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

[ChuckC]

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

[R H Clark]

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.

[Brushcop]

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

[bihunter]

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!

[last arrow]

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).

[pdk25]

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.

[Pluck Yew]

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...

[fyrfyter43]

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."

[LKH]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

Question:
 where you do have to test; are you restricted to the bow you use in the test (for hunting)?

[LKH]

Nope

[laddy]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

What size coins?

[laddy]

pennies

[Scott J. Williams]

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.

[LKH]

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.

[laddy]

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.

[pdk25]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.