Comment from the Leatherwall

[Desert Archer]

Did any of your see the post about proficiency testing on the Leatherwall that contained this comment:

I know some guys that wound 4-5 deer every year and can't hit the broad side of a barn.

I find that absolutely incredible. I don't hunt because of a physical disability but I have nothing against hunting, hunted when I was much younger and still find the topic interesting. I've always been an advocate and supporter of "ethical" hunting, i.e. doing what's right when you are out in the boonies and nobody's watching. The idea the the poster knows more than one "bowhunter" (I use the term loosely) who wounds 4-5 deer every year is just appalling.

Have I been away from it for so long I'm completely unaware of what's going on these days?

Dave

[Pinelander]

I don't think so, Dave. It's really hard to say just what goes on out there, as you eluded to "out in the boonies and nobody's watching". I can only speak from my own experiences... but I have seen (tracked) first-hand, numerous deer in the last 15 years that have been wounded and not recovered by both recurve/longbow AND compound bowhunters. Close-in shots, as well as imporoper long shots... go figure.

I think it happens way more than many would personally admit to and definitely more than what we should accept as "part and parcel to bowhunting". And there's one thing I'm totally convinced of... it's not just the "trad" guys that are doing this. Make no mistake about it, it doesn't really matter what kind of bow it is. My reason for posting this is NOT to shed bad light on one or the other camps... but rather to point out that it's the man/woman behind the weapon that makes the difference, not the weapon itself.

[Dogsoldier]

I've seen trigger happy gun hunters worse then that...what can ya do?

[James Wrenn]

As I posted over there I really don't think it is bad as people make out.There are people that have a bad time but most soon change because of frustration.They either quit bow hunting and use a gun or get better.No matter what you do there will always be hunters that go through a bad spell but as frustrating it is too someone on the internet to hear about it.I feel that it is a lot worse for them and they will not do it long. :2cents:

[Pinelander]

Yes, that's a good point. Most will adjust to their bad experiences one way or another. But there's always that law of averages... it's going to happen sooner or later. As long as one makes good decisions along the way... it happens less.

[Esquire]

I don't personally know anyone, (and I have lots of friends who bowhunt [compounds]), that would shoot a deer and not track it relentlessly.

I have lost only one deer that I hit with an arrow. The arrow struck the largest part of the shoulder and did not penetrate. I tracked that doe for ten hours, following single pinhead drops of muscle blood, sometimes more than 30 yards apart.

When the guys I know shoot a deer, we all come together to track it, if necessary.
If this guy on the wall knows multiple "guys" who wound 4 or 5 deer "every year", he needs to expand his circle of friends. I did not read the thread, but lots of folks tends to exaggerate a little :)

[Desert Archer]

Dogsoldier,

I hesitate to even get started on my opinion on gun hunters...but it makes a point. I gave up hunting initially because I got shot at the opening day of the handgun deer season in Arizona in 1974, after getting shot at before the sun was up. I was heading up a ridge line to a place I had scouted to watch a trail mule deer were taking down to a hay field. Some (explative deleated) shot at the sound I was making climbing the side of the ridge - twice. After the second shot I bellowed at the top of my lungs what I thought of him. I think I might have mentioned his mother some where in there.

While I was a deputy sheriff I took and heard numerous complaints and reports of hunters (guns!) shooting buildings, signs, watertanks, cows, dogs and on two occasions, other hunters. I had always hoped bowhunters were a cut above this kind of stuff.

As for compounders, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't worse among that crowd. The higher expectations for accuracy and the number of gun hunters who go to Walmart and buy a compoud so they can put in for another hunt (I've met and talked to several of these) makes me think compound shooters (notice I didn't say archers) probably wound at least as many deer as "trad" shooters.

Guess I was expecting too much from the archery community. Sad, but other than a passing interest I don't have a dog in this hunt!

Dave

[jeffw]

When I looked at the thread, and saw who posted it, I really wasn't surprised. I enjoy the 'Leatherwall' but being somewhat new to these type of anonymus forums, I am somewhat skeptical of messages posted many times. Not to say in this case it couldn't be true, but to me there does seem to be an element of folks out there that do enjoy, shall we say, 'stir the pot', and many times in a less than constructive way. If we sometimes wonder why hunting is in danger, just read some of the post by these 'knowedgable' scribes and you'll see part of the answer. :2cents:

[Grey Ghost]

Like has been suggested, I think the intent of this article was to start and fan a fire and then sit back and grin at the responses. Pit those that may favor regulations against those that favor better ethics among hunters. Not unite archers, but to divide them along one line or another.

IMHO, you have to question the ethics of someone that has so many friends that wound that many animals each year.

I don't know if there is data out there to support this contention or not, but the easier it is to obtain a weapon to hunt with, and the easier it is to fire that weapon with out training or skill, then the more animals that person is going to wound, % wise, and the more other hunters will be in danger from that person. If this hypothisis is true, then rifles, shotguns, handguns, inline muzzle loaders, muzzle loaders, crossbows, and compounds, in that order will wound and maim more critters each year including other hunters in the field.

gg

:2cents:

[Viper]

DA, et al -

Given the calibre of folks around here, I like to have that discussion here.

I like the idea of proficiency testing.

No, you can't test for ethics, but you can test for basic skills. That would eliminate a lot of the total incompetants, or at least give them a yardstick for what's required for the shooting part of hunting. I honestly believe that's a good thing. Given some of the non-sence I've seen over the years.

Here's a plan, set up the test for a year, maybe two, with no effects on the licensing process, ie no score. Have the "test" run from very simple shots to very difficult, including un-ethical shots. First question is Go/No-Go. Is it a shot worth taking. Second, if yes, then it's either vital or miss. Period.

Next the data would be accumulated and the real test would appear the following season. The previous data would determine a 50/50 pass fail, meaning half the people who take it should pass, and half should fail. Too tough, I don't think so. One of the reasons I stopped hunting years ago, was simply the number of idiots in the woods the first day of bowhunting season. If a guy wants to hunt he should be ready to pay the dues, ie practice the skills required to make the shot. (Yes, I realize that's a lot more to hunting than just shooting, but that part is the only readily quantifiable piece.) For those who fail, either they figure out how to shoot in a few weeks and re-take the test, or no hunting for that year; yeah, life's tough.

Who's going to run the test? I really don't care, unless it's PETA. The NFAA, Local Forestry dept, Marines, whoever. The test has to fair, because if everyone failed, then no one would be hunting, and the game would over run the land, and that's not in the gov't best interest.

Guess what prompted this, is the "outrage" most LW member seem to have when ever this comes up. Gotta tell ya, I liken this to tests in High School and College. The folks who didn't like them were the ones who weren't ready for them. I "usually" looked forward to them, as it gave me a chance to show off, hey, at least I'm honest. (No, not every subject.) Shooting is the same thing, if you're confident in your shooting ability, piece of cake.

Usual arguements.

"I'm deadly within 5 yds, and that's as far as I shoot." Yeah, right. If 5 yards is your comfort zone, then try a spear or a bowling ball, that ain't archery.

"I get nervous when I'm taking a test and there are people watching." Get over it, you think taking a shot at live game isn't a test? So, if no one's watching, then it's OK to take a bad shot and miss? That one goes right up there with, "I can't hit paper for beans, but put fur in front of me, and I don't miss".

"If I didn't pass the stinkin' test, I'd hunt anyway." You got private land? Go for it, that's your business. Using pubic land, federal or state owned? Get caught, get arrrested - hunting without a license.

"It's my right to hunt." I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Sorry, ther persuit of happiness part doesn't cut it, driving 120 mph down a deserted highway makes me happy, but ramming into a stalled car, I didn't think was going to be there kinda proves the point.

No, no plan is perfect or fool proof. There are a lot of fine upstanding gun and bowhunters out there, most of whom are skilled with the weapon of their choice, unfortunately there are a lot too, who don't get it. Can't stop all of them from ruining it for the rest of us, but we can and should try to put a dent in it.

:2cents:

I'll shut up and go back upstairs now.

Viper out

[Desert Archer]

I would side with Viper on this one, although I wouldn't think of posting that opinion on the Leatherwall (LOL).

If I could hunt, I would like the chance to test myself on some standard just to satisfy my own concerns about my ability to cleanly take a game animal. As was said, shooting at a live animal is probably as difficult a test there is. I doubt shooting in front of others would be any more difficult.

I suspect this view (pro testing) is not very popular but the idea of wounding 1 animal (let alone 4 or 5) should be far more unpopular. My $.02 worth!

Dave

[Bowcephalus]

Wanna test folks at the shoot or at the range range as a method to give 'em an indication of where they stand? Fine.....Wanna make common knowlege what a person should set as a benchmark limit for himself to make a clean efficient kill? Fine....Wanna create a test administered by a bureaucrat, for a fee, as a condition to hunt(the natural course of such things)? We part ways.....This isn't a safety issue, it's a personal ethics issue,concerning a perceived obligation of man to animal in response to a perceived problem of suffering or waste or fairness to the beast, and as such has no place in court...it is not an issue of inhumane cruelty and will do nothing to pacify those who would make such a case...I will not advocate legislating hunting ethics to archers for the benefit of wounded animals..it is by it's very nature unenforcable....That is bad law....Bad law erodes respect for the concept of law,which leads to lawlessness....I never scorned any test, but I always scorned the bureaucrat who administered it.......Test Thyself......

[Bowcephalus]

"Sorry, ther persuit of happiness part doesn't cut it, driving 120 mph down a deserted highway makes me happy, but ramming into a stalled car, I didn't think was going to be there kinda proves the point." ........ Comparable to wounding a deer with an arrow? Kinda loose with the old relativity and context to sway an opinion ain't it? Ya gonna jail 'em for missing? Ya gonna jail 'em for exceeding 17.3 yds? Jail 'em for running shots? Buck fever is now punishable by fine if you take the shot?........How about a proficiency test for everybody engageing in any activity that carries a risk of imposing suffering on another living creature?..........

[thisbucks4u]

So I wont. These after all are just friggin animals, right?? No tests, no more fees. Its left up to the hunter himself to delgate morality to himself and/or those he hunts with. Sucks that animals get wounded, but they do. No test is going to change that.
But if you guys would like to see proficiency test put in place, call PETA. Im sure they would love to help out with the effort. Hell, they would probly even fund it for you.

[Dogsoldier]

esquire..."and I have lots of friends who bowhunt [compounds]), that would shoot a deer and not track it relentlessly.".....omg....most of the guys I hunt with are compounders...I dont know if its the weapon that there using or what but I know of 2 guys personally who have shot 3 deer in one day and not recover any of them...its rediculous...I BEG them to just come and get me RIGHT after they shoot one so I can help track it...but nooooooo....theyll start trackin it right after they shoot it or theyll screw it up somehow....ugh... a famous american indian once said "the further mans feet get from earth'the less respect he has for anything on it".....this got me to thinkin....which is a bad thing...."the easier we make it to kill our prey with gadgets and technology,the less respect we have for it"...think so?...........had to add something else.....viper...."It's my right to hunt." I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Sorry, ther persuit of happiness part doesn't cut it, driving 120 mph down a deserted highway makes me happy, but ramming into a stalled car, I didn't think was going to be there kinda proves the point"........yes it is in the constitution under freedom of religion....my religion,bible says to kill and eat

[tuffshot]

Culture and mind set play a large part in some hunters. Those that belong to clubs, archery or gun have more respect for the hunt itself not just the kill. They will go all out to find a wounded animal. In todays society the values are not really taught as they once were, they are seen on video and TV shows. There are too many that go out and buy a bow trad compound or x-bow and are instant hunters. If the deer they shoot runs away they either think they missed or made a bad shot and it is oh well and on to the next target.


Just an observation most of the newer hunters shoot an animal and expect it to fall in it's tracks and when it doesn't they are bewildered and do not know what to do next and have no real tracking skills because you can't buy that at Wally-World or from the sell em a bow at any cost "Bow Shop"

I know guys that buy the most expencive bow they can just for braggin rights and have never killed anything with it, Trad and compounds included. :sbrug:

[Viper]

Guys -

Bowceph - Hate the beaurocrats. Well, no one likes beaurocrats, but bottom line is I'm believe I'm up to anything they can throw at me. Got a problem with fees, yeah, me too. But if it weren't for those fees, most public lands wouldn't be managed. The guys in the Forestry servive have to get paid too ya know. Bottom line there is, fees or taxes ain't going way.

If you didn't get this analogy of driving 120 mph, think of it this way. Hunter #1 takes a skyline shot, misses and hits unsuspecting hunter #2 behind the ridge. When a guys been shooting enough to learn the tools of the trade, that's usually years with stickbows not weeks; usually, not always, but usually he picks up a little common sence along the way. Can't explain way, but it happens.

Dogs - the bible comment is pretty irrelevent to this discussion. Doubt that would hold up in court, if you try hunting out of season.

Viper out.

[DAS]

This thread has already gotten pretty contentious, so I don't want to fan the fire too much. I really don't think that official testing will have much effect on the way people behave. We have to be licensed to drive and the drivers in this country are by and large incompetent. When I started shooting it was peer pressure that made me work to achieve competency, and to act ethically. We took pride in doing the right thing. Today that is lacking in society on every level. Now we take pride in what we can get away with.
I don't have anything against compounds. I've owned them and hunted with them. I know good people who own them. I also think that compounds have opened the door to a group of people who have degraded this sport beyond recognition. This element has always been a part of the rifle world, but until compounds came along, they mostly left archery alone. Hard work, dedication, and low character usually don't mix well. When wheel bows came along and made it easy, it was like calling pigs to the trough! We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have to live with it now just like the rifle guys do.

[Esquire]

Dogsoldier,

Just want to clarify. The quote of mine you responded to is a partial quote that makes it look like the guys I hunt with DON'T track their deer. What I'm saying is, the men I know personally, ALL track any hit animal relentlessly. They are responsible, motivated guys who consider a lost animal a personal failure and take it very serious.

You may have understood me but I wasn't sure from your post.

I know there are less responsible guys out there, they just aren't in my circle of friends.

[thisbucks4u]

Das, I could not agree with you more.



Guys -

Bowceph - Hate the beaurocrats. Well, no one likes beaurocrats, but bottom line is I'm believe I'm up to anything they can throw at me. Got a problem with fees, yeah, me too. But if it weren't for those fees, most public lands wouldn't be managed. The guys in the Forestry servive have to get paid too ya know. Bottom line there is, fees or taxes ain't going way.

If you didn't get this analogy of driving 120 mph, think of it this way. Hunter #1 takes a skyline shot, misses and hits unsuspecting hunter #2 behind the ridge. When a guys been shooting enough to learn the tools of the trade, that's usually years with stickbows not weeks; usually, not always, but usually he picks up a little common sence along the way. Can't explain way, but it happens.

Dogs - the bible comment is pretty irrelevent to this discussion. Doubt that would hold up in court, if you try hunting out of season.

Viper out.

VIper,
There are state Hunters Safety Education courses in place already. Loosing any hunters life is not acceptable. But this is getting off the subject at hand. We were talking bout wounding animals, not Hunters.

***Please take note that there is no animoscity in my reply***** Just makin conversational points.

[Viper]

TB4U -

I know about the Hunter saftey courses. I used to give them, we even used to have a shooting phase. (For the instructors course, you had to pass a shooting test, btw.) Giving those classes, you knew that some folks were getting it and some weren't, but they took the course, and got their license anyway.

Wounding an animal and not retrieving it, is a bad thing, and I certainly don't condone it, but I'm a lot more concerned about some guy with a stickbow or compound mistaking me or my hunting partner for a deer. And no, you certainly can't force ethics, but in stickbow terms, at least in the archery environment I grew up in, it did take years to "get good enough" to hunt. As a new archer/bowhunter developed, he by necessity had to spend time around the more experienced shooters. As he progressed, you actually saw him mature in his thoughts toward bowhunting, he eveloped a respect for what he was doing. Yeah, it was a different time, and we were city boys, so for most of us, "hunting" wasn't a normal part of our lives. It was something we had to actively look for, if that makes any sence. Probably different for folks who grew up in more rural settings.

That's why I firmly believe there should be some kind of proficiency testing. It was said that peer pressure was what made folks strive to be better, healthy competition. That's why, I believe, our club had so many good shooters, we were always competing, officially and unoffically. A lot of guys didn't have access to that, so a proficiency test gives them a yardstick. Remember, what I said, it can't be a "can't pass" situation, because then land management fails, as the herd would over run the lands ability to handle them.

People will always be people, and they will do what ever they want, the only thing that can be tested is their ability to shoot and hit what they're aiming at, prefect by no means, but it would certainly stop a few people I know from going afield, wh oreally have no right there.

Viper out.

[thisbucks4u]

Viper, as you aready know those are extremely valid points. My largest concern with any other type of Qualification test opens the door to anti hunting establishments, because Our liberal society has to give a voice to all isdes, and who knows more about what animals need, the the organizations who strive to "protect" them. JMTC

[Viper]

TB4U -

Believe me, I know the concerns, I used to live in NYC!!! Years ago we had people sawing off bayonet lugs from M1 Garands so they wouldn't be "assault rifles". No joke. But the fact that we're already licensed for hunting, kinda means the barn doors are already open and the horse is out. I think "archery" is an important part of all our lives, else we wouldn't be here, on THIS forum. Anything that will nudge a person to be a better shooter, I willing to give a try. Remember, a "test" doesn't say how you have to shoot, only HOW well.

The shooting test for instructors course was an arrow in to the vitals of a std NFAA deer target from 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yds. Three out of five passed, not too difficult, really. And we weren't cut throat, if a guy was getting nervous, we'd give him time to clam down and re-shoot. It wasn't about knocking anybody down, it was about building people up.

Maybe it was a different time, seemed to work.

Viper out.

[mjhall]

Viper--your ideas are very logical, and sensible, but I think TB4U makes a good point. If this ever comes up for real, we should be careful about embracing it. It could be a "trojan horse" with HSUS or PETA inside.

:2cents:

Mike

[tuffshot]

"Not all but there are some" city boys because they do not get but maybe one week a year to deer hunt it is "If it passes by it's gonna die" unethical shot etc. Some have been to hunter safety courses and some have not, but knowing that they only have a few days in the field in which to hunt most or all risk factors are out the window.

Althought not ethical the poachers are the most proficient hunters around, they have to be or get caught.

Deer hunting is a video sport for most anymore / The guy that goes out and buys the best rifle and scope doesn't even sight it in and pays big money for a hunt of a life time and misses and doesn't know why.. The hype of the high dollar bows, guns, etc create their own breed of hunters. You can mandate courses but not attitudes :sbrug:

[Desert Archer]

tuffshot,

Not trying to be argumentative but when I was a deputy sheriff, the "hunting accidents/vandalism" I investigated or learned about were not done by "city boys". In each case I remember it was by local boys who thought they had a "God given right" to shoot or kill anything they came upon out in the boonies. Sorry but I can't lay much blame at the feet of urban folks. My law enforcement experience says "jerks" and "Adam Henrys" (think about that one) come in all shapes, sizes, colors and from every community.

Also, while I'm admitting things, guess my LE background makes "testing" easier for me to accept than a lot of you. I trained for 5 months to get through the academy. We had quarterly in-service training. I was my department's chief firearms instructor for my last 6 years. I was also a defensive/persuit driving instructor. People had to pass proficiency tests for those skills. I spent 10 years after I retired teaching handgun self-defense and qualifying people for CCW permits. That too required testing to show proficiency.

In the interest of futhering this discussion, I seem to recall some state that has a bowhunter proficiency test already. Does anyone know where that is and what it ammounts to?

Dave

[thisbucks4u]

DA,
We have our good old boys here too! Trust me. Makes on wonder if there should be a license to breed LOL.
As far as Breaking game laws DURING appointed seasons the locals are in the minority. Out of season violations locals win by a majority.

In Hocking County we have had one Fatality linked with hunting in as long as I can remember. A hunter with a crossbow shot another hunter before dawn in the woods (Illegal). Both men involved were not newbies.

Viper, I like the Idea of that test. Its simple and precise. I dont think we could get anything that simple, Lets just say Ohio doesnt like to simplify anything. LOL.

[Viper]

TB4U -

Yup, simple and it worked. And there was always the instructors discretion. I've told this story before, but it shows why it does work. For a while in NY there was a shooting test, don't know what the deal is these days, been out of that end for a while.

I was monitoring the shooting test, I described. One older gentleman had gotten to the 20 yds line, two hits, two misses. He needed the 25 yds shot to "pass". The guy looks at the target, looks at me, and said "forget it, I can't hit anything that far". I signed his card right on the spot.

The "master bowhunter" for the area got wind of it, and was pissed that I passed the guy. He asked me why I passed the guy when he technically failed the test. I told him, because, I would feel comfortable hunting with him. He didn't get that part.

Anyway, it can work.

Viper out.

[Dogsoldier]

viper...if they ever take away hunting rights I'll take it to court to fight for it under the freedom of religion...I cant think of a better argument then that....eventually I believe it will come to that....theyve already come up with birth control for deer to control the population...so the argument that we need hunting to control the poplulation wont hold up forever...the anti's are gonna come up with solutions for any reason that we can think of for hunting to be nececcary....freedom of religion is in the constitution and a great argument ....they would have to change the constitution to get past this....hopefully we wont have to use it for a very longtime though....if they got OJ off then I'm sure we could make THIS ARGUMENT WORK

[Viper]

Dogs -

You may be right.

if they got OJ off then I'm sure we could make THIS ARGUMENT WORK

That, plus the whole Blake case, honestly bothers me a lot more than the hunting rights/proficiency testing thing. But, that's for the Watering Hole :shooting:

Viper out.

[tuffshot]

"Not all but there are some" it really doesn't matter city boys or local rural boys may fit the nitch I was just trying to set the example of those with a few days out of the year hunt do not spend the proper time learning how to hunt, they just go out and try to shoot something or just anything. Most depety dogs around here when called show up a day late and a dollar short, and stand there and say yep he's probably long gone by now( butt scratch goes here) then gets back in the car and leaves.

Drive-by shootings may be fairly new to the cities but drive-by shooting has been going on around here since the horse and buggy days, and the whitetail deer has been the target :D

[Bowcephalus]

Anybody have any stats on archery deaths/woundings afield?........Anyone?

[Viper]

Bowc -

How's this:

http://www.ihea.com/documents/ihea2001.pdf

You can substitute in most years, happily it's a small number for archery, but not zero.



Hey, it's not like anyone's ever been shot in the back of the head with an arrow, right.

warning - graphic.

http://www.texasarchery.org/images/Overdraw/head1.jpg

We had that picture hanging in our range for some time, to remind people to be careful.

Viper out.

[tuffshot]

Viper,

I saw the picture of the guy with the arrow in the back of the head a few years ago, there are a couple of more pics out there while he is in the emergency room and where they cut the BH out by removing the surrounding skull bone. I think the BH was a Thunderhead but don't quote me on that....

[Viper]

tuff -

They're all on the Texasarchrey website, as well as the guy with the carbon arrow through his hand.

Happily, as you can see by the numbers on the first link, it's rare. But it does hurt us on two counts, first the tradegy for the guy and his family, and second, it gives the antis a rallying cry. Anything we can do to prevent either scenario, is worth a shot and nothing works like education, in a lot of ways.

Viper out.

[Grey Ghost]

There are hunting test that could be given and then there are shooting test. I am opposed to either one as a requirement for normal hunting seasons and hunting privileges. If you want to have a SPECIAL SEASON, and require a test for a worth while hunting permit, that would make sense. Then taking the test would be a volunteer thing, to earn a special privilege and I would agree with that. Pass a shooting test and be in a free drawing for an Elk, Bear, Moose, or what have you tag. That's fine. This nation was built by people who volunteered, not those that wanted to take tests just to please a division of the government..

gg

:goodvevil

[Dogsoldier]

our numbers are already low enough....lets not make it harder by having mandatory testing....the only way to stop animals from being wounded by hunters is to stop hunting period...so kick this discussion out of the tent please

[Desert Archer]

...the only way to stop animals from being wounded by hunters is to stop hunting period...
If you set the bar low enough you won't have to jump at all to clear it. Just be careful you don't trip on your way across!

Dave

[Viper]

Dogs -

...so kick this discussion out of the tent please

So far people have been bringing up some pretty good points, on both sides, and it's been remarkably civil, that's what this forum is about: sharing idea. As long as it stays that way, it's fair game.

our numbers are already low enough....

I agree, there's usually strength in numbers, but are we that much stronger by having greater numbers with lesser ability? Just a thought for discusion.

IMHO, most bowhunters have the ability, some just need a littler more of a push than others to utilize it. The test I described, really isn't that difficult. All you have to do is hit a deer sized vital area at 5, 10 and 15 yds. If you can also do it at 20 and 25, great, but hit the first three, and you've already passed.

Viper out.

[Grey Ghost]

Viper, if the test your proposing had three parts to it, a written test, a target test (like you describe) and a shoot, no-shoot section also. Then, I would say its a great test. I would also allow a person to take the test more than once. Say a week or two weeks apart. Anyone that failed the shoot, no-shoot part of the test would have to go back to the classroom for some work.

I would still want it to be at the discretion of the shooter, with some incentive to take and pass the test.

gg

[DAS]

The debate rages on. I'm not a big proponent of government intervention into anything. Invariably, they end up taking your money and doing nothing meaningful. We have mandatory testing for people with concealed carry permits. The only way to fail the test is to shoot the instructer. We have auto testing that only a vegetable can fail. The only thing this testing ensures is that your wallet will lighter at the end. Many parts of the world demand competency in many areas of life but here, that is not the case. As I said earlier, it was my peers who set the bar for me. I had to prove that I could shoot and exhibit good judgement before I could go with them, period. I practiced daily for a solid year to get there. There are not a lot of good mentors out there anymore.
I would actually be in favor of some kind of testing IF that testing were meaningful, not another drivers license test. No excuses, no free passes, no 5 yard targets. It should include shooting, ethics, and actual blood trailing. You fail, you don't hunt. I also think drivers should complete and pass a test that includes high speed skids, crash avoidance, traffic ethics, and high speed manuevering just like they do at the police academy.
The responsibility that my peers put on me didn't make me shy away from the sport at all. In fact it made me want it more. I was 14 then and it gave me a great sense of accomplishment. In my view, anyone who goes away because the test is too hard is someone I WANT TO GO AWAY. That's the whole point.

[Viper]

gg -

There was also a writen test at the time, still is I believe. All that really proved was that someone could read the manual. The shooting test, was where we (the instructors) could see if the guy or gal could handle a bow. Yes, there were do overs, and honestly very few failed. What did happen, was the folks that didn't do to well, were able to see some of the better shooters, (we did put on a demo or two), and they got the idea that a little practice couldn't hurt. We actually picked up a few new club members every year, so it did work.

We also stressd shoot/don't shoot situations, but didn't test for it. All that would have proved was, as with the writen test, if some one could read the book. It wasn't a "hunting" course, we couln't train hunters, it was a hunter safety course. Trying to prevent something dumb from happening.

Agree, we can't teach or enforce ethics on people, but you can at least educate them, most of us have been doing this for a while, you'd be surprised how many sign up for the course and most of the stuff discussed was totally new to them.

Viper out.

[Bowcephalus]

Knowing that every dollar spent to promote archery would lead to a four fold return when compared to every dollar spent paying bureaucrats to test all who wish to shoot a bow and an arrow, only a fool would opt for the second option.....

[SteveMcD]

As a hunter education instructor, I believe profiency should be taught as an exercise lesson in the course. But, not a test. All of us, have individual "ranges of competency" what is an easy shot for some is difficult for others. Profiency needs to be demonstrated and emphasized along with ethics, but that's about as far as it should go. But I do stress the need to teach and demonstrate the importance of profiency. I believe we lose a lot of potential hunters and bowhunters because of lack of knowledge and family members or experienced mentors to hunt and learn from. From an ethical perspective. I believe the following statement by Aldo Leopold still holds true today.........

"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter obviously has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of this conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscious, rather than a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact." -Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949

[Lane Puckett]

I take animal wounding very seriously and recovery as an exceptionally high priority in my hunting. My view, education is one of the keys.


that being said
this hit me.

Why in the world would a shooting proficiency test stop with archery?

then you have a case if it became a gun shooting test the guy shows up with his 30-30 and open sights and can't hit the test target at 150 yds.

or the shot gunner needs to pass his scatter gun test to go quail hunting and he can't hit 50% of the clay birds thrown

Because if you take the line of thinking that archery deer wounding loss requires a proficiency test as the fix then any hunter should pass a field performance test before getting a hunting license for that animal. Then we have weapon specific animal specific hunting licenses.

I'll sign this as,

'Chicken Little, the sky is falling'

PS actually I can see how it would work in the scatter gun test, something like this.
mr duck hunter you didn't pass the clay bird test.
No but my lab is a field champion retriever and has passed the retriever test
OK then mr duck hunter but you have a restricted license and must hunt with your retriever

[DAS]

I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with 3 time Danish longbow champion Torben Jenson. He said that the tests required to hunt in Denmark are so difficult that HE has trouble passing them! It sounds like only 2% to 3% actually pass the shooting test! I just thought I'd throw that out as the other extreme. :shooting:

[Spike]

When I started bowhunting in NJ, I had to shoot 3 of 5 arrows into a Deer target kill area from less than 20 yds. I used a compound then and it was a very easy test. Usually the only ones who failed were kids at or just above the legal hunting age. The instructors would then tutor them and have them retest in a couple of weeks. Hunting on one island up here in NH requires 5 for 5 in kill on 3D deer out of tree stands from 15 to 30 yds, one miss and its come back next year. They also require you to shoot with a string tracker attached to your arrow. Also do you qualify on a specific bow? I shoot best Compound, then recurve and worst longbow, if I qualify with my compound can I then hunt with my longbow? Lots of issues that can be good or bad. I just fulfill all requirements in the states I hunt and practice as much as I can, and try to select the right tool for the situation and do the best I can.

[Bowcephalus]

There is a penalty for missing on the test...What is the penalty for missing in the field?..........Brilliant concept aint it.............

[Troy]

Quote, "That is bad law....Bad law erodes respect for the concept of law,which leads to lawlessness."

I agree. This at times seems to be the goal of bureaucrats. Looks to me like they want lawlessness among the populace. They sure enjoy it among themselves. And if you think about it, it's a good plan if your goal is to erode liberty.

Further, "I never scorned any test, but I always scorned the bureaucrat who administered it."

Many times this has been true for me, but only because the the guy was on a power trip. Too many jerks with flawed view of authority who just like kicking people around. Make sure the right kind of people are the ones working for us in public servant positions and that problem would be mostly solved. Like Viper for instance. When he passed the gentleman and his superior got angry. An obvious fence between these two men, but one will probably never acknowledge it. Like many bureaucrats, he's too busy being a tough guy. Too busy promoting his pride and arrogance to be of any use to anyone. The garden needs weeded.

Quote, "We took pride in doing the right thing. Today that is lacking in society on every level. Now we take pride in what we can get away with."

The gov't seems to be deliberately pushing people towards this type of mentallity/attitude doesn't it? The more regulations there are, the more people will seek ways around them. Desiring freedom is human nature. It is inate.

"It wasn't about knocking anybody down, it was about building people up"

This is how it should be in every area of life. One of the more obvious differences between smart asses and considerate people. The latter being few and far between and the former being all too common.

Constitutional rights....Here's the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This was intended to cover all other common law rights that weren't specifically mentioned. I expect some pretty heated court battles in the near future debating the usefullness and intent of this amendment. Keep your eyes peeled and be ready to speak out. I don't believe the courts have our best interest at heart anymore. At least their actions don't appear as though they do...

Since this post is mostly quotes, I'll continue.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, and what no just government would ever refuse." Thomas Jefferson.

"The only justifiable purpose of political institutions is to insure the unhindered development of the individual." Albert Einstein.

H.L. Mencken said "The ideal government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which leaves the individual alone." If this is true, it occures to me, there aren't very many reflective men. Truth be, almost none. Read it again.

I'll leave you with one last quote. Patrick Henery was a strong proponent of individual liberty just like Thomas Jefferson. I read once that without the persistant forceful efforts of Mr. Henry, we would have no Bill of Rights. That document almost didn't make it....

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately nothing will protect it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitablly ruined." Patrick Henry.

[Esquire]

Troy,

You sound like a stinking gun nut!! Do you realize what sort of company this puts you in??? This link says it all. I hope you're proud of yourself. Gun_Nut_Link (http://www.flashbunny.org/content/gunnuts.html)

[Troy]

Well now, there's a bit of admonishment that I'll take standing up and grinning :) I resemble that remark. (emphasis added!)

The choosing of heros seems such an easy task.

[Esquire]

http://tradtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif

[Viper]

Esquire -

"flashbunny.org" - oops, sorry, thinking of a different site ... :D

Viper out.

[Esquire]

I'd better caveat that I followed a link to that site and do not endorse the site generally. I know nothing about it.

[rpk@work]

While I oppose proficiency tests, I would support a mandatory bowhunter ed. type course. Not pass or fail, you complete the course you get an archery lic. I know guys that MIGHT pass a "vitals hit" test to 25 yards, but will launch an arrow at a deer at 60 yds. I know other hunters that WON"T shoot at a deer past 15 yds. I can see a pandoras box of abuses being open with whoever creates and administers the test. I would like to think that archers (especially Trad.) are a cut above, and would represent our sport well, but I know that isn't always the case. I don't know of any test that can gauge behavior in the woods. I don't have any answers on how we can deal with "slob" archers, just lead by example and hope it rubs off. BTW, private landowners and clubs have every right to prof. test if they want. :2cents: Life's short, shoot more arrows.

[Ted A. Young]

I've been bowhunting since 1970. Have crossed paths with a lot of bowhunters both at 3D shoots and hunting. In all those years I have only talked to one person who spouted he had taken thirteen shots in one year and wounded several deer. Man was one heck of a shot on plastic deer but, yes there is always a but you know. He came a part on real deer. Does it happen? Sure it does! Do we need to broadcast it. Hell no! :thankyou:

[Mark]

I agree that it's foolish for an archer that constantly misses or wounds an animal to not broadcast it. Either that or they need to quit flinging arrows willy nilly at game. I also think it's better to NOT sweep it under the rug. It just might force a little more awareness about what is and is not considered the proper level of proficiency to pursue live game with a bow, and just as important, how an archer goes about reaching that level of proficiency. I've seen far too many times where a new archer was advised to get a 45# bow to start off with and then told to go read somebody's book. :2cents:

[pondscum2]

not much penetration from that Thunderhead was there? :) anyone know what weight shaft it was, & was it a recurve, longbow, com...no aint gonna say it... :sbrug: ps2

[Mark]

That was supposed to read: I agree that it's foolish for an archer that constantly misses or wounds an animal to broadcast it. :mistake:

[Larry Booth]

I had to take a test years ago to hunt with a bow on Ft Hood. Didn't mind it a bit and was kind of glad they had it. I figured that it would keep some of the "day before the season opens" guys out. If you added a "good shot-bad shot" decision, that would further thin the woods.

As far as the post, I could make any wild comment I could dream up just to stir the pot. Before you know it, it would be in print as fact in some newspaper. I think I'll go dream up a good one. Anybody got any ideas? :2cents:

[greenghost]

I haven't been able to read the whole thread, so I am sorry if I am duplicating.

On the question of testing: it seems to be that the legitimacy of testing boils down to the question of whether or not it is possible to give a reasonably objective definition of hunting proficiency. My suspicion is that none is forthcoming. One reason, or course, is that hunting skills outstrip shooting skills. This is so, not only in the sense that some folks are better than others at getting close, but also in the some folks are better than others at getting well-positioned without making the animal jumpy. Nor do I believe that these differences are merely hypothetical: hunting proficiency in my experience IS a package deal and more than one package fits the bill.

A derivative concern I have is this: suppose that we set the standard at a given numerical score on an NFAA 300 round (20 yds), or whatever. Now, because hunting is a package deal, we will all agree that passing the test won't (in itself) make anyone a proficient hunter. But it seems to me to be a general characteristic of human nature that once you put a numerical tag on "proficiency" the whole idea of hunting ethics is going to go out the window. All of the subtlety of what makes a good shot good (and a bad shot bad) will be lost and we will have a bunch of guys running around who think that they can take dang near any 20 yard shot that they get because by golly they are proficient at that distance. I'm not sure if I know exactly what I am trying to say here, but I have a strong sense that such tests would have a corrupting influence on real hunting ethics. Maybe the point should be put this way: everyone will agree that testing is only a measure of hunting proficiency, not the real thing. But its seems to me that once we give someone's shooting proficiency the US gold seal of approval, far too many people will confuse the two. (Sorry, but Plato's analogy people watching shadows on a cave wall and thinking they are the real thing comes to mind.)

:2cents:

[Viper]

greenghost -

Think about it, as if compounds, in thier current form, didn't exist. With a stick bow, shooting a 220 or 240 on an NFAA target, or the 5 - 25 yd shots at deer targets that we used to use, as I described, didn't happen over night. It usually took months to years. If someone could reach that level of proficiency, they had to be around archery and archers long enough to learn a thing or two. So besides assessing shooting proficiency, you had a pretty good idea the guy who pasted "the test" didn't just buy a bow last night.

Does that tell you the guy, once he went afield would be or turn into a slob, certainly not, absolutely no way of guaranteeing that, but you at least knew that he had to ave put some skin in the game.

Yeah, I know, I can teach most brand new guys with a compound to blow off a 220 or 240 NFAA or hit a deer target at 25 yds in about an hour too. That's where the testing falls apart, but I gotta tell ya, it works with stick bows. That 5 - 25 yard deer target told a lot of people just what their effective range was too, you'd be surprised how many never tried that before.

:2cents:

Viper out.

[Pinelander]

A county preserve in our area allows hunting on a draw system every year. The county board manages this preserve and all rights to hunt it. They held their annual "hunter proficiency" testing this weekend. Talked to some guys that were there today. To pass, you must place 4 of 5 arrows in a 6" circle at 20 yards.

From what I have witnessed in the past at various 3-D shoots... many trad "instinctive" shooters would have difficulty passing this test. I don't agree with these "tests". I believe, as others have mentioned, that specific bowhunter education (more emphasis on deer anatomy, shot placement, and recovery) is far more important and would do a lot more good than taking a "shooting accuracy" test. I would venture to say that over 90% of the deer I have killed in the last 20 years have been 15 yards and less.

[Bowcephalus]

I suppose if you pass the test they issue you an official county field tape measure.........

[Bowcephalus]

.....thusly the rights of the whitetail are protected........I do, by the way, see and agree with the meat of what you're getting at Viper, just apprehensive of the method......

[Bowcephalus]

Ethics are not born of law.....the reverse is true, or should be........

[greenghost]

Viper, But I do think the situation is more complex even in the case of "trad" hunters (sorry!). I think I am a decent case in point. I believe that I am competent with my bow, sufficiently competent to justify my going afeild. But in comparison to most people here, I am embarassingly incompetent. What justifies my tag is the fact that (a) I am a pretty good hunter and (b) I don't make, at least not in recent years, shots I can't hit with a fairly high degree of accuracy. So if I take myself to be an example and if I am right that I ought to be allowed to get a tag, then my conclusion is that any proficiency test you initiate is going to have to be pretty watered down. And that is generally how it works: laws are watered down versions of moral principles (that is why hunters who think that merely following the applicable laws is enough for ethical hunting are mistaken). I second Bows' sentiment.

One factor in particular that strikes me as important is the fact that hunting goes through developmental stages. What would be the affects on new hunters if we routinely required high levels of shooting proficiency before they could go afield? Are we imagining hunters as people who have developed a love or commitment to the sport in the abstract, through tagging along with others or watching TV? Do all hunters first love to shoot and then find they want to put those skills to use, or does it sometimes run the other direction?

If I am not mistaken, you want to use the proficiency test as a means for motivating people to get better. While I applaud the thought (and I have personally been affected by yours and others' emphasis on shooting proficiency), I don't think it is workable or even desirable.

In any event, these are considerations against a fairly rigorous test, not a minimal one (which I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with as a matter of bow hunter education).

[Viper]

greenghost -

Not sure if I agree. First, level of proficiency, really isn't relative. I thought the 5 - 25 yard test we used to use was very real, 1 shot at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 yds into (in the old days) a NFAA paper deer target's vital ring, a little smaller than a paper plate; 3 out of 5 passed. So, if you could hit that at 15 yds, you were done. Is that a watered down test, if you're hunting the Northeast, not really, in most areas you couldn't get a clear shot beyoud 25 yds. Honestly, I'd be a little concerned about a guy who goes afield saying, I'll only take a shot at 5 feet. Hunting? Maybe. bowhunting? Not sure.

Couple of things, I didn't say I wanted the prof test as a means of motivating people to shoot better, I said that that was a possitive side effect. I worked with enough people, who I very candidly told, that they really weren't ready to hunt with a bow, most actually took the advice, and opted to miss that season, and hone their skills, some didn't, and I just hoped I wouldn't be in their hunting areas, and I probably turned a few people off to it too. (I don't know that for a fact, but I can assume). And honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing, if it did happen. And yes, it wasn't a "If you fail, you don't shoot kind of thing". There were do overs, on different days too, and if after several attempts, usually the guy got the idea, by himself, that maybe he needed a little more work.

It's not a perfect solution, I don't think there is one, but even a watered down one, which I don't think ours was, is better than having someone walking around the woods with a loaded weapon, just because "they think it's OK". Nor can I describe a pertect test for all terrains, what we did made sense for the NE. And yes, there is a difference between stickbows, compound and rifles in that regard, for the reasons I stated, 25 yd accuracy is easier to achieve with a sighted/released compound or rifle than with a stick bow, and no, I don't have an answer for that part of it.

Oh, and not trying to be a wise guy, but this isn't about animal ethics, or pure proficiency, is was about safety. The prof test, came AFTER a two day safety course. Just the fact that it brought 25 or 30 "bowhunters" together, a few of which had never shot with another archer before, and even a few who had never SHOT before was a good thing. As this was done at our range, the offer was always open for those who wanted to or needed to do a little work, to come down and shoot with us. (And yes, coaching was allowed during the tests!) It really did work, and honestly, we picked up a few members every year, that way.

Viper out.

[Bowcephalus]

Now I am confused......I must have mis-interpreted.......I'm not sure that a 6" group over a 10" group at 20 yards is an insurance policy against shooting another hunter.......I can see instruction in moving through the woods in low light (making one's self seen), avoiding armed confrontation at fence lines etc., not stalking in range of other's stands, the safety of arriving early and leaving late, being aware of other hunters in an area, Bowhunting during gun season and the whole new set of problems that involves,making your presence known to others without ruining the hunting, and so on and so on.........The kind of stuff you probably covered the two days before....I just thought the main thrust of the debate centered around enforced accuracy tests as a requirement to bowhunt............My bad.........

[Viper]

Bowc-

Think about it again. The longer it takes someone to shoot a 6" or 10" group at 20 yds or any other distance, the longer the person will, or should be in contact with other archers, either at a club, range, 3D shoot, sporting goods store, or whatever. That exposure means more time to learn. When we gave our classes we discussed safety issues, and I'd like to think that most people go it, intellectually, at least. But the more you're around archers/hunters with more experience than you, the more you'll learn about archery/hunting. If it takes a guy two years to learn to shoot a 6" group, that's two years of exposure he'll have had to other shooters. We used to say that bowhunters were better "hunters" than gun hunters, because with a stickbow, you couldn't buy a bow on Friday night, take a class on Saturday, and go hunting on Sunday.

Sure it's possible, that the guy will lock himself in his barn for two years and keep shooting until he gets it right, but that's not usually the case, and even it it were, at the very least, after two years, he'd probably know how to shoot. The impression I'm geting is that some guys think, if you can't have a perfect test, then no test at all is better, That's what confuses me.

By the numbers:

No, you can't test for ethics.
No, a 6" group at twenty yds doesn't guarantee a safe hunter.
No test will guranatee anything.
But
Yes, a guy who has to go to a class and take a test, written and practical has an objective view of his knowledge and ability.
Yes, a guy who can shoot a 6" group at 20 yds has had more shooting experience than a guy who can't hit the target at 10.
Yes, exposure to other archers/hunters is a good thing, and the more the better.
Yes, a demonstrable yard stick of ones shooting abitity is a good thing.
And YES knowing how good you are is better than thinking you know how good you are.

Look, when I got my first bowhunting license, all that was required was that I sat in a guy's basement and listened to him talk about gun hunting for two hours. At that time, I didn't even own a gun. Then all I had to do was pay the extra fee for the bow tag. When the state laws changed, we gave a nearly two full day course, with hunting, safety and shooting instruction, and yes, it ended with a writen and shooting test. The guys that needed work, got the help they needed to pass, and the people I passed, I would have no worries about hunting with.

Perfect, no, but a lot better and doing nothing at all. And yes, the tests made a difference, IMHO.

Viper out.

[Bowcephalus]

We come from different worlds......99.9% of my hunting,shooting,scouting has been with my Dad when I was a kid or alone from my teens years forward. I never took a test to shoot,or hunt.My Dad saw to it I was safe and competent.It is fun to shoot with others as witnessed by my experience this weekend at Enid.The first time my little brother went into the woods by himself he was nine or ten. Brought back two or three fox squirrels with his single shot H&R 20 ga..I have a picture somewhere...Just different worlds I guess and those stats you provided seem to agree.......I started bowhunting in the first place to avoid the growing crowds in the woods.......

[Viper]

Bowc -

That's a really good point. They are different worlds, guys like you and your dad did it and are still doing it the right way. Where I grew up, most of us were weekend warriors, at best. Even the best intentioned, most ethical types we knew had a hard time "goin' huntin'" as often as we wanted too. The best we had, probably didn't have half the practical experience you guys did. Some did come "hunting families", but even those guys "went up" only a few times a year, if that much. So, you're probably right, different environments do call for different approaches.

Viper out.

[Larry Hatfield]

this has been an interesting discussion!
i have another perspective i'd like to share.
i grew up in the mountains alone for a week at a time with my brother who was a year older. we had a .22 single shot and we hunted and fished daily for food. at ages 6 and 7 we were both good shots with the gun and knew how to catch fish.
fast forward to the 1980s when i was going to go to catalina island and found that i had to have proof of passing a hunter safety test to get a license in california.
after nearly 50 years of hunting and trapping without one mishap of any kind, i was surprised to learn that there were some things i was really not well versed on that the instructors that conducted the class included
in the material we were tested on.
i learned some things, had to pass a shooting test, taught them some things about tracking, and found the whole thing to be worth doing.
it reinforces the notion i've had for some time that when you think you have nothing more to learn you are pretty worthless to yourself.
right on viper! anyone can learn or relearn some good habits and be better off with good instruction. and that includes many things besides hunting!

[greenghost]

Well, if the concern is for safety then why not just pass a law to the effect that everyone has to have a genuine, certified government approved hunting mentor for five years before getting a license?

But as you say, proficiency isn't really going to achieve what you want anyway since stick bow shooters are a small minority and a person can become passably proficient with a compound without too much trouble.

I am with Bow', you just can't legislate the dip sh@ts out of hunting. The most you can hope to do is change the culture of hunting in the right direction, so that people are at least ashamed of unethical behavior (including poor preparation).

[Woodduck]

My recovery rate is MUCH better than the rifle hunters in my club...happy trails..... :shooting: