no testing; I would argue that one arrow shot at one target - at whatever range the hunter feels he can hit a pie plate size target. - that is how it works hunting.
-
One of the things that totally pisses me off about government intrusions like this, it is just one more liberty we loose. Namely are we a bunch of mindless sheep or are so many brainwashed into thinking that we can not think for ourselves? It is easy to let others do your thinking for you, it is a bit harder to think for yourself. It is time for every one to wake up and think for themselves. I can best decide what kind of shot I can take, what kind of equipment to use, or whether to believe some BS or some profit engineered hype that is being shoved at me. It is hard to impress me and even more difficult to pull my leg. I am proud of my antisocial stubbornness, I think for myself.
-
Oh come on now Laddy; don't be ashamed; say what ya feel !! ( this sounds good in an Irish brouge). :D
-
I'm reading your posts with great interest. I served 31 yrs as Tx game warden (survived-retired--save your hisses, heard 'em all...), heard just about every excuse or lie, saw the best to the worst of hunters, both archery and gun hunters. Mostly they were good folks--the best and I kid you not. Listen, I've seen far more horribly wounded deer out there caused by gun hunters not knowing their equipment than deer stumbling around with an arrow in the flank. Another point (first hand): Archers came on big time in Texas, then they took those same skills into the gun season: patience, clean shots, follow-up, processing of game, general ethics, etc., etc.
Lots of lies about archers out there as you very well know. I was partcularly glad as Texas got into the archery hunting scene, thanks to dedicated and organized archers, not a few being in our ranks as well. Proficiency test? Why? We don't have a "proficiency" test for hunting with a firearm. Hunter Education, fine, overall a good thing, there's an archery segment in that course too, maybe it could be expanded a bit.
Just keep using common-sense fellas, don't get into trying to "regulate" so much, once you open those doors for an agency to "regulate" something, watch out! Texas has recently proposed dropping the draw weight requirement altogether. Interesting. So, I wrote my former Dept. heads in Austin for the reasoning behind that. I couldn't really get an up-front answer but the gist seems to be "let's try it and see if the younger folks get interested and try it instead of over-regulating the sport, discouraging prospective hunters". Wow, kinda like, "let's treat hunters like they have a brain and see how it works". What a concept.
-
After being a Bow Ed instructor here in Montana for a number of years initially I thought a proficiency level should be requisite for getting an archery license. Then I got to thinking about the state of mind of a new bowhunter.
What happens here is about 90% of the students in Missoula where we run about 350-375 per year through the program, don't even own a bow and because a shooting proficiency is not required, don't shoot at the field course.
In Montana we put about 2500-2800 people through the course per year, but we are only getting about half of that for new archery license sales. That tells me about half of the student do not buy an archery license, and after one year probably more than half of those who did buy a archery stamp, don't buy it after the first year....Why? Because bowhunting is hard.
The natural curiousity of people leads them to the class, and they come away with a new perspective on bowhunting.
A proficiency in my opinion on a set of static targets is not really a good indicator of how a bowhunter might react in a hunting situation. Multiply the level of anxiety for a new bowhunter by the difficulty of the shot itself and no static demonstration can duplicate a true field condition.
Yes, practice and becoming proficient is part of the program, but it takes years literally to make a bowhunter. A twelve hour class and shooting a set of 3D targets only barely scratch the surface...only gives them a glimpse of what to expect.
For some programs, like an urban deer control hunting situtation, experienced bowhunters might be required to make a proficieny grade to demostrate equipment and accuracy. But for newbies I think it will dimenish recruitment in a big way.
Gary
-
The point I am really trying to state in my response has to do with responsibility and choice. Those tests dictate that I be able to shoot at THEIR chosen distances and circumstances.
I won't shoot 30 yards at a critter.... why should I have to be able to hit that distance.
I keep telling people in classes, the best thing you can do to learn how to be a hunter is to go hunting. If you can only shoot ten yards accurately... then I guess you have to learn to wait till you get a ten yard shot. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand ?
All of the tests I have ever heard about involve distances that are, in many cases, geared for modern equipment. I have never heard of a test that walked you thru the woods and had you shoot one arrow at an unknown distance, contorted so you can get it thru leaves and limbs (Oh... I forgot... we clear those all away from the spots we hunt in... right ?) And, since most hunt from a tree, why is there no tree stand shot required ?
As far as I am concerned.. why stop there. What are they shooting at ? Why not test anatomy. I have railed about this before.
From my experience in teaching hunters ed and bowhunters courses, 95% of people in general would not pass that one unless you made it ridiculously easy.
As stated above, they don't test gun shooters. That one would open up a whole big barrel of worms.
I think (my opinion only, but a very strong opinion it is) that proficiency testing, as it currently exists, is a bad thing... period.
ChuckC
-
I could go either way depending on the test.I think anyone should be able to hit a 20 yard target to hunt.
Not long ago I shot a 3D round with a guy that couldn't hit a barn door at 20 yards.He would just let her rip.Sometimes he would release at no more than 15 inches draw and the arrow would go about 20 feet before hitting dirt.He would say he didn't pull far enough on that one.The next time he might pull 30 inches and the arrow fly 5 feet above the target.He would say I pulled that one too far.
I asked him if he hunted and he said,"Well I try".I hate to think of the poor deer that runs into him.
-
Gary,
Well thought out post. I follow you and agree. The urban deer control using archers is great and yes, a proficiency test of some sort that relates to what they are doing is in line IMO. That's a great opportunity for bowhunters, I'd like to see that expanded with each state doing it's thing using bowhunters.
We have many "subdivisions" with ample acreage for hunting but most opt out of hunting (which makes sense--discharging high-powered firearms where there are residences), even though they may be on 5-10 acre plots but generally bowhunting is allowed, not a bad thing at all. Deer love to come in and munch on those high-priced ornamentals and that's where the most dyed in the wool vegetarian starts screaming for "something to be done!!"
Live trapping them out is inefficient and too time consuming to spend on one subdivision, you see the problems I'm sure.
Thanks for your dedication in teaching Hunter's Ed., I don't know of a more dedicated bunch of people than HE instructors. We've had a lot of fun doing those programs with our instructors.
Ron
-
Here in Rhode Island we have three islands that are great for bowhunting. For instance, I usually spend 2 weeks on Block Island. It is 13 miles of the southern coast. Have to take a ferry(including pick-up trucks) to get there. It is a big island, made up mostly of just summer people.(very rich summer people I might add)One of my good buddy's lives there(he's not one of the rich ones)so it makes it affordable. Lot's of deer & quite a few P&Y class bucks. Any way, to get back to your question, to hunt the islands we have to shoot 3 out of 5 broad-heads into a deer size target, they don't use 3D, at 20 yards to get the permit to hunt the islands. Renewable every 2 years. I don't think it is very fair to put us trads up against compound & crossbows either. I try to keep all my shots under 20yrds, so I think the test is too generalized. Hope I answered your question, although dragged out & long winded.
Good luck & good hunting!
-
Profecency testing does nothing unless the individual tested has the discipline to stay within thier level of proficency. Until they can test that, the test provides no useful information unless your only goal is to limit the amount of hunters.
I agree with Tim that "not many people would have the will power to watch a deer or whatever game they are pursuing come into 15 yards and pass on it cause there effective range is 10". The only thing profeciency testing will have done is now those people think becuase they are effective to 20 yards and will now shoot at everything within 30 yards.
The resources being used for proficency testing would be better used in an educational effort to teach people to only shoot when they are confident they will kill.
(Note: I edit out the word ethics and replaced it with discipline becuase I don't think it is an ethics issue, it is more an issue of making a bad choice when the pressure is on, and who hasn't done that at some time or other).
-
Good post Blaine. After reading all of the posts I have come to agree that testing proficiency will do little good, except from a public relations standpoint, and would be costly in terms of reducing the number of bowhunters as well as financially. See, I can be open minded on occasion.
-
I read all the post and I am shocked and stunned...I had no idea that there were places in the U.S.A. where you need to take a proficiency test before you could get a archery permit..hunter safety wasn't manditory when I began hunting but everyone I knew took the course..this smells rotten to me and that can't be good..I'll make sure I make my appointment for my proficiency test before I go wabbit hunting with my longbow next easter...
-
In NJ, to pass the archery Hunter Education class, "You must be able to shoot 3 out of 5 arrows into the vital zone of a 3-D deer target (approximately 10-inch diameter) between 10 and 20 yards with your own bow to pass this course."
-
Alaska requires you to pass a shooting proficiency test to hunt the bow hunts. You can hunt the regular season without taking the test in many areas. The farthest shot is 28 yards and they are at an elk, bear, and generally two deer sized targets. You shoot twice at each and must kill each one and one of the four you must kill twice. Took me two tries to pass. Failure rate for first time compound shooters was close to 40% when I was teaching.
-
Question:
where you do have to test; are you restricted to the bow you use in the test (for hunting)?
-
Nope
-
It is Tulip Festival in town, but I took out my deer target to see if I could pass the Alaska test. Lots of cars scrounging around. I had to watch for cars and stand out in the street to get the 28 yards. Nope, would not have passed the test, too many times I had to shoot quick because more cars were coming.
Then to add insult to injury a foreign guy, Arab or Jewish, stops and asked me if he could film me shooting coins out of the air. Around here it is called Dutch Bingo, gossip, I wish these nosey old crows would stop talking about me. He also wanted to borrow "hundreds" of arrows so he could do a photo shoot of Indians attacking cars, with flaming arrows!! Around here the natives ware wooden shoes. I am the only one with moccasins.
-
What size coins?
-
pennies
-
This is an issue that will never go away, but the more we have people who are not hunters, getting involved in making these decisions, the more problems we will have. Think about this when you elect your elected officials.
This is clearly an Ethics issue. How, you might ask, well it is simple.
How can I tell someone who is deadly at 15 yards that he/she can't hunt. Could it be that the person who is deadly at that distance has the will, desire, and ethics not to go beyond that range?
Let's look at the reverse, so some "hot shot" is nailing the qualification course with dead center accuracy out to 30 yards, or whatever the max is. If that person hasn't the will, desire, or ethics and is not proficient beyond, he will likely take that fifty, sixty, or seventy yard shot. I submit, the latter is far worst than the former.
It is a false sense of security, that may be will meaning, but will only serve to keep good, ethical, woodsman/hunters, out of the game.
I think a better tool would be the "Golden Eagle" program that was designed to give a hunter a realistic idea of how good or not so good they were.
There are far too many factors that dictate clean kills in hunting. Too many things that cannot be tested by a mere shooting proficiency test. More energy should be placed in Hunter Education Courses with emphasis on Ethics, and more programing on the "Outdoor Channel" and similar programing where the "kill" is not the be all and end all.
Ethics is getting the head/heart together on the right level, putting the right thing above all else, even the kill. Once that occurs, the rest will follow. The lack of Ethics is basically the results of the destruction of the family unit, the absence of a hunting member(very apparent in urban families) where traditionally, Dad, and Granddad taught this stuff.
Truly another reason our numbers are falling, and some of the new members we have are lacking in some of these skills and thought processes.
Just an observation....feel free to agree, or disagree. Dialog is what we need.
-
Scott, your ethics are best defined by what you do when no one is looking.
In AK this serves two useful purposes:
1. It gets people into hunter ed
2. It keeps out the people who go buy a compound simply to hunt the archery only hunts. I had two show up w/price tags still on the bows. Said they were returning them if they didn't pass. They didn't.
-
I went out in the country tried myself on the 28 yard test, today I was good enough out to over 40 yards. I wonder how many are like me, that under certain pressures flinch like they nerve damage. I would feel bad for myself and others that have taken numerous cleanly shot game and had to give it up because of nerves that are different than normal hunting jitters.
-
laddy, I don't think there are many, or at least a large percentage, like you if you are good enough with trad gear to over forty yards.
-
Originally posted by LKH:
Scott, your ethics are best defined by what you do when no one is looking.
I developed target panic real bad when I was shooting in competition. I shoot real well when by myself with nobody watching. If indeed ethics are best defined as what you do when no one is looking-- and my shooting is defined by if someone is watching.... what good is a profiecency test?
This is a bandwagon thing; everyone wants to be on the bandwagon and kill something with a bow; and it does not matter to some if that 'thing' is a deer drugged and wobbling around after being measured and paid for; or if its a high fence operation. These on the bandwagon want fame; and glory; and I see that as a distant part of traditional archery.
Yes; there are famous traditional bowhunters; but they are famous not because of the stack of game they have in their picture; but because of the kind of person they are.
Profiecency testing will not make you a good shot on game. It will not make you a good hunter; it won't make you take only ethical shots; it will not garauntee that you hit what you shoot at; or that your broadheads will be sharp.
Its a club. Its something that will either stay and plauge us; or it will go away when the thrill of being in the club does. And I see that happening.
At some point; and we are getting there; the bow will be so advanced; that any new advancements will be so minor it will not make a difference. And when the day comes when a person cannot show up at a shoot with the newest and shiniest bells and whistles; the thrill will be gone.
Yep- I can see the day soon when range finders will be incorporated into the sight itself; and an onboard computer to figure out the angles; and an arrow with a gps locator on it so you can always find your game.
Perhaps we will argue that the lack of all that stuff will require us to need more time in the woods. Afterall we need close shots to be really accurate; and that takes more time.
Time afield lost is what I fear the most; and maybe; just maybe the effeciency folks will paint themselves into a corner. As their number and impact on game goes up; time afield will go down. And then our argument: that we need more time to take a shot that is ethical- will be the thing that helps us cling to our instinctual heritage.
No one thing threatens us more than "profeciency testing". Nothing takes us off our path more; or takes us in the wrong direction more. It is a path for the compound/cam bow crowd; and not for us.
We can hunt with compounders; and have a good time; but when they start telling us how and when and why - and putting limitations on who... then out of the woods - who is our friend or our foe should be obvious.
-
It's not the compound hunters calling for this and to paint it as such and us against them is only unnecessary in fighting. Take a look at the boards running many fish and games, a lot of them are Governor appointees who don't even hunt. The folks who are "anti" are very good at trying to make things look like they are "good" for hunting and too many like to jump on the boat thinking it will help hunting or protect their piece. The more we give away the less we have and the closer to the other side's ultimate goal we get.
-
I agree with vermonster13 in this regard. We shouldn't be looking at compound hunters as our enemies. Hunting with traditional equipment and compound bows isn't mutually exclusive. We don't need to alienate anyone if we are going to preserve our rights to hunt.
P.S. Looking forward to the cheerleader pics
-
Better pony up when the auction starts then. This fellow don't go cheap. lol
-
Who is asking for the profeciency testing? I can't find an effort to do so here on this site.
-
You won't find it on the compound sites either. It's not the bowhunters after it Brian.
-
Having to qualify is not a good idea at all. It would take some of the fun out of the whole experience.
It would also discourage some young or new hunters, especially those who hunt trad.
-
In AK, there is almost no tree stand hunting, except for bears. Most of the shots tend to be a bit longer. In the test I described earlier, the only long (28 yard) shot is at a big full bodied elk.
Perhaps if you can't pass the test you might want to think about if you should be shooting at live animals in our environment.
You would be surprised at how little complaint we get about the proficiency test. It took me two tries to pass and at the time, the long shot was a real challenge.
-
I like the idea of proficiency tests. It is a sad reality, but we cannot rely on people to use their brains and be responsible. We taught the course here and were able to infuse a great deal about ethics, shot placement/anatomy, and in the field test, noone but us knew the range of each target and we set the course up so that some shots were from a side hill shooting down and all kinds of different conditions.
We also set up a steel black bear target with black paper over the cut out vitals. We asked each tester to walk to their longest confortably proficient range and kill the bear. There were some shattered cedar and carbon and bent aluminum arrows and some of the guys were pissed off. But, they could have walked up to 5 yards if they wanted. Some cocky compound shooters walk out to fifty and ruin an arrow.
When politics is considered, the issue gets complicated. But, for me the bottom line is the critters. We have a responsibility and an opportunity with these tests to eductate people that need educated, so that we reduce the numbers of critters that are wounded and lost.
I am not concerned with the newbies. If they are not mature enough to put in the time to become proficient and responsible then they have no business being out there. Talking about numbers... quality will protect our sport more so than quantity. States are interested in quantity... let them worry about that. We need to be involved and concerned about quality.
-
It's unreal how many arrows I have found sticking out of the tundra at a very steep angle, and they just happen to be 150 to 200 yards off the haul road. What does that say? It says idiots to me! And to be shooting aluminum arrows with vanes off the haul road, they had to have passed the test.
You cannot legislate morality, ethics, or brains. But, how many of these idiots did we stop from taking pot-shots and wounding caribou by them NOT passing the test. I feel strongly about this, especially after I spent two days tracking and dispactching a bull moose near Coldfoot, that I heard about from a tour bus operator who said his passengers were taking pics of it standing on the side of the road with an arrow sticking out of its neck.
In Alaska, the IBEP proficiency test for archery hunts, came as a result of an effort at self-regulation by bowhunters. In our case it has nothing to do with a club mentality as Brian talks about.
We fight the bunny huggers every day up here and a great many of them dont even live here. There's a balance that must be found between promoting ethics within our own ranks and dealing with the politics. The closer relationship we have with our state biologists and legislators, the better our chances of protecting out lifestyle. If you are involved I respect your opinions, if not, well, are you just another complainer or what? If you loose your priveledges what will you say then? Who will you blame?
Im not at all interested in catering to the week-end warriors. Im interested in doing my part to help young people experience what God's awesome creation has to offer. I believe it's my responsibility to work for that within the system. Some here sound like stubborn individualists and that doesnt get anything positive done.
I'm an individualist and a bit of a loner, but I believe in fighting for, not complaining about, what is important to me.
If I loose the fight, I will not be stopped from enjoying what I believe is my God given rights. But thats another story.
-
I am very much in disagreement. All you do by testing is to keep people out. Randall, you already told a couple great stories about how well those "tested and proficient" folks controlled their 200 yard shots and how well they shot a a bull moose sized target.
So, am I to hear that if I can only shoot 15 yards I can't hunt, but if I happen to have a 28 yard sight pin I can go out there and by the way, if I can see it I can shoot at it ? That is what happened. Testing didn't do a thing.
As before....My problem with testing for proficiency is that I have to test to YOUR standards, not mine.
What gives you the right to tell me how good I have to be and how far I have to be able to shoot. Going on with that.. if you start it, someone is GONNA adapt that to longer stronger standards. Are you ready to give up being able to bow hunt because the standards are now 50 or 60 (or more) yards ?
Heck, you want hunting areas to yourself, work to raise the bar to 75 yards. A few will always be able to do it. Mainly wheelie shooters with sights and releases. Where do we stop ?
My standards wouldn't have let me throw arrows 150 to 200 yards at a critter (you are presuming it was at a critter and not just "stump shooting"). Something is obviously wrong with these tests now, isn't it.
ChuckC
-
It seems some are willing to bet their hunt - that they shoot good at targets.
I am not of that ilk.
-
Next thing this kind of "testing" invites is KE minimums which the ATA has pushed for overseas and achieved. They are building up "precedents" to use here for lawmakers. That would cut out all but the very heaviest of Trad equipment and you'd either hunt with compound/crossbow or give up archery hunting.
-
No Vermonster; I will not give up hunting. I may not wear tights; but I certainly will be hunting the kings deer.
Why not tell us WHO IS making these plans: to do all the things you suggest.
-
I have several times. The Archery Trade Association the fine folks who make their living selling you this years fastest non-traditional archery equipment. Ask Dr. Ashby about his experiences with them in Africa. They have put millions of dollars into this. The non-hunting folks who sit on DNR boards who buy into propaganda from them and several anti-organizations saying archery equipment wounds more than it kills even though it has been proven otherwise and the noneducated public who have seen Bambi one to many times and think this stuff will produce more humane hunters or prevent hunters from ever coming about.
-
Originally posted by ChuckC:
I am very much in disagreement. All you do by testing is to keep people out. Randall, you already told a couple great stories about how well those "tested and proficient" folks controlled their 200 yard shots and how well they shot a a bull moose sized target.
Yes, and as I also said, you cannot legislate brains. Some idiots pass. But I believe that what most take away from the classes is valuable info that will stick with them. What I learned in Hunters Safety as a kid has stuck with me for 30 years.
So, am I to hear that if I can only shoot 15 yards I can't hunt, but if I happen to have a 28 yard sight pin I can go out there and by the way, if I can see it I can shoot at it ? That is what happened. Testing didn't do a thing.
Listen, I dont want to be restricted any more than you do, but I dont want people dragging their bow out of a closet and heading into an archery-only sheep hunt who cant hit the kill zone on a 20 yard target. Period. And it's my opinion that if a person puts in the time and they still cant hit the vitals 5 out of 8 times at various ranges withing 20 yards, they might want to think about rifle hunting.
As before....My problem with testing for proficiency is that I have to test to YOUR standards, not mine.
No, you have to test to the same standards as everyone else that wants to hunt in an archery only hunt, which we bowhunters have spent years and years lobbying to get. We want to ensure that we maintain the best reputation for self-regulation and ethics as possible. And we arent looking to appease the antis. We are looking to maintain a positive working relationship with ADF&G to ensure continued opportunity.
What gives you the right to tell me how good I have to be and how far I have to be able to shoot. Going on with that.. if you start it, someone is GONNA adapt that to longer stronger standards. Are you ready to give up being able to bow hunt because the standards are now 50 or 60 (or more) yards ?
Who is gonna do that? Fish & Game isnt. They want opportunity. They are in the business of wildlife mangement and their best tool is hunting. For the most part, they are on our side. What you are talking about aint gonna happen. At least not in Alaska.
Heck, you want hunting areas to yourself, work to raise the bar to 75 yards. A few will always be able to do it. Mainly wheelie shooters with sights and releases. Where do we stop ?
You arent talking to ME!!!Get a grip!!!
My standards wouldn't have let me throw arrows 150 to 200 yards at a critter (you are presuming it was at a critter and not just "stump shooting"). Something is obviously wrong with these tests now, isn't it. ChuckC
Jeez Chuck, you sound like a bunny hugger the way you use a couple examples to cast a negative light on the whole bunch. My standards wouldnt either, but then there are a lot of boneheads out there. My point stands. We have kept far more of them out of the special hunts than we've sent out there. And yes, Ive seen the idiots jump out of their rigs on the Haul Road and sky their arrows at running caribou a hundred yards off the road.
Bowhunting is a lifestyle for me. Im going to do whatever I can to keep fools from ruining what we have worked so hard for. The special archery hunts would not exist if we werent willing to meet standards. They are standards agreed upon by bowhunters and the state.
I guess we just agree to disagree.
-
Originally posted by Brian Krebs:
It seems some are willing to bet their hunt - that they shoot good at targets.
I am not of that ilk.
Brian, Im not sure I understand what you are saying. Im a bit slow on the up-take. I detest target shooting. I dont do it. I love killing those tasty stumps.
As far as betting my hunt on them, Ill gladly take eight shots at 3D targets in order to have the opportunity at trophy sheep, goats, and moose without having rifles blazing in the mountains around me.
-
Vermonster: the 'non-traditional bowhunting world' is doing it the top is supported by the bottom.
STMPTHMPR:
Were their bowhunters that opposed the Alaska regulations; and if so; who - and why? I have trouble believing it was a 100% issue.
And who said you could not have the special archery hunts without being willing to meet "standards" ?
-
Guess I am a bunny hugger. Hey Brian... can you pass me a bunny. Wait, maybe toss it over. Let me get a flu flu.
We are disagreeing. Seeing this from two whole worlds apart. You see this game as an opportunity given by the Alaskan Game folks. I see it as a wholesale sell out. Can't say who orchestrated it, but you know, them dealers and manufacturers are sure making a bunch of money selling you all that new high tech gear every year.... and now crossbows.
Do gun hunters have to test for proficiency ? Why not?
There are, in my mind, MANY times more gun hunters who come out the week before season and sight in their guns with two or three bullets and then proclaim that they are ready.... and that they are just genetically able to shoot better at running game.
If the Game folks want to give opportunity, why are they limiting people ? Bud, you only gave two examples and I jumped on both of them cause they were ripe to be jumped upon. Give some others where testing worked.
With today's modern gear, I find it difficult to believe that I can't train someone, in a few hours, to pass that test, as long as they can compose themselves regarding being watched. Two sight pins is all you need, one in some cases. Two hours.. I've already done this several times, (but not for a test scenario).
Literally, they can come home from Gander Mountain with their new bow that the store assembled, grab that magazine that tells them how to shoot the Booner deer that anyone who calls themself a serious archer should be shooting,every year... and go pass that test.
So much for training. So much for experience. So much for the desire to pour yourself into that life style.
Once it gets out that anybody can pass those tests, that it is too easy, it will have to get harder. The modern equipment can do this.
I just saw a video staring the famed muzzleloader dude. Even has his name on the powder. He was in New Zealand on a great hunt. He shot a chamois at around 275 yards... with a muzzleloader. Now.. he is GOOD and I know this... but... The equipment is no longer holding people back. If you had an old black powder burner shooting round balls, do you think you could compete with the likes of that ? Do you think it unreasonable for them to ask you to hit 4 out of 5 at 150 yards ? Hmmm might be tough with round balls. Does that mean you are a bad or even an unskilled person.
Another video had some guy shoot a deer at .. I don't remember, like 900 + yards. It showed the deer crumble when hit with the .338 super duper special, using a shooting base and a spotter partner and a high end lazer rangefinder. They zoomed back to normal view and you couldn't even see the deer well before they got zoomed back. Yep, modern equipment can do that. Wanna compete with your Marlin .35 or 30-30 ? Does that make you a bad or uncaring person.
You may not see it now.. but this sort of testing is incrementally gonna take our sport away from many of us who really are thoughtful, caring, moral beings. The hill is high and the slope is slippery. Think not ? A few years ago there were no tests. Now some people aren't allowed to hunt because of them.
ChuckC
-
Well written response Chuck
-
Gotta agree with ChuckC, Brian, and Vermonster13. I originally was kinda leaning more for the test and still feel that by itself with modest standards it could be a good thing. Unfortunately what one person thinks as modest another thinks is too easy. Believe me when I say I am not paranoid and don't see every piece of legislation that is introduced as a direct threat, but after considering this issue I really think this is too much of an opportunity to reduce the number of traditional archery hunters, then later bowhunter's, and who knows from there. We can't afford that. As has been said many times earlier in this thread, a test by itself won't prevent people from taking unsafe shots. There is already a hunter education course that only has limited success in that regard. Can't support these tests in any format.
-
ChuckC
:notworthy:
-
There isnt much point in addressing what you've said Chuck. Especially with the gross exagerations. I respect yout opinions on this and I dont disagree with much you are saying. As I said there needs to be a balance struck.
There are much bigger fish to fry than bowhunter ed courses.
I just now noticed you are from Wisconsin. NO WONDER!!! You are coming from a place where DNR means, "Darn Near Russia". I know... I grew up there. I came to Alaska in the early eighties and it was like night and day. Here, not only is public put wanted, but it is solicited and sportsmen have the opportunity to play an integral role in the wildlife management process.
Ive been to the DNr meetings in Oshkosh and elsewhere and it is just a fascade. The patronize and placate and do whatever they see fit. And frankly, by the input I heard from many who attend those meetings, I can kinda understand why.
It's a totally different world up here. The Alaska constitution mandates that the resources are managed for sustained use for human consumption. As long as the Feds lay off, we'll be just fine up here.
Honestly, I dont really know much anymore about what is going on in the lower 48, so we may be arguing apples and oranges. And we shouldnt be anyway.
A part of the reason bowhunter ed courses were made mandatory for the special permit hunts, was because of the gun hunters. They fought us. I spent a good number of years working on that problem. All sportsmen need to work together and have their little disputes out quietly.
Anyway, I apologize for my snarky tone. Im used to debating granola crunchers and ignoramuses and I get riled easily.
I do have a question though. Kenetic energy standards were mentioned. The only one I was aware of was for Cape Buffalo and that has always made sense to me because of their rib structure. Have they broadened that to include other critters?
-
Randall (Randy ?) Hey. I am not trying to jump your case especially, just put forth another point of view. I feel as strongly about my side as you obviously do yours.
A concern with kinetic energy standards are probably due to the way they are calculated. There are several ways to measure energy and expected outcomes. KE gives greater credence to speed, while Momentum caters to weight. Two ways to look at things. Once again... we have the THEM and US issues.
Since KE follows the speed, and since compound bows are sold because of their speed, it takes no brains at all to figure which formula the industry is going to espouse.
If you take and mandate KE as the way to measure standards, you WILL lose your right to bowhunt using trad equipment, unless you are using much heavier equipment than the majority in the US.
You are very correct in one vein... that is.. we as a group need to do something internally to make us look better, or maybe, put another way, to show the public that we (in the greater masses) are not fiends, law breakers and over- all not good folks.
The question is what.. and how. That, my friend.... might.... be a good topic for another thread. This is something that we CAN do, but we have to do it en masse and we have to come up with a series of "something" to do.
Not so very long ago we had very little background, knowledge and skills regarding treestand safety. The industry wasn't really helping and in fact they had no clue either.
Groups within the NBEF cadres began to research and teach and their teachings were spread far and wide. Heck, now it is boring to see those same identical words and those same identical ideas being thrown around by everyone.
What happened ? Right place, right time kinda things happened and the industry bought in (they were shoved in). It changed tree stand safety for the better.
We only need to decide what to do for the next phase and jump on it. Is TradGand the right venue for this ?
I had an agenda in my classes based upon results I actually saw and heard from folks that are hunting. I truly believe that the next big step regards teaching what we lovingly refer to as shoot-no shoot knowledge and above all, where to aim.
My experience shows people in general have a very skewed idea of where the heart / lungs / liver reside on game animals and where to aim.
Any other suggestions ? I am gonna think about this and start another thread today asking the Gang what they think might be a good topic for change.
Oh, and Randy... I am neither a granola cruncher nor an igno..ingnor.... that other thing !
ChuckC :rolleyes:
-
You can carry that subject over to the simple thing thread Chuck. It needs reading and this subject(hunter image) is a big part of what I am saying there.
-
My son and I passed the test w/trad gear and a lot of others have too. It's not that hard, but does require practice. Even w/compound and sights. It gets rid of the guys who decide to go who have never shot a bow before the course. That's a good thing.
You can still bowhunt the non-archery only areas (vast majority of the land) without testing.
-
Originally posted by stmpthmpr:
There isnt much point in addressing what you've said Chuck. Especially with the gross exagerations..........
A part of the reason bowhunter ed courses were made mandatory for the special permit hunts, was because of the gun hunters. They fought us.
What gross exagerations did Chuck make?
You did not answer my question about the who what and why there is a requirement to qualify.
But I do see in in the quote above.
It was the gun hunters.
Being from Wisconson; you should know the first attempts at making bowhunting illegal were gun hunters.
So; under attack from gun hunters; bowhunters decided a profiecency test was a good idea.
Who were these bowhunters. Were they comprised more of compound bow hunters; or of traditional bowhunters.
Were there those that fought against the rule- is that a correct statement?
If it is; who were they?
You say your pretty distant from the problems of the 'lower 48'; but were you - as a part of the implementation of the qualify to bowhunt program: at all thinking of the ramifications to the other states by example?
In your answers - please don't use what you said Chuck used.... "gross exagerations". Tell the truth.
You required it of Chuck; do hold yourself in your answers to the same requirement.
-
Chuck,
I understand where you are coming from and I agree with most of what you say. I again want to apologize because I know that I came off with an adversarial tone. I am involved in politics as well and Im a bit jumpy. Sorry.
Brian pointed out my accusation. I need to take a step back here. Reading back through, you did not make any "gross exagerations". You were simply debating me and putting forth your opinion. You were no more over the top than I was.
When the IBEP was introduced, it was done so for a number of reasons. First and foremost, because Fish & Game wanted to mitigate any flack from the anti and non-hunting groups. Before they got behind breaking up the drawing permit hunts in the controlled and restricted use areas in particular, they needed to take steps to address the flack from the antis, non-hunting user groups, and gun hunters. At the same time they wanted to ensure that educated, efficient hunters were being put in the field in those areas.
The Alaska Bowhunters Association was focused on the enducation aspect of the course, and providing additional opportunity. Our lobbying efforts have been not about breaking up seasons and taking time afield from gun hunters, but rather working with biologists to use the available science to demonstrate where additional opportunity was warranted. With already liberal seasons in so many of these areas, we were able write proposals that were adopted as sound science and providing for equal opportunity.
The actual course is taught by volunteer instructors who are certified. And we worked very hard to ensure it was as comprehensive as time allowed. People for the most part are there because they are hunters. They want to learn and I believe they take some great info with them that WILL make them better hunters. I remember most everything I was taught in hunters ed when I was 13 years old and thats 35 years ago. I believe that the valuable info learned in bowhunters ed will stick as well.
Even though I had been hunting whitetails for 15 years before I took the test, I learned a great deal that I didnt already know about anatomy and shot placement. The proficiency part of it was easy to pass. I thought too easy, but then people need to be given a certain amount of benefit of the doubt.
Ill look for the thread. It's a good thing to discuss.
I know you're not a granola cruncher and youre far from being an ignoramous!!! You just sounded a bit crunchy there for a minute!! LOL
-
Originally posted by Brian Krebs:
What gross exagerations did Chuck make?
See post above. Thanks for taking me to task on that.
You did not answer my question about the who what and why there is a requirement to qualify.
But I do see in in the quote above.
It was the gun hunters. Being from Wisconson; you should know the first attempts at making bowhunting illegal were gun hunters.
There were numerous reasons and gun hunters were just a part of that. Im sure I need not explain the mentality. It's similar to the traditions of gun/deer hunters in Wisconsin. It took many years for them to get used to the idea of shooting does. many still abhor it. Just aint the manly thing to do in many of their minds.
It was difficult for me to understand at first why a gun hunter would resist archery hunting. But, it's about a lack of undersdtanding. When you consider that most gun hunters have at one time or another made a questionable shot on an animal and it wasnt recovered. If they have no experience with bow hunting, how would they understand the lethality of it as a weapon. Non-hunters are the same. We need to educate them.
So; under attack from gun hunters; bowhunters decided a profiecency test was a good idea.
Who were these bowhunters. Were they comprised more of compound bow hunters; or of traditional bowhunters.
Were there those that fought against the rule- is that a correct statement?If it is; who were they?
They were bowhunters who held seats on the local Fish & Game Advisory committees, and the legislative arm of the Alaska Bowhunters Association. And it was supported by sportsmen in general who were about working for effective management tools and seeing archery as one of them.
There are of course always more compound shooters than trads. I dont see where that makes a difference. From my experience, there is more anamosity toward wheelie shooters coming from trads than the other way around. I get the idea that you feel that compounders would just as soon see trads tested or restricted right out of hunting opportunity. If Im wrong I apologize. But in a fair fight, we can hold out own. Ill go up against a compound any day of the week if it's varied unknown yardages at 3D critter targets.
I dont have an answer for you as far as who among bowhunters fought against it... or if it was compound more so than trads. It's a concensus type of thing. If it's really important to you, I could make a few calls. I became Legislative Vice Pres well after it was implemented.
You say your pretty distant from the problems of the 'lower 48'; but were you - as a part of the implementation of the qualify to bowhunt program: at all thinking of the ramifications to the other states by example?
No, not really. What was considered was the fact that the IBEP course was seen as something that would not only be used in Alaska for special hunts, but would also be accepted widely to allow us entrance into hunts in other states and countries. Once you get certified, you are always certified,too. It's not like you must requalify.
I do see that it is a potential foothold. It could be made more stringent or restrictive or difficult. I honestly dont see it happening though.
As far as example, testing aside, I have always thought that other states should duplicate the advisory board system that we have here. Who better to give input in regulation and management than those who live , work, and play where the game is. And we have in investment in our resources and should share responsibility and priveledge in the oversight of them. If you arent familiar with our system, Id be glad to splain it.
In your answers - please don't use what you said Chuck used.... "gross exagerations". Tell the truth.
You required it of Chuck; do hold yourself in your answers to the same requirement.
Im not sure how to take that, Brian. What reason would I have to NOT tell the truth. For lack of better words I said what I said. I apologized. I had used examples of what I had experienced to make a point. My own examples were used against me in a way that I thought was a stretch. As if my two examples show that the program is ineffective. It's so much easier to find examples of it's failure than it's success. I guess I could look up some guys who passed and follow them around the woods to see if they take ethical shots?
-
stmpthmper:
Its not about you; its not about me; its about ~we~.
I am not in a position; nor do I want to be to judge people. Don't take it in a bad light; its easier to tap the keyboard than to talk in person.
I am just trying to figure out - without my or anyone elses ego in the way - about what is going on; and that can require straight forward questions sometimes.
I apologise if I offended you.
Lets get past that if we can.
-
Guys,
It would seem pretty much that we are in agreement proficiency testing is not really a great idea.
The sales of all archery gear would probably be impacted negatively if all states required a proficiency, which would prompt a response from the market machine to turn that around.
Most students that take the course are curious, some seriously so and some do take a serious approach to becoming a bowhunter. Many discover it is harder than they see on TV, regardless of the equipment and let it go by the wayside.
The points about distances, accurancy requirements, KE, Momentum, etc, only serve to provide static results for static testing. Yes, they also serve more of the technical, mechanical advantage aspects of the sport, but do little if any to address any ethics involved except for the requirement of practice. Practice itself will not make a bowhunter, it is important, but is only one piece of the whole puzzle.
Gary Carvajal
-
Originally posted by Brian Krebs:
stmpthmper:
Its not about you; its not about me; its about ~we~.
I am not in a position; nor do I want to be to judge people. Don't take it in a bad light; its easier to tap the keyboard than to talk in person.
I am just trying to figure out - without my or anyone elses ego in the way - about what is going on; and that can require straight forward questions sometimes.
I apologise if I offended you.
Lets get past that if we can.
No problem here, Brian. I respect anyone who is involved in what they believe in. Sportsmen as a whole will have some disagreements. But we need to ALL stand together at the end of the day.
After being involved and working hard on these issues, I have to admit it is difficult to admit that I might have taken a broader view at the time. It's a lesson learned. I should know better. Being a remodeler for many years, I know ya gotta step back and look at the big picture now and then. You can hang a cabinet perfectly level, and when you stand back and see that the whole house is out of level, it dont look so good!!
You guys have made some great points. My hope is that if we dont want to risk bowhunters ed & proficiency testing turning into a monster that bites us in the butt, that we take it into our own hands and really work to implement bowhunter ed in our schools and clubs.
One thing clubs could do is hold yearly youth clinics. Club members set up stations that kids rotate though, learning about various aspects of the sport, each kid could build their own arrow (fletch tape?), a shooting range, Display and description of all the various types and styles of bows, etc. Fish & game is usually more than willing to set up a booth and talk about the game animals they manage, with skulls and hides, etc.
Something like this could even be a small fundraiser for clubs. Could advertise for adults who want to come and learn and try out different bows and incorporate a membership drive.
Anyway, it's all good.
-
Let me just throw in my two cents and bring in some "fresh blood". I don't have the experience of any of you since I have never, repeat never been hunting. Yet I believe that learning from experience is probably the best way to become "proficient". Being out with someone who has the know how and even just watching them and listening to their advice and directions is how I think you can gain the most knowledge. That is how I am going to learn. My uncle will take me out and try to impart all the knowledge that he has accrued to me. Yet I will still take the proficiency test so that I am able to hunt on the military base near me. The proficiency test only entails possessing a valid hunting license with archery tags and possessing an IBEP (International Bowhunter Education Program) certification card and To qualify you must place 2 out of 3 arrows into a 9-inch circle at 20 and 30 yards. I believe that all this does is to make sure that people can actually aim. For me this "test" is actually a confidence booster as I know that I can shoot straight :smileystooges: Seriously though, it is not hard to hit a 9 inch circle.
-
when I was 16 years old, 1967, i had to take a proficiency test of sorts. The farmer who did not think anyone could get a killing shot on a deer said, " if you can get close to that rooster over there you can hunt on my land." I made the best hunting shot i had ever made in my life and killed the rooster with a blunt at about 50 yards. The farmer said a naughty word, and his wife laughed and said, " George you told him to shoot." George in turn said," I ain't ever gonna do that again, guess we're having chicken for supper." It was a good place to hunt until I got crowded out by compound shooters.
-
I see the proficiency testing as a step toward losing hunting rights. Standards can be changed to very difficult/impossible to accomplish. Instead, I would rather see safety classes offered in junior and senior high schools. And archery programs, as well, of course, to increase the number of young archers and hunters.
-
A shooting proficiency test will do nothing but promote equipment escalation. I wonder why crossbow advocates actively support it.