who has to do a qualify shoot to get a license?

[stmpthmpr]

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?

[ChuckC]

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:

[vermonster13]

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.

[LKH]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

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.

[stmpthmpr]

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

[stmpthmpr]

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?

[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.

[HNTN4ELK]

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

[stmpthmpr]

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.

[Greg Sz.]

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      Seriously though, it is not hard to hit a 9 inch circle.

[laddy]

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.

[Mark N]

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.

[Redeye]

A shooting proficiency test will do nothing but promote equipment escalation.  I wonder why crossbow advocates actively support it.