Archery Talk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 180 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What are y'all's thoughts on mandatory archery proficiency test before allowing someone to have a archery stamp? Nothing too complicated maybe something along the lines of five arrows in a row in a 6-in circle at 30 yards. Maybe give everybody three chances a year and if they can't do that they don't get archery stamp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I don’t think the ability to execute a good shot on command shouldn’t be a requirement to hunt. And even a complete hack who thinks headshots are a good idea (yes, those guys exist) might shoot a good group. I get where you’re going, but I don’t think this really solves any problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
Not a fan of this. I've had friends at both extremes when it came to this. The guy that's perfect on the range but can't make a good shot on a deer to save his life and the guy that can barely keep it on a paper plate but always seems to make good shots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I don't know, a lot of states have draw weight requirements which seem way less effectual than having an actual accuracy requirement if you're worried about trying to make ethical kills. I know of one feller who shot three deer in the guts this year and completely missed one. None were recovered. I have no idea how well he shoots but at the point of shooting three deer in the guts on a row I think he should probably give up bow hunting forever. An accuracy test might weed some of these people out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
I would be against it. If you are talking about proficiency for hunting, accuracy is fine, but I think ethics is way more important. ( No way to govern that ) Knowing your maximum range limitation and shot angles, plus getting as close as possible is hunting to me.
 

·
GA DAWG Fan
Joined
·
688 Posts
NJ hunter safety course has a proficiency test, was more to make sure they understood how to handle and use their equipment than accuracy, also range safety.

Hunted some federal land, you had to be qualified (target accuracy) with a specific gun, choke and load, shotgun only, you could qualify multiple loads and guns.

Hunted on a military base, again had to pass an archery proficiency test.

No big deal to do so and it did weed out the people who did not have a clue. There were people who showed up with loaded guns, sent home, there were people with bows that they had never shot before, sent home. There are some crazy stupid MF’s out there, have no problem keeping them out of the woods. Really no different than taking a driving test to get a drivers license.

All of these examples are 20 yr or more ago, so it is nothing new and not some gov’t conspiracy as some would have you believe. It is called common sense, which seems to lacking given some of the responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,365 Posts
In Minnesota, metro hunts require a proficiency test in order to be eligible to hunt. 3 arrows at 20 yards on a single spot target roughly the size of one target of a 5 spot (I think it is a touch larger than that, but not by much). If memory serves me correctly, when you can keep those 3 arrows inside the 5 ring, you would be considered a "sharp shooter" which I believe gives you a stronger chance of being chosen for those hunts. (tongue firmly in cheek here as I have not done a metro hunt in years here...

I would much rather see regulations in place for the deer we can take.... I'll be honest, I am a fan of an antler point restrictions as I feel it would help balance the herd overall more. Does are everywhere...

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I would be against it. If you are talking about proficiency for hunting, accuracy is fine, but I think ethics is way more important. ( No way to govern that ) Knowing your maximum range limitation and shot angles, plus getting as close as possible is hunting to me.

Here in canada ethics is included in your hunting test and qualifications course and in most cases on the test they ask you ethical based questions that are not detailed in the code course so that people understand. And I think the draw weight can help root out alot of idiot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
Way back when in NY, before it was required I took an archery course and proficiency was tested. A few of the guys weren't that good and the instructor just said, "keep practicing" and they passed. Then our town hunt had the same sort of requirement. I happened to be at the rec center a couple of years ago when they were testing new participants. I think 20 yards was the shooting distance. Some of these people were pathetic. Head shots, neck shots, rump shots, a grazing shot and they all passed. It was more of a "can you pull your bow back and release an arrow" test. It is covered in the current NY mandatory archery course, but it's more a matter of how you conduct yourself.

No longer, but in the early years proficiency was discussed many times. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it opens the door to shooting sports across the board. You want to hunt upland game birds? OK, shoot 20 of 25 clay pigeons. A high powered rifle for big game? OK, shoot a 5" group at 100 yards. Etc, Etc. Where do you draw the line?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Are those of y'all against having a proficiency test really worried about government intervention, or are y'all just afraid you wouldn't pass? It would seem if good hunting ethics were the goal people should be in favor of a proficiency test so we could keep slob hunters out of the woods
 
1 - 20 of 180 Posts
Top