Are you in favor of or against some degree of weapons proficiency testing for all hunters of your state prior to allowing licensing?
ONE/TWO quick sentences on why you are either for or against this
would also be appreciated.
Me..I'm for it.
I believe I will see more deer.
I believe it'll bring more credibility to what we do.
no testing
3/5 shots @ 5" target at 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 5" target at distances varying up to 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 6" target at 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 6" target at distances varying up to 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 7" target at 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 7" target at distances varying up to 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 8" target at 20 yards
3/5 shots @ 8" target at distances varying up to 20 yards
Personally I would not mind seeing one. I know that there are probably those that would not support it, but I think that we would have less yahoos, who get a bow then go right out and hunt, in the woods.
A couple of years ago I had some land that we were hog hunting on, and we would get people to shoot a 3" group from 20 yds before we would take them out. We had a bunch of folks that decided that they did not want to go once we told them what they had to do, but we also did not have any really long tracking jobs with people either!
I see your point about credibility, but don't we have enough hoops to jump through in life already. COME ON. Next thing you know the gov'ment will be wanting me to register my bows.
My greater concern would be for teaching hunters, especially gun hunters, how to identify game, and teach them that they shouldn't be pulling their guns up so fast at noises, movement, etc. I know it's spoken of at the safety courses, but I think it needs to be drilled better than it is. I'm a little tired of hearing stories by co-workers and such about how some nimrod pointed his gun at them.
I wish Iowa had testing, you have to test here to do the urban hunts so why not all bowhunting? If you can'y hit a 5" circle 3/3 at 20 yards you have no business bowhunting. Might as well join the lazy gun hunters. I hear of bad shots being taken and bad hits a lot more than good clean kill shots and there is something wrong with that.
I'm 100 percent against it. Once they make a law about shooting qualification to get a license (tag), what's to stop anti-hunters some day from becoming the majority on state game commissions or in state legislators and pushing to make the test harder and harder until nobody could pass, so nobody could bowhunt? Or somebody's Uncle Bud, who just happens to lust after your deer lease, from becoming the testing monitor and somehow determining that you don't pass and can't hunt anymore? I believe what we need is less government regulation in our lives, not voluntarily seeking to increase the amount of government regulation on ourselves and our activities. Give government additional power and it will invariably screw it up or allow corruption to be introduced. My 2 cents.
Won't accomplish much except another hassle for everyone. Professional archers can fall apart at the moment of truth and hit a deer in the butt. What good is making them shoot at a target going to do?
I know when some of the cities do a special hunt within populated areas to help curb deer populations, they make the applicants take a proficiency test. not exactly sure what it consists of though.
I think it is a good idea. the way things are going, I can see it being a mandatory thing for all means of hunting.
not nessecarily testing on the spot, but the need to pass a test at a certified station before a license may be issued.:laser:
In Arkansas if you get drawn to hunt one of the urban bowhunts you have to pass the bowhunters ed course and pass the following proficiency test:
Pass a shooting proficiency test [i.e., three consecutive
hunting arrows shot from a legal hunting bow held at full
draw by only the archer’s muscles. All three arrows must hit
within or cut the line of the heart/lung area of a life-size deer
target at a distance set by the test administrator (up to 20
yards)].
There are only a small number of aplicants drawn every year, so I dont know if this would be feasible for everyone who bought a tag, but I would be for it if they made it mandatory.
I see your point about credibility, but don't we have enough hoops to jump through in life already. COME ON. Next thing you know the gov'ment will be wanting me to register my bows.
This suggests that a percentage of hunters would not qualify.
Is that your point?
If so.. what percentage?
I didn't say it would be free.... I envision a qualification charge to administer the program.
I'm 100 percent against it. Once they make a law about shooting qualification to get a license (tag), what's to stop anti-hunters some day from becoming the majority on state game commissions or in state legislators and pushing to make the test harder and harder until nobody could pass, so nobody could bowhunt? Or somebody's Uncle Bud, who just happens to lust after your deer lease, from becoming the testing monitor and somehow determining that you don't pass and can't hunt anymore? I believe what we need is less government regulation in our lives, not voluntarily seeking to increase the amount of government regulation on ourselves and our activities. Give government additional power and it will invariably screw it up or allow corruption to be introduced. My 2 cents.
In Norway we have a shooting test you have to pass every year with your rifle. If you don`t pass it, you have to stay home that year.
In Sweden they don`t demand a shooting test like that.
The difference in % wounded deer is rather higher in Sweden than in Norway.
In Denmark where bowhunting is legal for roedeer and smaller game, they have a shooting test with the bow. They have a very low % of wounded animals from bowhunting.
I can only see a benefit from demanding a shooting test to be allowed to hunt. If you are not confident about making the shooting test, then you shouldn`t try sending a bullet/arrow after an animal with a prayer either.
I don`t think the bow shooting test should be to difficult, but it should demand that you are skilled enough to kill a deer with a 20 yard shot.
Just my opinion. I don`t want to shovel it down others throaths:smile:
If you set up something like this, even though I would agree would limit the yahoos out there, I believe you would be fueling the fire for the anti's. If it was started then what would stop anti's from supporting stricter guidlines like making a smaller group required. I guess I fear them pushing regulations to eventually making the archer shoot a 2" group at 30 yrds and have to make 4 of 5 arrows. So thats my concern.
Won't accomplish much except another hassle for everyone. Professional archers can fall apart at the moment of truth and hit a deer in the butt. What good is making them shoot at a target going to do?
The good that it does is it accomplishes setting a minimum proficiency level for all hunters to aspire to before they get licensed. Most states do that with "safety." If there are a large number of questionable archers in the woods, they either clean up their shooting skills or stay out of the woods.
That is what it accomplishes.
Its simple...
Granted hunting is different than target shooting....no doubt.
Just because a professional archer might fall apart doesn't mean that there
is a probability that a questionable shooter might fall together.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Archery Talk Forum
38.3M posts
213.3K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to bow and crossbow owners and archery enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, performance, troubleshooting, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!