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

[pdk25]

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

[vermonster13]

Better pony up when the auction starts then. This fellow don't go cheap. lol

[Brian Krebs]

Who is asking for the profeciency testing? I can't find an effort to do so here on this site.

[vermonster13]

You won't find it on the compound sites either. It's not the bowhunters after it Brian.

[Bakes168]

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.

[LKH]

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.

[stmpthmpr]

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.

[stmpthmpr]

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.

[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.    

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

[Brian Krebs]

It seems some are willing to bet their hunt - that they shoot good at targets.

 I am not of that ilk.

[vermonster13]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

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.

[vermonster13]

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.

[stmpthmpr]

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.

[stmpthmpr]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

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" ?

[ChuckC]

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

[vermonster13]

Well written response Chuck

[pdk25]

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.

[Brian Krebs]

ChuckC