GF

Actually the system in SA is you draw blood, you pay the trophy fee. The same, just different than you are proposing

TBB

What?

What happenened to all the responses? Didn't think it was that controversial.

Just got in and turned on my computer and see there were 34 responses to my thread...but now there's just three??? What happened???

Indian raid thread got scalped.LOL

No kidding RymanCat!!

I feel like I started a party then passed out and missed everything that went on...what was the gist of the responses? From the ones I can see it was not on the practical test anymore! :)

This is usually the result of the moderator closing a thread while somebody is in the process of replying. It locks out all the previous posts, but the thread fails to die.

Somebodies must have been discussing compounds, cursebows, or curse words of something.

Very disappointing..was interested to see the opinions on this type of practical test...the last I saw (last night)there were three replies...guess I missed the show...wonder what the moderator found objectionable???????

I'm guessing it got too political for someone. Bill.

Some were suggesting that a minimal level of proficiency might be a good idea, short of more governmental regulation. Others hated the idea.

The argument that the government already requires hunter safety courses came up...then most of the comments disappeared.

Thanks for filling me in Backcountry...at the risk of stirring the pot I didn't see a problem with this type of test. Had to take an one day archery hunting course along with it...taught shot placement, blood trailing, how to set up etc.

Pdiddly are similar tests required for hunters who use firearms?

Stalker...No...they're not. And if you hunt with a crossbow, no test.

Peter

In Utah, some units on private land are called Cooperative Wildlife Management Units. These are typically highly sought-after tags. I know of at least one where the operator (not always the landowner) requires a proficiency test for rifle shooters, and may not allow archery hunting at all. Why? The reason I've been told is they don't want to have to deal with wounded animals with arrows sticking out of them.

I drew one of these tags a few years ago. The shooting test was pretty easy-- 3 shots within a 9" circle at 100 yards. Got my cow elk that year, too.

A private operator or land owner can (or should be able to) do as they see fit on their own property. As far as I'm concerned you can limit access by race, color or creed if it pleases you.

Access to public land or tags is another matter. consider the case of a non-resident property owner. In my state you would be required to purchase a license. What do you think about having to pass a test before hunting on your own land?

I'm a resident owner of a small piece of land zoned agricultural (it's legal to hunt and shoot). I'm not required to purchase a license or tag to hunt my property. How do you make me take a test?

Hunter safety courses...

I like the courses. I took both my kids through one and I took my son through a bow hunter course.

It seems reasonable to take steps to prevent one hunter from shooting another (gun safety). However, much of the hunter safety course I attended was "outdoor safety" that wasn't really specific to hunting. Good stuff to know and stuff my father taught me from the time I was a small child.

We even spend money rescuing lost or injured people in the outdoors so we have some vested interest...though I might not my freedom restricted because you insist on rescuing me. LOL

The problem is that the "safety course" is only required for hunters while hikers and climbers probably get lost or injured at least as often and they aren't required to take any course OR purchase a license (in most cases).

Wounded animals? In the last couple of years I've found several gun shot non-recovered deer while out hunting. Never an arrow shot deer. So, why all the attention on bow hunters?

Proficency test will not eliminate wounding it can only show that you can hit a said target only at a said time.

Shooting wild things changes all the rules and then theres varied circumstances as well that are ever present at the moment of truth.

That can't be taught and it can not be mananaged by any game department whatsoever.

Thats the part of things that are the unspoken things with bad desisions or mistakes or Murphys law.

It can cut down but not eliminate. Plenty of gun and crossbows wounds out there that many don't get to see simply because they don't have enough days afield a lot of time. When you live in the woods you get to see a lot more. It aint all pretty either like some make it out to be.

Its the good the bad and the indifferant.LOL

The thread was scalped not mistakenly over typed.LOL

huh?

pdiddy, I don't even see your initial post

pdiddy, I don't even see your initial post

I have been on several bear hunts where the operator would make us shoot in front of him. They then proceeded to place the guys that were the worst shots on the worst baits. No kidding. Glad I shot well LOL

I think it would be a neat program to offer some type of incentive for demonstrated proficiency on a voluntary basis. It would reward those who make the effort to become better shots with more hunting opportunities, and would be a way for others to evaluate their current ability.

At the very least it could be educational and help people determine if they really are good enough to hunt big game with a bow.

im not afraid of a proficiency test. LOl its amazing how many are. Probably same guys that refuse to turn in a scorecard at a 3d shoot. :)

Babysaph...my original post and about 28 subsequent comments strangely vanished yesterday, leaving the first four posts in this part of the thread...we can't quite figure out why. Had to do with me taking the mandatory Quebec practical shooting test to hunt with a bow. Five shots at increasing ranges at five life size big game 2-D foam targets. 10 to 30 metres. Shared my experience.

I'm not afraid to take a proficiency test, either, and I'm not that good of a shot...not as good as I was when I stopped shooting altogether 20 years ago. But I'm working back with a goal of being better than I ever was, thanks to some advice on form I wished I gotten when I first started as a kid.

I'll start keeping score at 3d shoots when they start putting scoring rings over the true vitals--not just in the center of mass of the target. None of our really good trad shooters keep score, either.

A fun game to play at 3d is to have a compound shooter in your group, then glass, range, and take the first shot. Even more fun if he or she's using lighted nocks! I got some compound shooters to switch over to trad that way this past winter and we had a blast.

Found this interesting thread from a few years back--2009. Saw that some of our current contributors posted there, but a lot are no longer around.

Here's the thread:

could you pass the "test"

I enjoy how so many claim that others are afraid of proficiency tests but they are not. My current score at Nancy's Broken Arr row is posted for the last shoot. My previous shot there was also a second high score. Rarely do I keep score because I find it as boring as golf and distracting from my enjoyment of shooting. BTW, those ladies scores are my wife and daughter's.

So, with that out of the way, let me say that I strongly support archery and specifically the use of longbows and recurves. Therefore, I am opposed to any and all proficiency tests which are simply an effort for insecure boys to make them feel manly by creating an exclusive club for themselves. They get support from those with very little interest in promoting bowhunting or any hunting under the silly notion that it is better for the animal if the hunter is encouraged to purchase the latest gear to assure the animals quick demise.

We know that it is difficult to encourage the ladies and young to shoot in public let alone under the peering eyes of those at a test. Yet, we claim to want these very people to take up the bow. Some of you pro-proificieny guys often claim how great it is that the ladies and kids get involved. You are not helping.

And just something to think about. If you were the one being hunted, would you really want the hunter to use the gear that is easiest for them to assure your end? Wouldn't you prefer that they use the most basic gear requiring more of their effort? Because the truth is that these test only help the sellers of the latest gear to assure "your" accuracy.

Now, DO NOT THINK THAT I AM ADVOCATING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO JUST GO OUT AND FLING ARROWS OR ANYTHING AT GAME. I just strongly think that after working with their gear of choice that each person should decide for themselves as to what range they are proficient if at all. I do think that education courses are great means to help people reach their own limits and promote safe hunting.

I question the motivation behind those who think proficiency tests are good for hunting or the game animals.

I'm also from Quebec and when I saw the title, I was looking forward to seeing what it was all about.

Hmmm???

Anyhow, my wife, my son, and my daughter passed that test in 1990, and now my son in law (originally from England) will be taking the test in the near future.

I had been shooting a bow for many years before the test came out, but contrary to the Federal firearm course, there was no grandfather clause and I had to take the course and pass the test too.

What's next a 5 year prison sentence if you wound an animal! Just because a person can manage to pass the "paper" test doesn't mean they are going to make every shot good in the field.

I never said people should be denied a hunting license if they aren't shooting such and such a minimum score. An incentive program MIGHT help those who are interested in doing so to improve their proficiency, and therefore why shouldn't their dedication be rewarded in some way?

My motivation is not to sell more gadgets--just the opposite. Such crutches defeat the purpose of people trying to get better by one's own efforts.

I would like to have bowhunters have the opportunity for more time in the field, not less. That's where they develop hunting skills and the notion of stewardship that will perpetuate the sport of bowhunting.

More people in the field simply flinging arrows isn't going to accomplish that. I question the motivation of people who don't think being a better shot and also a better hunter aren't better for the sport.

You will not get better hunters from childish tests. You will simply get a European model of hunting.

I do not see why it is anyone's business whether someone else shoots to a certain degree of proficiency or how this is good for hunting. It isn't your business or mine.

Further, it isn't up to me, the government, or anyone to give incentives for others to become better shots. It should be their choice!

Wow, now some are courting big brother. BTW, I did CLEARLY state that just flinging arrows or anything would not benefit anyone.

Guess I have reignited the debate! Interesting perspectives on this question...seems a lot of folks are wondering where to draw the line...Are written tests OK? No written tests? Anyone can go hunt without certification? Those seem to be the questions...we can pass a test in theory but is showing proficiency too much? What I did find was the process was not at all like hunting and it's challenges...artificial, with a big audience and indoors in my case. Definitely different challenges...a 3D shooter would do this without issue. And to clarify..I've taken many deer with a bow, but in Ontario where I used to live. I had to take the Quebec course and tests to hunt there now that I reside there.

I would be really curious to know what brought about proficiency tests for archers but not for firearms.

It is astounding to me the number of people in this country who welcome government intrusion into their lives with open arms. I have never been out of the South my entire life and this is the first internet blog I have been a part of. It is amazing to see the views of people across this country. It is all beginningto make sense to me how we have gotten to this point in our nation. 25 years ago, you could voluntarily register your vehicle with the N.C. Beach Buggy association if you drove on the beach of the Outer Banks and surf fished. Now the fed has stepped in and requires a $50 permit to drive on the beach when they say you can where they say you can, with many closures yearly because they say someone may squish a little bird called a piping plover. Government intervention always turns into a big ugly monster that feeds on our liberty and freedoms

Should have read, "the Outer Banks of North Carolina Instead of," the Outer Banks"

"I would be really curious to know what brought about proficiency tests for archers but not for firearms."

Because gunhunters didn't push for it.

BuzAl- Are you saying that bowhunters wanted to be tested?

Sadly I have seen deer wounded from just about every legal hunting weapon available to the public, which never helps the image of hunting. Here in my home state of NJ we have always had a hunter safety/proficiency requirement of some sort, although it has changed many times. Unfortunately it is not always fair, for example a shot gunner can miss all three clay targets, but as long as they demonstrate safety they pass. The bowmen has to hit 3 out of 5 in the vitals or fail. Twenty three years ago when I tested, we had to attend 3 nights of classes and one field day where we would demonstrate proficiency with our weapon and woodsmanship to pass (learned a lot about safety/and the dangers of hypothermia). I was appalled at the number of ignorant drunk/alcoholic grub heads that showed up (yes they were drunk) with their compounds and were clearly so over-bowed and/or had the shakes so bad they missed the target completely and failed. A few even hit antlers or sensitive areas that would guarantee the ceasing of any genetic relatives, this was all from a standing 20 yard shot with all the bells and whistles a bow could offer. When it was my turn there were a lot of cute little comments about my (handed down 50lb fiberglass recurve)"antique" or "toy". They game management guy asked what my effective range was and I said 15 yards, but could shoot at 20 well enough. I opted for 20 yards because the comments of that's not fair were deafening. After passing I promptly advised the training wheels gentleman's club just how superior a real bow shot properly is to useless technology. Still remember some red faces from those comments. Must have been the, "but i spent $1,000 dollars for this stuff so I should be great" logic.

Sadly, The garden state lost out to political pressure/lack of funding and has since revamped the courses to a home study booklet and 3 hour field test. My wife who was late to bow hunting experienced this. When parents would show up with 3 or more kids with a compound and pass it between them all and none passed because they were not set up properly. I still remember the smiles and comments from the kids when she gracefully shot and passed on a longbow. A few youth even admitted that someday they would shoot a real bow also. I loved that.

Now kids are testing on crossbows and that sucks if you ask me. But, who am I to judge. I guess the point here is that my sympathies go out to the real hunters and families that take the time to teach their youth, family and friends properly. They have never been the problem. However, in the society of quick and easy government regulation, it has become part of the game in order to play so the uneducated do gooders in government can make sure they innocent little deer are safe from evil hunters. Funny thing is even in NJ if you want to hunt a military game management unit you have to retest all over with the base to ensure proficiency if i'm not mistaken. Anyway, if Quebec has a proficiency requirement then so be it, those are the politics of our French Canadian friends. Honestly I do believe it is silly and a real hunter should know their own limits and accountability to the man upstairs. However, having been born, bread and raised in a state with irresponsible imbeciles I understand the faulty logic. But lets not kid ourselves, if we do our jobs, practice and demonstrate our skills in front of others isn't that the best way to promote our art, even if it is at the request of some stupid government bureaucracy?

i think he is saying that the gun hunters pushed for the bow test. what or who do you think has kept it out of most of euorop? ron

kenwilliams, you are exactly right. We are outnumbered. I remember when I was young my dad taught me to hunt and be safe and now we have to have our kids have hunters safety. They get tested in hunters safety. Luckily I will not live to see a complete gubment take over. At least I hope I don't live that long.

“In Utah, some units on private land are called Cooperative Wildlife Management Units. These are typically highly sought-after tags. I know of at least one where the operator (not always the landowner) requires a proficiency test for rifle shooters, and may not allow archery hunting at all. Why? The reason I've been told is they don't want to have to deal with wounded animals with arrows sticking out of them.”

More likely the operators charge stiff fees, which they can command based on high success rates, and a wounded-and-lost animal translates not into just one unsuccessful hunter, but decreases the chances for everybody else. If you’re going to Fail, at least do it without reducing the population just as much as you would have if you had succeeded. That’s why I brought up the South African model in which (as TradBowBob clarified for me) if you draw blood, you pay the trophy fee… The same system in place in Tourist Traps all across America: You break It, You Buy It.

But going back to your earlier thought on providing an incentive system with longer seasons for the more proficient archers, I’ll repeat my (deleted) comments from earlier…

The best “Incentive” for Proficiency already exists, and its name is Archery Season. And the reason there are too many mediocre shots out there bowhunting is that it is an Extra for them.

So there are two routes to ensuring proficiency – mandatory external regulation and voluntary self-regulation.

External regulation imposes a relatively arbitrary and meaningless standard; it doesn’t matter if a guy can group into X inches at Y yards if he doesn’t have the self-discipline to limit his shots to Y or less, nor does it matter if the next guy CAN’T hold into X inches at Y yards if he WILL limit himself to ranges where he’s good for .5X inches anyway…

Problem with the self-regulation, though, is that most people will hold themselves to a trivial standard.

That’s what I like about the CO system. You get ONE tag per species per year. Not two, not three. One. Choose wisely. It doesn’t keep out ALL of the people who think it’s a good idea to use a 6 GPP arrow to throw a 2”-wide mechanical 65 or 70 yards at an Elk, but if buying an archery tag means that you will sit out the rifle season, it’s a lot harder for someone who knows himself to be a poor substitute for a Bowhunter to talk himself into doing it as a lark….

a test will not do much to many variables in the woods I watch a hunting show at the archery shop one day a Olympic medal winner first deer hunt not good 20 yards over back. and a wounded deer is sad but remember other animals will benefit it will not go to waste.

And Ken….

Regulation becomes necessary when voluntary restraint fails to protect a public resource. If enough people drive through the nesting areas to put plovers on the endangered list, then EVERYBODY will get regulated in order to protect them.

So rather than complaining about increased regulation, we should devote the energy towards educating those whose behavior is begging to be regulated...

I agree, Matt. But one of the problems I see is just not having a long enough season to have time afield. A longer season would spread people out and give bowhunters a chance to hunt cooler weather.

But when a friend who was on a regional advisory council to the Wildlife Commission brought these arguments up, he was told Utah couldn't afford to have a longer season because they were wounding and losing too many deer during archery season as it was. (Compound shooters taking too long of shots was mentioned. My friend's suggestion: limit bowsights to ONE pin--then they might not be so inclined to take those 90 yard shots.)

So I'm just trying to put some ideas out for consideration and discussion that might help reverse this trend.

Traditional bowhunters already limit themselves by using less sophisticated equipment. I think the responsible, dedicated ones deserve more opportunity as a reward for their diligent efforts to be better hunters and shooters.

I'm with Witherstick,well said! Bill.

Ever drove down the beach on the outer banks or used orv ramps there matt?

Yes, Stalker, I was saying that I think its because (some, as evidenced here) bowhuhters wanted to be tested.

Look on (non-bow)hunting forums- ever seen gun-hunters argue that it would be a good idea for them?

BC - (too many Kens!)

Is the UT archery season a both/and or an either/or proposition? JMO, the surest way to persuade people to not take stupid-long shots is to persuade them that their time, energy and tag money are better spent in rifle season.

Restricting to one sight pin is begging for trouble. To begin with, define "Pin". Then define "fixed", because there are adjustable, single-pin rigs out there that are probably superior to a 5 or 7-pin christmas tree anyway... at least on those long shots

Eliminate the mechanical releases and 80% of wheelshooters will pack it in.

Just a damn shame that it's so difficult to provide people with technology that makes close-in shots a sure thing, but without encouraging bad behavior past 25 or 30 yards.

"Other Ken"....

Nope, haven't driven the beaches you're talking about, or any others, for that matter.... but then I don't do motorized recreation. But I don't need to know the territory to understand that you don't like the Feds coming in and charging you $50 to regulate something that the state used to let you do for free. But there are an awful lot of things that we used to do without regulation that went to hell in a handbag until some kind of regulations came into play. Things like hunting seasons and bag limits, for example.

You mentioned ORVs... When I was a kid, there were two kinds of "ORV"; one was a banged-up CJ-5 or Toyota FJ that burned a lot o' gas and the other kind ate oats and PASSED a lot o' gas. Now the quads are a huge industry, and they're getting so sophisticated and specialized that you can get an amphibious model with retractable wheels and a jet-drive so that you can short-cut ACROSS a lake instead of having to go around... Or WALK, Gawd Fuhbid.... And the way that people use these things now has changed; they're not just a way to get where you're going, they're designed and marketed for the Mtn Dew generation where it's all about how RAD you can be, Bro.... JoyRides R Us, Inc..

People who don't hunt & fish just don't have a clue about wildlife or stewardship of the land or any of those things that most of us absorbed as youngsters while we were learning to hunt/fish/farm or even just tend a garden. If you're like me, you know where plovers and killdeer build their nests because you discovered the nests and eggs and chicks as you were out there wandering around learning & discovering when you were a kid. It would never OCCUR to you to blast through those areas during nesting season, and if you saw a bird doing the broken-wing routine, you'd probably detour around, am I right?

So between ballooning technology (ATVs, Drones, Amphibious Assault Vehicles, etc.) and a rapidly-expanding, ever-more-clueless user base, there are just a lot of activities that we can't afford NOT TO regulate in order to protect the resources from the users. I was taught not to stand on the tracks when I could see the train coming.

And yeah, it kinda sucks when it runs into money and red tape. But personally, I'd rather pay a fair share to enjoy the resource or activity than have no activities or resources left to enjoy.

If I understand GF's question, Utah is "choose your weapon," by species. You can hunt deer with a bow during archery season, and then elk with a rifle, for example.

Some units allow "any weapon," but archers and "musket-loaders" still have to wear orange and, of course, realize they will be sharing the woods with everyone else who applied for and drew a tag for that particular hunt.

But for special weapons hunts, you must only use the weapon designated--you can't use a bow in a muzzleloader hunt.

I disagree that compound shooters will be convinced to go back to a rifle if they want to take long shots. That'll never happen. There are some, probably quite a few, who are good enough to do it. Many others aren't but will try anyway.

I didn't think you had been Matt, because if you had , you would know that it is not likely that anyone would be driving over any nesting sites as the nesting sites are in the dunes which are un-navigable for the most part. The ORV ramp through the dunes is rough enough to get through much less venturing off through the dunes. All the beach driving is on a beach 200-300 yards wide below the tide line. Birds don't nest below the tide line Matt. So in this case you don't know what you are talking about. This was a Federal decision that hurt the State of North Carolina and severely restricted sportsmens access to fishing. If you hunt Federal land, it would be equivalent to them stopping you because you walking up and down the fire roads might disturb a fox squirrel tring to mate. Stupid, ridiculous, idiotic, and worst of all prosperity destroying laws.

3 shots in a 9" circle at a hundred yards??????????????How many guys here practice at 100 yards?How many guys think they could do that with 6 arrows?That is without a sight or a compound?

Also, Matt, you are confusing ORV ( a 4 wheel drive road tagged vehicle) with ATV's which were never allowed anyway except for NPS employees who repotedly have squished eggs. This is a states rights issue, nothing more, nothing less.

"3 shots in a 9" circle at a hundred yards??????????????How many guys here practice at 100 yards?How many guys think they could do that with 6 arrows? That is without a sight or a compound?"

No, it was with a rifle. In my case, a scoped 30.06. Not a hard test for most hunters. It was much a test to make sure the rifle was accurate and working properly as a proficiency test for the shooter.

"3 shots in a 9" circle at a hundred yards???????????????"

Gilman Kesey could have done that.... Horace Ford, HH, probably Byron Ferguson. Doesn't leave too many others...

Wilhelm brothers, Paul Schaeffer, Wenzels... Who else--George Stout, Ron LaClair, Larry Hatfield, Jimmy Blackmon, Viper?

I did it with my ought-six, no big deal. Probably couldn't with an iron-sighted .30- 30, though (maybe with a peep.)

What public land are you talking about, Mike? The exclusions you mention are allowed on the National Forests and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

National Wildlife Refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are typically more restrictive due to their mandate to protect certain wildlfe species. But most allow some types of recreation, including hunting, in portions of the Refuge, where those uses are compatible with the purposes for establishing a particular refuge.

In any case, this is getting off topic from the OP's original post about shooting proficiency.

At the peril of opening a can if worms, I'm still wondering about what public lands you're talking about, Mike.

Are you referring to military reservations where they often require proficiency tests before you can hunt there with a bow?

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here