Profienciey test

[calgarychef]

Proficiency tests are a real concern for trad hunters, obviously we can't shoot at 30 or more yards accurately.  I've seen some folks out hunting who couldn't hit a 20 inch circle at 20 yards but they're flinging arrows at game.  A little self temperance is sometimes a good idea.

[wingnut]

Heck I'm in favor of proficiency qualification for all hunting weapons that are tailored to the weapon.

I just completed the on line part of the IBEF class and have scheduled the field portion.
It is of note that the class emphasizes that a bow is a short range weapon and that shots should and most often are taken at under 20 yds.  A qualification of 10 targets under 20 yds and including shots that shouldn't be taken would be welcome IMHO.

Mike

[Archie]

I've seen a flurry of pictures in the news lately of animals wandering around with arrows sticking out of them.  It seems to me that a reasonable standard of proficiency would be a good way to keep us all from being lumped together as careless and cruel.  If we can shoot well enough to hunt ethically, we should be able to pass a properly-designed proficiency test.

Maybe traditional bowhunting organizations could put together a voluntary proficiency test or hunting/safety/shooting proficiency course.  We could voluntarily take it and receive a card that shows that we took the initiative to become responsible traditional bowhunters, without having a state requirement.  It is true that if people would properly police themselves, externally-imposed policing would not be needed.

[foxbo]

"I've seen a flurry of pictures in the news lately of animals wandering around with arrows sticking out of them."

Archie, got any links to those pics?

Originally posted by foxbo:
"I've seen a flurry of pictures in the news lately of animals wandering around with arrows sticking out of them."

Archie, got any links to those pics?

Most all the ones I have seen on the news have been by knuckleheads who shoot stuff in/near the city with field points. Those have nothing to do with hunters who know what they are doing!!!!

Bisch

[Archie]

This is the most recent one:

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/11/remember-the-deer-shot-through-the-face-with-an-arrow-heres-how-its-doing/

I cringed that one because I wouldn't be surprised to think it's a trad shooter, considering the arrow and Zwickey broadhead.  

I'll see if I can find the others.  Two of them were moose in interior Alaska if I remember correctly.

[Archie]

I just did a search and there's a lot of pictures to be seen, although the internet has that interesting ability to make any forwarded news articles seem current.

I work for local government, and have helped deal with situations where animals were found with arrows in them.  The truth is that it happens, and I, for one, am not going to cry over accidentally wounding an animal, but I work very hard to shoot well so that happens as rarely as possible.  

I think that a proficiency test, if mandated by a bunch of unreasonable state officials, could be a real stinker for trad shooters.  So I would support a movement towards internally policing ourselves, as I mentioned above, so that the state (in general) doesn't feel that they need to do it.

[BWallace10327]

Originally posted by Archie:
I've seen a flurry of pictures in the news lately of animals wandering around with arrows sticking out of them.  It seems to me that a reasonable standard of proficiency would be a good way to keep us all from being lumped together as careless and cruel.  If we can shoot well enough to hunt ethically, we should be able to pass a properly-designed proficiency test.

Maybe traditional bowhunting organizations could put together a voluntary proficiency test or hunting/safety/shooting proficiency course.  We could voluntarily take it and receive a card that shows that we took the initiative to become responsible traditional bowhunters, without having a state requirement.  It is true that if people would properly police themselves, externally-imposed policing would not be needed.

Would your idea of a proficiency course be a minimum score on a target round or an official following me around shooting pine cones?      
I, among many, have "dissociative archer identity disorder".

[Archie]

My opinion of what would be a good test  probably doesn't really matter.  I'm just saying I think we'd be wise to have some kind of evidence showing that we did something to establish a proficiency level before we start putting game in our line of fire.  There's a reason why the State of Alaska changed their laws and now require evidence of some level of knowledge and proficiency.  It's because for years people have been coming across caribou and moose with arrows sticking out of them, and the State said enough is enough.  I grew up there, and in the 80's, I remember people talking about how you just had to go out and get a bow, and you could hunt all the honey holes that were archery-only.  And I also remember hearing about frustrated hunters seeing caribou herds with some animals having arrows in them.  I never saw it, but that's what I heard.  So it is my opinion that it is wise to be able to show that one has been diligent in becoming a responsible shooter... before the powers that be start requiring proficiency tests across the board.

[ChuckC]

Archie, as I have said, I hunt a lot of days and I have never seen an arrow in a deer or elk that I didn't just put there.  For one, they break or get pulled.  I'm sure you can find one, but I don't believe all the stories, especially by folks that I have never even seen out in the woods during fall.

Ya know, the idea of a test sounds good.  Yup, we should be proficient.  But the format of the test is what I question.  

I don't shoot 30 yards at critters, period.  Why on earth is it so important for me to be able to show proficiency at some stupid range like that ( for me..... next guy might be capable and THAT is what brings up the issue). More important should be the training that you need to stay within your range, even if it is only 5 yards.

Then..... so I have a high speed compound with pins out to 70 or 80 yards, heck, even 100 yards.  Do they make those folks shoot out to the range of their lowest pin ?  In the wind ?  From a tree,  between trees and branches as in hunting, not field archery ?

Finally, all that said and done, so I tested out to 30 yards, hit em all ( damn I'm good), then the big ol buck walks by at 60 and the arrows are flying.  How do you legislate that ?  How do you test for that ?

You know, the industry has raised all kinds of hell about making archery more accessible, make it so easy even a near totally disabled person can do it, a 5 year old child can do it...and then they turn around and say but not you, you can't shoot out to 30 yards and WE think you should be able.  No hunting for you.
CHuckC

[foxbo]

The best shot in the world can still make a bad shot.

[Terry Green]

Originally posted by calgarychef:
obviously we can't shoot at 30 or more yards accurately.  

this is why I'm against them.....one person speaks for all.  never been a fan of the broad brush....

I think this one has run its course......