I have talked about this for years and never seen a thread like this, so I thought it would be pretty cool/telling of what proficiency testing is about and what worth it has.

This is kinda like the first shot threads that I enjoy so much but different....in as much as I want you to shoot this as ready as you will ever be.

Please be honest!.

Very simple test. The standard is the pie plate. For those of you that do not have pie plates, use a piece of paper, like the kind you would use in a copier. Thats what I am going to use.

Normal printer paper is 8.5 X 11 Fold the paper until it is a square. 8.5 X 8.5 That will be close enough.

Now pin it to the backstop, step back 15 yards and shoot 5 arrows. Show us what happened.

Lets see just how hard this is and then we can talk about whether or not it should be required to do at least this good before you go hunting.

Keeping in mind that the normal passing grade would be 3 out of 5 shots.

It 's easy when no ones around ! Do you get to mail in your test?

SB ... I'll trust you :)

You bring up a great point (excuse) which everyone wants to use. I am not stressed. (doesn't count)

Well are you saying that a few (or a hundred) people standing behind you is different from a deer in front of you?. Really?. If so, run around the block a couple of times and then shoot. Do whatever it takes to replicate IMO.

So here are mine. I shot the first shot this morning but it's been many hours since then. Want me to warm up?. Use a different bow?. I can do that too. Most likely I will. Just to see if I can do it.

This is a defensive thread in part but it is also a thread to get everyone to think about this subject. I would love to debate but I would also like to hear what everyone thinks about the testing subject as well as what they saw from themselves.

Myself?. I think I did o.k.. The 4 shots were off center but if I was holding center, I would have taken a deer for every shot. I need to practice more and thats a fact. Season is coming soon!.

I don't usually shoot deer over 5 yrds away! REB

you kiddin?? 15 yards is a cakewalk, i practice daily as every person who plans to shoot whitetail should,if i could not put all my arrows in the kill zone at that yardage on a stationary target,i wouldnt shoot at a living animal. period.

All this Proficiency is great if everybody shoots game at the same distance and if they don't suffer from a Target panic. I knew a guy that shot and killed many more animals then myself with very few lost animals however he couldn't hit shit target shooting if he had an Audience. I have also known guys that could consistently put 3 arrows in a 6" area at 20 yards. However they never shot well at game because they could not overcome Buck fever and wounded and did not find many. So I guess your saying the hell with the animals if you can hit the paper!

yeah yeah yeah .... where are the pictured results?

O.K. ... The first one was the Wagner long bow and now the Fedora Recurve. The first 4 high and the last on target. I am having a hard time of this!. Still....I haven't gotten to a point of where I would say I am warmed up or shooting the same type of bow and I passed. I still need to put in some time but I passed.

O.K. ... The first one was the Wagner long bow and now the Fedora Recurve. The first 4 high and the last on target. I am having a hard time of this!. Still....I haven't gotten to a point of where I would say I am warmed up or shooting the same type of bow and I passed. I still need to put in some time but I passed.

adirondackman... Shooting at a bulls eye is a great way to find target panic. This is why I said to use a piece of blank paper. Nobody with target panic fails when finding center on a blank background ;) If you do... it's not target panic... you just suck.

ok here ya go 17 3/4 yards kodiak magnum 55 #

I don't have target panic and will shoot with you any day of the week for whatever prize you seem sufficient at whatever distance. I have been shooting for 40 plus years and feel very proficient with my shooting. By the way I'm willing to trade arrows with to shoot. You shoot my arrows and I will shoot yours.

I just would like to know who decides in their infinite wisdom who is proficient to hunt under what criteria.

Seriously, I'd have to try to miss that at 15. It's quite possible I could pass it even without my contacts in and I'm pretty blind.

This is also true - I think that I could shoot blind and hit a pie pan at 15 yards.

Must be you do your hunting with field or target points? bvd

My last of three hunting bows, the Mamba. Always had an issue with left impacts with this bow and today is no exception. I only have 4 arrows for this bow so I will call #5 a miss. Still passed. ;)

This is what I am saying. Is this too much to ask?. Can you do it?.

amen brother

Don't blame it on the bow - I would say that you are dropping your bow hand without compensating. Try keeping your bow hand more firm or cant more to the left. Remember there is no one way to shoot but the way that makes you the most accurate.

adirondackman... I would be happy to shoot with a youngster such as yourself :) I love to shoot with everyone...anyone, who shoots a stick. IMO, we are all brothers of the bow :)

Who gets to decide?. you do!. You decide to hit a pie plate at 15 yards or you dont. If you cant...well, thats what we are talking about now isn't it :D

You guys must be bored! LOL Jim :)

Ghostinthemachine... I wish that answer would suffice in a test but alas ... :D

adirondackman..."dont blame it on the bow" ... hey thanks!. Now see there!?!... we can have fun with this!

Lets see your shots there old man :D

buster v davenport...

I am VERY sure no testing around these parts would require broadheads!

I recall reading O L Adcock's thoughts on tuning arrows. He cleaned up on the shooting with field points at an event. So the next day he figured he would show the boys how to shoot broadheads. He was highly embarrassed when they flew all over the place. bvd

If you are not shooting with your hunting arrow set up, what good is testing with something you are not going to use?bvd

Here's with my coat on...and my Elmer Fudd cap, in cooler weather, with a 12mph side wind. I love those Kodiak Magnums.

It wouldn't be a gimmee for me since switching to lefty. I have my days! That 's why I prefer them REALLY close! And I don't have five arrows all the same spine! I could do 3?

You could do three and then do two. we can all see how many holes are in the paper ;)

By the way.. congrats on going left. My wife went from left to right and while she fought it and hated it, she did it and is doing well with it.

I'm still fighting with shooting to the right because I ' m right eye dominant! Been lefty due to an injury for 3 years now...but I still have days when they all go to the right! Probably shouldn't even hunt with a bow anymore... but I usually let them all walk anyway. Just like to sit in the woods on a nice fall day.

By the way ... for everyone reading this...

This isnt a one up thread. This isnt anything like that. This is an honesty thread where you get to really see if you can pass a test that has been suggested by far more than one person and may someday be coming to a state near you.

The first 2 years I shot traditional (20 years ago) I might have had trouble with that test if it were in front of a bunch of people. I bagged some nice trophy's in those years, but also missed some bunnies. Since then I've weathered the highs and lows of settling into proper form, that we've all experience, and now wouldn't have an issue.

New shooters still figuring things out could stumble if they progressed anything like me...but really the point is to become proficient when the pressure is on.

Bret

buster v davenport ...

I couldn't agree more. I have always found my field point and then confirmed with the broadhead. Same as I used to walk back tune my compound. While the test would be better off that way, it wont happen. This is what would happen. We cant cradle everyone from birth to grave ;) Some things we hope the shooting instructor will point out before and after testing.

Here...I changed the test..first shot from 12yds...last from 22..moved several steps after each. I don't like to shoot over and over from the same place. Silvertip 3 piece td longbow with GT 55/75

George D. Stout... And a video to boot!. well you passed...even though you went beyond the test yardage. :D I used a flipper for so many years. I still think I should go back to one because I was better with it than without...but I just love the simplicity. I think thats what I love> not sure. :D

Thanks for a good demo!

I put the video one rather than post another that wasn't necessary. I posted this before when someone questioned the accuracy of short bows. It certainly isn't about one-uping anyone as there are plenty of folks who can shoot better than me. I would never want to see mandatory testing, only voluntary...if even that.

The last thing we need is people dictating who can and who can't hunt, based on a few arrows in a paper plate. Some folks just don't perform well when put under pressure like that. So no thanks on mandatory testing. I think the public record already shows the bow to be efficient and there really isn't a need to change things.

Maybe the shooting instructor would point it out and maybe he wouldn't. I see there is one less shooting instructor in Arizona.

Not going to validate a thread that is a lead up to another on why there should be mandatory testing.

Pointer... Congratulations!. You passed.

So...do you think this is a fair test?. Do you think this as a requirement is asking too much?.

George D.Stout...

I disagree but respectfully so.

I think that both of us have lived long enough to have our own thoughts made up but I need to reply to this...

Quote" I think the public record already shows the bow to be efficient and there really isn't a need to change things."

The last survey I looked at (aged at this point) showed a 40% wound rate. The last year I polled ARCHERYTALK the results were about the same.

I think that what the history shows is that many deer get killed with bows. It also shows that many get wounded.

There is a reason for this.

Germany has a standard that pretty much eliminated this. As far as percentages leastwise. I assume that you know that.

Who did the study? Where was it done? Was it a National survey? Perhaps I missed it but I would like to be able to look it up and peruse the data.

We won our seasons early on by proving the bow an efficient weapon. That is history. What is the rifle wounding rate? I bet it nears what the archery is but I don't hear cries for testing. List the data on the surveys so I can see what you say is so. Then I'll have a place to start.

And, are you lobbying for mandatory testing?

I am shocked George!. I really am. Wow!. O.K. ... I cited the data and said it was some time ago but I will try and find it to the best of my ability if that is what you request. But to be honest, it was talked about to the point of where I am actually amazed that you do not know of what I speak. The weight of it (at the time) was back breaking.

Well, I have to be sure that you will take it for what it si before I go to all of that. You have already suggested that you are willing to throw it aside in light of it's relativity in relation to firearms, which was brought up at the same time in a different forum but for the life of me, I cant remember the statistics but will say that that survey was also done and it wasn't even close.

Sorry to throw that out there for you since you obviously dont know what I am speaking of. I will spend a little time looking and wait to hear from you as to it's relevance to what I am speaking of here, which is ethical standpoint.

Its a fair test in the way you administered it...I shot alone in my yard. Its not fair to require it of someone in front of an audience. Especially a new shooter. In case you were unaware, some states have tests. New jersey is one of them. 3 out of 5 arrows in the kill zone from 15 to 20 yds depending on where the guy administering it decides to place you. My nephew failed that test on is first try with a compound even though he was an excellent shot with that bow. Just not used to the audience...shot over the deer 3 times at 20yds with a bow that was sighted for that distance. He had been hitting tennis balls prior to the test and killed his first buck with the first arrow he ever released at a deer. I don't think we need proficiency tests for our sport. I don't think that they measure what they claim to given the way they are administered. JMHO

I figured I'd give it a go. I only had a paper saucer and not a pie plate equivalent. Only shot 4 arrows but all hit the plate from about 16-17 yds away.

I found some of the participants studies but what I spoke of was a net average over a 30 year history and the history had not changed when the statistics were reviewed. The numbers had maybe a 10% variable from best to worst in the finalized study that I read. I only read it because it was the buzz for some time on Bowsite.

I will keep looking for the full report. Below are some of the science community that gave their data t the report.

Aho, R.W. (1984) Michigan Department of Natural Resources results: Bowhunting 58% wounding rate

M.K., Kennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman, J.I., (1978) Alabama and South Carolina Bowhunting 50% wounding rate

Garland, L.E., (1972) Vermont Bowhunting wounding rate of 63%.

Gladfelter, H.L., Kiensler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. (1983) Iowa Bowhunting wounding rates of 49%

Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. (1989) Missouri 52% for Missouri.

Harron, J.S.C. (1984) Wisconsin Bowhunting wound rate of 56% wounding

Stomer, F.A., Kirkpatrick. C.M., and Hoekstra, T.W. (1979) Indiana Bowhunting wound rate 58%

Here is mine. No warm up.... 1st one low 2nd a little high next three almost touching.

Nice shooting BO. You pass :)

MSU Hunter. Congratulations!. You passed :)

15yds

Without trying to knit-pick, I really dislike the pie plate challenge or using a larger piece of paper to judge proficiency. It's a great idea, but the standards are too weak in my opinion. With a 8.5 x 8.5" target I feel like we are finding our comfort zone for hitting a deer, not ethically killing one. I've said it many times before that if you lay a pie plate over a doe's vitals, many of the shots inside the pie plate are actually really bad shots on a live deer. I also think that 3 out of 5 only requires that you even hit a deer 60% of the time. I am not really wanting any sort of proficiency test enforced, but I do believe that people should conduct their own, but the standards should be very high. 10 out of 10 shots in a 5 inch circle.. whatever range you can complete this successfully should be your max hunting range. Again, I am not trying to be an ass, but we should really have tighter standards before we head into the woods. Here is the link to the thread I did last year on a evaluation of hunting/shooting skills. http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm?threadid=251819&category=88#3475885

30yds

Data, that can't be recalled is not relevant to the conversation. I've heard of small surveys that never even approached a National scale, so I don't put much confidence in those. Now you can be surprised all you want, but I didn't just fall of the turnip truck either. You seem to be a proponent and that makes me wonder why you press on this so much.

I've been privy to what goes on in the Pa. sector....the second highest number of bowhunters in the US, and I've not seen this idea of proficiency testing being prevalent. It was talked about in the late 70's, and most were against it as well. Particularly for where it could lead, depending on who had a horse in that race. Your little tests here don't prove much either since all of us are not under any pressure to hit the bullseye.

I'm a big fan of hunter education, and we have a good one here in Pennsylvania....including an archery section where the folks can shoot. That said, to even suggest mandatory testing is crossing a line that most bowhunters don't want to cross. Frankly we have enough noses in our sport and we don't need more oversight other than educational programs.

Good shooting Elkhunter71 :) You pass :)

________________

I know I pulled this thread too late in the day for us time zone challenged people to be able to get a group together but there is always tomorrow. This thread has legs and it wont die by days end. I urge you all to shoot the test. Post your results when you can. Show us where we stand this year as a community.

quote:"Show us where we stand this year as a community."

This thread has nothing to do with our stand as a community. It has to do with your agenda and nothing else.

I have been shooting my longbow very poorly so today I took over 100 shots practice. I saw this so I thought I would try. As long as I can take 100 shots practice 1st I am all set. :)

Oh ... SteveBNY ... Missed huh?. I'm sorry buddy. Just keep at it. you can do it!

This thread is multifaceted. It is not a put down thread. It is not a one up thread. It is a thread to get people thinking and seeing what they are capable of and to talk about where we are and where we are going.

Wow take a good look at some of these arrows and tell us what you see?LOL

how about some pics of the last 5 shots i took at deer?

twistedlimbs...

I think I am in Love!. LOL!. I couldn't agree more but do you REALLY expect me to ask for something that the state wouldn't even ask for?. NO. I am only asking for what any test requires in area's where testing is required...at the minimum too boot.

I like your style but your gonna give me a heart attack with all this talk of yours!. :D

All this Proficiency is great if everybody shoots game at the same distance and if they don't suffer from a Target panic. I knew a guy that shot and killed many more animals then myself with very few lost animals however he couldn't hit shit target shooting if he had an Audience. I have also known guys that could consistently put 3 arrows in a 6" area at 20 yards. However they never shot well at game because they could not overcome Buck fever and wounded and did not find many. So I guess your saying the hell with the animals if you can hit the paper!

I say this again and all this internet shooting is "Bullsh^&t!

Do I pass? Paper isn't an animal and shooting a paper at 15 yds doesn't mean somebody won't shoot at an animal at 40 yds. I think the test is useless.

I think shooting at a distance you are proficient is a good idea,,

I kinda think we as individuals should hold ourselves at a higher standard, even higher than a state might. I don't think a mandatory test should be in place, but I also think that the standards of this test are far too loose. At the very least I'd say 5 out of 5 shots in a 6 inch circle, should be our own personal test... and no I am not kidding, and I don't think that is asking too much at all. If that means everyone limits their hunting shots to 12yards and less, then I would be very comfortable with that. As tight as I require my personal standards to be, I am first to admit that chaos in the woods happens and even with tight shooting standards, bad shots can easily be made. Tight standards don't eliminate those bad shots, but they can certainly decrease them. Fact is, most people's accuracy decreases when faced with a live animal, no everyone, but most.

Quote"I knew a guy that shot and killed many more animals then myself with very few lost animals however he couldn't hit shit target shooting if he had an Audience. I have also known guys that could consistently put 3 arrows in a 6" area at 20 yards. "

For the love of Christ! ...did you all know the same guy?. I am calling BS on this "guy"

Treeman48... You had one flier in that group. I dont care what anyone says...Thats a killing group at 15 yards. Sure it could be tighter but it's fine. Despite some may think ... I killed all deer within that group over the years, when aiming dead center. It's close with that one to the left but if he was head right, he would be toast. Good deal!. You passed.

I didn't read the whole thread before posting my picture. If I had I would not have jumped into this argument. I just shoot for fun and don't plan on hunting anyway. People should have the freedom to do as they wish.

Marshallrobinson - Did you ever hear of a guy named Jay Massey? He hated to shoot in front of people in his older age, He would snap shoot and never could get comfortable, Yet he could put an arrow in a Bull Moose at any reasonable distance that he shot. He shot more hard earned game than most of us. You talk a lot of sh#^t. Your calling BS on Jay. I say that your a rookie!

I have been struggling with flyers high and right lately. I worked on grip and release today and lowered the point weight.

Yes I did it this evening as a cold shot thing at 20 yards with no problem. Shot some more rounds then did it at 15 as you posted originally. That being said this isn't the point. The point is should any one have to. To that I answer NO we have given away about every freedom we have in this country. We are a society that has traded freedom for just about every lie ever told. Enough is enough. How bout all the law dogs go home. Go crawl back under your i phones.

Marshall, you have been on this site for five days now and most of the time you have been yapping about proficiency testing. When I asked Ron LaClair if he was for it, as was you, you got highly indignant that I even mentioned it. Have fun. bvd

quote:"Oh ... SteveBNY ... Missed huh?. I'm sorry buddy. Just keep at it. you can do it!"

You know what they say about ASSumptions.

You have an obvious agenda. When called on it, you resort to weak attempts at humor and deflection. I'd say nice try but my nose would grow.

Marshall's basic point is very valid and his intentions are good. Unfortunately, most of the arguments against proficiency tests are valid too.

Overall, I'm against IMPOSED proficiency tests. There are just too many variables for them to be practical, but you can't argue with the basic logic.

Launching a razor-sharp projectile at an animal calls for a tremendous level of responsibility, determination and detachment. A proficiency test would certainly filter out most of those who lack these attributes, but it wouldn't always be fair and it wouldn't prevent the occasional "bad shot."

I like what Marshall has created here. A discussion that encourages us to examine our individual abilities and responsibilities, and how they relate to the future of our sport. Discussion and thought are never bad. - John

I know exactly what my limitaions are and aren't with my recurve, and I'm the only one that needs to. Speck

I think Kadbow has it right.

Anyone can punch holes at a fifteen yard target. What is important is understanding what one can do in the field. Every situation will be different. What will be an easy shot at a deer at fifteen yards one day can be difficult another. There are times when that thirty yard shot will seem like a gimme and other times when there is no way it should be attempted. How the animal is acting, how we feel at the time, etc., all comes into play and it is understanding these variable factors which will inevitable make us succeed or fail in the field. Not whether we can punch holes in a target at fifteen yards.

Jeff

I couldn't 't even shoot 100 arrows a day anymore....let alone put 5 in a paper plate afterwards!... AT ANY DISTANCE !

I agree every hunting situation is different and just because you can punch a hole in paper doesn't mean you can make that shot in the field. But if you can't punch a hole in paper you sure as heck shouldn't take a shot at a live animal. It all starts at targets.

I can't shoot at paper well but I am he'll on the real thing.

Must be they kicked him out of the public library for the night.

Woohoo! I passed. Can I hunt stumps now?

How about a realistic accuracy test....use a 3D target, with a sticker where a kill/vital shot would be....then test broadside, quartering away, from an elevated platform...etc....

If a person passes at pie plate 15-20 yards, does that restrict him from only taking that distance shot, and who would enforce it?

What about cold weather with extra layers, do they retest for those conditions....?

It opens a can of worms that is better left unopened.... There are over 300,000 archery tags sold in PA...who would administer the tests, and realize how much time and resources would be needed to conduct such testing.....for that number of hunters.....

What about fireams testing....there are a lot of wounded deer from that as well...that would add another 2 million hunters who would need tested.....really want to get into that?

i'm thinking Kadbow has the right idea.

I don't know, maybe i'm pretty naive, but you would think most people want to hit what their aiming at, so they practice and become reasonably accurate.

I mean come on 3 shots in a pie plate at 15 yds? i like to think most people could do that. dunno?

I think if you would go back and study wounding rates you'd find that a large percentage of them are from guys that can shoot paper targets well enough.

Sure your going to eliminate the clown that picks up a bow and goes hunting without ever practicing.

But it will not eliminate wounded deer. It's just another example how people think they can control everything.

It rates right up there with having to wear a hard hat when there is nothing but blue sky overhead...a worthless ideal, and example of control.

Shade, I agree with most of what you said....but 3 shots in a pie plate at 15 yards...have you been to a trad shoot and stood on the practice line or course and see people missing 3D animals completely at 15 yards, consistently? I have.....

hello all, 5 shots in a pie plate at 15 yards. for some a piece of cake for others a little difficult, and for perhaps a few no way, this can be a confidence builder which is a good thing. i believe this test is all in fun and no special agenda is implied, later today i will give it a try, rich pyle

I agree we should do all we can to make to make clean quick kills but if you could ask an animal if he wants to die in 1 minute or two hours I don't think he would choose either. Bad things can happen when we choose to loose an arrow and I think we all try to limit them the best we can. If our ancestors were held to the limitations some want to impose on here none of us would be here today because they all would have starved to death.

I take that test every time I shoot at my 3D target in the back yard. The only difference I shoot uphill shots, downhill and level shots. Ten to twenty yards, I'm better with my self bow at short distances.

We've always had a shooting portion of the mandatory hunter education here in New Jersey...My dad did it in 1957 I did it in the winter of 79...same. I was 9 years old going on 10 and passed mine with a recurve and 8 other kids did as well....

Below is a quote from our Division of Fish and Wildlife on our Hunter education course.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/hunted.htm

BOW AND ARROW - This course is required before purchasing your first bow and arrow hunting license. You must be at least 10 years of age. You must be able to shoot 3 out of 5 arrows into the vital zone of a 3-D deer target (approximately 10- inch diameter) at a distance between 15 and 20 yards with your own bow or crossbow to pass this course. (Crossbow must be cocked by the student; prior arrangements can be made for those with a disabling condition.) Having adequate equipment and practice is important before coming to the field session. Students are encouraged to practice and qualify with the archery equipment they plan to hunt with, either conventional bow, compound bow or crossbow.

The responses to this thread are pretty telling as to the amount of excuses that can be thought up to not do it. Some are actually spooked by my admission of being in favor of testing. That is just odd to me.

We have one post here from NJ (where testing is mandatory)and I am very sure that more than a hand full of members have had to take a test, in order to hunt certain area's at times, so whats all the fuss?. It's obvious that testing hasn't ruined anything where it has been tried, so there is no reason to fear I am letting something out of the bottle here, that hasn't been outed already.

I put up a challenge (if you will) for everyone to just do this test in order to show that #1: it isn't that hard #2: If you couldn't pass it, then it should be food for thought and might encourage more practice before deer season actually arrives or closes. #3: To encourage discussion. #4: Pass some time until my season opens. Thats it.

The fact that some are outright hostile and even attacking me for creating this thread or voicing my opinions, makes me think that there is more going on here than meets the eye. What, I have no idea but with a reaction like this?.... Come on!.

As to the contention that a test doesn't replicate what actually happens out there is weak. What test does?. A test is a verification of basic skills in any endeavor but no test replicates all the variables that can come into play. Some here seem to be arguing against any testing for anything, when their reasoning against testing is weighed against the reason for any current testing that is done here in the states today.

That drivers licence doesn't mean anything... what if the guy suddenly found himself being chased by ISIS down a one way road during lunch time traffic?. That proves that testing is stupid!. Thats as good an example as has been given here.

The test is a basic skills test. It is a test that already exists. Calm down.

There are some very knowledgeable people on this site who make some very helpful suggestions and give sincere honest opinions. I say thank you to fine folks.

But, there are some who "think they know" and make things up to prove their point. I don't understand why they do it? What is the point, just to prove they are right? Are they doing it in jest, to have fun and see how others react? I don't know.

George is my kinda guy, he wants to see the data. I like what Joe Friday use to say on the old movie dragnet, "Just the facts Mame, just the facts."

Ain't this place great!

is the proficiency test taken standing? sitting? kneeling?> one shot at each? How about turned halfway around a tree the wrong way? elevated? are three people watching, or 100? are bugs in your face? How about a proficiency test for stalking? or a proficiency test for tracking a blood trail? If hunting was standing in the woods, just waiting for a deer to walk perfectly broadside at a certain yardage, then a proficiency test MIGHT be applicable. Hunting is never that cut and dry, so here is my suggestion. Let work as a group of like-minded people to encourage the next generation and our current and older generation of peers to be responsible adults. Let's trust that when the time comes to take an animals life, they are going to do the best they can to make a clean kill.

Sipsey River... Go back and look. Data was given in part. enough data to cover the request and support my statement. Ignoring it or saying it is to old to be relevant is a lame excuse used to move pass it without having to acknowledge it.

We have one post here from NJ (where testing is mandatory)and I am very sure that more than a hand full of members have had to take a test, in order to hunt certain area's at times, so whats all the fuss?. It's obvious that testing hasn't ruined anything where it has been tried, so there is no reason to fear I am letting something out of the bottle here, that hasn't been outed already.

I put up a challenge (if you will) for everyone to just do this test in order to show that #1: it isn't that hard #2: If you couldn't pass it, then it should be food for thought and might encourage more practice before deer season actually arrives or closes. #3: To encourage discussion. #4: Pass some time until my season opens. Thats it.

The fact that some are outright hostile and even attacking me for creating this thread or voicing my opinions, makes me think that there is more going on here than meets the eye. What, I have no idea but with a reaction like this?.... Come on!.

As to the contention that a test doesn't replicate what actually happens out there is weak. What test does?. A test is a verification of basic skills in any endeavor but no test replicates all the variables that can come into play. Some here seem to be arguing against any testing for anything, when their reasoning against testing is weighed against the reason for any current testing that is done here in the states today.

That drivers licence doesn't mean anything... what if the guy suddenly found himself being chased by ISIS down a one way road during lunch time traffic?. That proves that testing is stupid!. Thats as good an example as has been given here.

The test is a basic skills test. It is a test that already exists. Calm down.

He is my take...

Our instructors in NJ have leeway, they aren't looking to fail people, they looking that you understand your weapon and have practiced with it.

It is very easy to be nervous during this and all instructors will take you off to the side allow you to shoot alone or give you an opportunity to calm down/stop and start over. Just make sure you've practiced before you come is pretty much what they require and it is pretty easy to tell who hasn't.

But the reality is if you can't hit a pie plate 60% of the time at a distance from 15 to 20 yards you simply don't belong hunting with that bow. Period. End of Story. There is not much to discuss in my opinion.

I was capable of doing that at 9 years old. So were all of my friends.

Anyone who shoots a little bit each day for a month is capable of doing that...And if you don't have the time to practice to meet these bare essentials you shouldn't be shooting that bow.

Is it too much ask that you have actually practiced a little bit with your weapon?

Wonderful?? And we can let the government run that too and pay a tax of gas, or milk or hunting licenses or??? to pay some lacky to administer the test so that we could do what?? Tell people that pay for hunting licenses that they no longer can hunt or give the majority of hunters an "ataboy" for killing another paper plate?

Does anyone believe in any way there would be a change in wound rates post some such test that was strong enough to form a correlation? Not a chance in He!!

Some people must really be getting bored waiting these last few weeks to go hunting to wish the government would put some silly test in place and let some bonehead that couldn't string a bow administer it so that they could tell us who can and cannot hunt.

HA - they do it in Germany??? Like that is some valued argument? I don't see a whole lot of people hustling to go live and hunt in Germany. But I do have a German hound that was developed to track wounded game because you have to own or have access to a certified tracker before hunting. That is as dumb as the proficiency testing but not nearly as STUPID as states that outlaw use of dogs for tracking.

If Michigan requires a proficiency test I will become a poacher and an outlaw.

Wonderful?? And we can let the government run that too and pay a tax of gas, or milk or hunting licenses or??? to pay some lacky to administer the test so that we could do what?? Tell people that pay for hunting licenses that they no longer can hunt or give the majority of hunters an "ataboy" for killing another paper plate?

Does anyone believe in any way there would be a change in wound rates post some such test that was strong enough to form a correlation? Not a chance in He!!

Some people must really be getting bored waiting these last few weeks to go hunting to wish the government would put some silly test in place and let some bonehead that couldn't string a bow administer it so that they could tell us who can and cannot hunt.

HA - they do it in Germany??? Like that is some valued argument? I don't see a whole lot of people hustling to go live and hunt in Germany. But I do have a German hound that was developed to track wounded game because you have to own or have access to a certified tracker before hunting. That is as dumb as the proficiency testing but not nearly as STUPID as states that outlaw use of dogs for tracking.

If Michigan requires a proficiency test I will become a poacher and an outlaw.

So when the pie plate becomes too easy in the eye of the ones legislating theses tests, when does the target shrink? Some of you guys need to look at the potential consequences for this. I have never been afraid of shooting for score, but not as a consequence for getting to hunt.

I personally know guys who can't do well if scrutinized with a score card and a pencil. To me this is the basic left-wing agenda to regulate everything possible. It's ultimately restricting, no matter what the instigators say at this point. Yep...start with a 9" paper plate, but who's to day in five years you'll be shooting at a 3" bull at 25 yards; it all depends who is calling the shots and what their ultimate agenda is. And the last thing we need is another bureaucracy minding everyone elses business.

I think the OP has a personal agenda, and spouts data that doesn't exist on a National level, just those here and there surveys. And, most of those Archery Talk figures he talks about are over 25 years old.

Read the last couple paragraphs of that post in AT...especially the last paragraph...

How they do the studies:

We captured and affixed radio collars to 80 male white-tailed deer (...) during 1995-1997 to acertain the wounding rate and proportion of deer that die from hunter-inflicted wounds. Our study population was hunted only with traditional archery equipment (recurve and longbows). Of the 22 deer shot by archers, 11 were recovered by the hunter, resulting in a 50% wounding rate (deer shot but not recovered). Only 3 (14%) of the 22 deer shot by hunters died and were not recovered. Based upon demographic and harvest statistics, these estimates indicate that approximately 4% of adult males in the population die from archery related wounds annually and are never recovered.

And several other interesting quotes:

These estimates indicate that wounding losses due to archery hunting at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant are negligible relative to other forms of mortality (e.g. hunter harvest, rut-related mortality, predation).

The 50% wounding rate from our data is similar to data reported from other studies. Downing (1971) and Boydston and Gore (1987) reported wounding rates of 50% with archery equipment for white-tailed deer in Georgia and Texas. Similar wounding rates have been reported in Georgia (44%; Croft 1963), Indiana (58%; Stormer et al. 1979), New Jersey (55%; Lohfield 1980), Wisconsin (31-37%; Herron 1984), South Dakota (48% McPhillips et al 1985), and Michigan (43%; Langenua 1986). Other studies have reported lower wounding rates in Wisconsin (10%; DeBoer 1958), New York (7%; Severinghaus 1963), Iowa (17%; Gladfelter 1982; Gladfelter et al. 1983) and Michigan (12%; Lanenau and Aho 1983).

Our data suggests that wounding rates of white-tailed deer approaching 50% are possible when using archery equipment, but the majority (73%) of those deer survive. These estimates corroborate other comprehensive studies that have reported wounding loss estimates below 20% (Lohfield 1980, Herron 1984, Krueger 1995)."

OK, let me reiterate what I told Marshall in private and what a few of you have commented on. IT ISN'T ABOUT THE TEST

His little test is simple, and I wouldn't argue that most can shoot well enough to pass it.

The entire point is WHY SHOULD WE? I started a career in Criminal Justice in 1976, spent nearly 30 years as a police chief. In the state of Iowa alone the number of statutes more than doubled in that period of time, let alone what the Federal Governmanet has done to us.

Folks, THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING.

More laws and more government mandates shoved down your throats by minor perfuctionary buraucrats will not solve anything.

I don't disagree that the world wouldn't be a better place if some so called bowhunters stayed home. The trouble is thats also true about carpenters, waitresses, and used car salesmen. Inserting that mindset anywhere is a very slippery slope.

Here's my five in a eight inch plate. Not as tight as I would like but it was early morning I shoot best when I am awake lol.

Bushbow...

This is already taking place. It can expand but probably wont. If this is part of the Bowhunters safety course then it wont cost anything extra unless the states find some way to mess that up, as they generally do, so for right now, you dont have to worry about it. Sorry you couldn't play along. Sorry you cant blood trail with your dog. Sorry sorry sorry.

As for the contention that it wouldn't make a difference... I have seen people (NY) pass the Bowhunters safety course (which entitles them to a licence) without ever having shot a bow. At the Ty Yogi Bowmen (where I was a member) I witnessed a passing student, coming back to the club 3 days before season, in order to ask around about where he could buy a cheap bow, so that he could get out on opening day. I have seen (many times) people entering Dick's sporting goods, looking to buy bows to hunt with just days (sometimes the day before) before season opened. Yes....It would make a difference in some instances.

JusPasin,

If a carpenter, waitress or used car salesman suck they lose businesses when we suck we lose a public relations battle...

Why should we pay an excise tax on archery equipment? Why should we even have a license at all?

Hunters have a rich tradition of self regulation and it has served us well for a very long time. Keeping the bar high on our own terms is not only a good thing it is our responsibility.

Your key phrase there Jim was "self regulation", Not another state law.

Three out of five in a paper plate at 15 yards is a test? And we wonder why we have a reputation for not being able to hit a wall tent from the inside.

LBshooter... Thanks for playing. You passed :)

JimE.IV.... You got it.

Nothing in nature goes to waste. If you don't recover an animal,well the vermin have to eat too!! LOL just kidding guys. I hate losing an animal as much as anybody but we can take some solace in the fact that my statement is true should we get a bad hit.

If they run off in die in a bed in some secluded place not a big deal...

But when CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and every major news outlet picks stuff like this up it is really not good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/deer-with-arrow-in- head_n_4251765.html

Once you establish that a test is necessary, then what stops the regulators from increasing the difficulty until no one can pass? If no one can pass, then we can outlaw the season, after all you said we needed a test. If it already the law in some areas, then we have to deal with it. But don't give away something just to feel good. And just because it's legal or the law, doesn't automatically make it good policy.

Dan Van...

Bowhunter education courses are mandatory pretty much everywhere today. Back when they were only being talked about, I heard the same arguments. How are things going?...so far, so good.

While I am enjoying the discussion, I am not seeing much in terms of paper being punched here. hmmmmm... what could (could) that mean?

kadbow... great pictures (congrats) but no, you didnt take the test so how could you pass?.

How about 5 in a 4" circle from 16 yards with no string nock (thats why I had the one flyer) This is the only picture of a group on my phone.

Or a 1 shot challenge from 100 yards. I didn't think this too terrible. I was aiming at the brick. I don't know the standards for 100 yards ;-) that said, any state mandated proficiency test is a bad idea for lots of reasons.

I posted above that discussion and thought are never a bad thing. The same can be said for shooting. It's all time well spent.

Well, I'm certainly not showing off here, but in the spirit of participation, here it is: Five shots @ 15 yards. I have to admit I learned something. My new favorite bow still won't shoot my new carbons, but it likes my trusty old aluminums. With them I still had to aim at the bottom rim of the plate to hit center. I guess there's a lot to be said for just shooting one bow. It's also a bit tougher with no actual "spot" to aim at. Thanks for doing this Marshall. - John

Kenwilliams....

State mandated tests already exist. Nothing has gone wrong yet. I suppose that can be said by everyone other than the one's who failed the test they took. :)

Not in VA.

Except quota hunts on some state lands and miltary bases. Which I don't have a problem with.

Since I'm not hunting pie plates this year I decided to use my 3D deer target at 15 or so yards shooting uphill, downhill, and level with my self bow. Most of the shots were probally a little over 15 yards but not over 20 yards moving after each shot shooting one arrow at a time. I shot 19 kill shots out of 20 with the one miss a hair out of the kill zone. Good luck this year and shoot straight.

Fisher Cat...

Nice shooting. You passed :) I have to hold the bottom of the plate as well with some of my bows.

kenwilliams wrote: "Not in VA" "Except quota hunts on some state lands and miltary bases. Which I don't have a problem with."

________

I am going to ask why you dont have an problem with that?. State land is state land and in being state land it is owned by the people of VA.Yes?. If yes, then why are you o.k. with land that is test permitted only, since it is state land and therefore (seemingly to me) public land. I understand the Military base getting a pass but just to hit on that as well... Doesn't this adoption by the military say something about the legitimacy of testing?.

http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm? threadid=261694&category=88#3662743

Ill grandfather in Marshall, I think I was 5th. 20 in with no misses :)

"Hunters have a rich tradition of self regulation and it has served us well for a very long time. Keeping the bar high on our own terms is not only a good thing it is our responsibility."

And that's really all that needs to be said.

Saw your huffpost link, too. First thing I noticed is that it's an alumalog tipped with a Zwickey, so obviously a tradshooter to blame, right?

Either that or a crafty wheelbow shooter did it on purpose to make us all look bad.

Makes you wonder how a hit like that happens, though, doesn't it? String jump? Was the head on the far side of the body and the shot passed under the brisket? Or was it just an unforgivable decision to take a head-shot with a bow?

Best wounding study out there, to my knowledge, was out in MN, where they did (IIRC) have a proficiency test beforehand, and they found that the loss rate is on par with firearms. About 10%, I think, which only makes sense, seeing that reasonable people tend to make good decisions about 90% of the time... Now, that study was for all types of bows, but it was a long time before they got to be as user-friendly as they have become since then.

Fort Snelling study, I think it was...

I re-checked our Va regs and I am wrong about "some state lands" It is only military bases and some of Fairfax Co. Why, because it is hunting that is allowed for one reason only: depredation. Before you say," well, thats what all hunting seasons are about to the state" you probably should think about that long and hard.

Link doesn't appear to be working. 1st annual Leatherwall Labor day Tourney

JRW said.... "Three out of five in a paper plate at 15 yards is a test? And we wonder why we have a reputation for not being able to hit a wall tent from the inside."

Not sure how you meant that but I will say that this distance is #1: what I have seen expressed as an average for traditional Bowhunters over a period of time (on forums) and what is the minimum standard in testing where it is mandatory. Thats why I chose this distance.

If you are speaking to all the squawking going on and lack of photo evidence being produced here, then yes ... I see your point!.

kenwilliams...

I am just asking (have been) if people here can pass it and show the results. That's the body of the threads opening post. I actually wanted to see (view) the results but it has taken a turn towards discussion only on many peoples part. I have no problem with discussion but the thread was not about that one merit. Some people seem to think that I am some government agent who has infiltrated leatherwall and is seeking to use any results to establish a nationwide mandatory proficiency test for traditional bowhunters only.

This is ridiculous!

You are sadly mistaken and more than a bit rude to think and/or suggest that those not wanting to partake in your silly little plea for attention are doing so from lack of ability.

1st annual Leatherwall Labor day Tourney I found it with the help of google. That was a fun idea :)

Marshall surely you knew the very title of your thread would ignite strong feelings one way or the other.

SteveBNY ....

I get who you are. I lived too many years in NY not to know who you are and why you speak the way you do. Pathetic.

Kenwilliams...

The tile?. The title is all anyone ever reacts to isn't it?. That gut reaction, that shoot first ask questions later norm that pulls the worst out of anyone anymore. Sad.

I knew that the test is a standard proficiency test and that a lot of people are against it. I wanted to see why. If there was a reason for this unfounded (IMO) fear of a pie plate. Sure I knew discussion would follow but when doesn't it?...on any topic. Are you suggesting that I was attempting to set someone up?. How?. What ill could come of this?... other than the ill that was brought to it by some that conjured it up through their own insecurity..

If you are asking if I had ulterior motives. NO

"I am just asking (have been) if people here can pass it and show the results. That's the body of the threads opening post. I actually wanted to see (view) the results but it has taken a turn towards discussion only on many peoples part. I have no problem with discussion but the thread was not about that one merit. Some people seem to think that I am some government agent who has infiltrated leatherwall and is seeking to use any results to establish a nationwide mandatory proficiency test for traditional bowhunters only."

You are the one getting agitated Marshall and putting words in peoples mouths. I find it interesting how you respond respectfully and meekly to some who disagree with you and lash out at others. I only said I disagreed with it.

kenwilliams...

I honestly dont know. I am sorry if you took anything I said to you as hostile. Some deserved a hostile response.

I'm done. Too many people with closed minds have already pulled this apart and twisted it up from it's original intent, to look like something they thought it to be.

Amazing how you can walk into a number of different crowds, say the same thing and get so many different reactions to that one thing said. Simply Amazing.

Like I said before, If it is a test to get a hunting license, it should be done with actual hunting equipment. That would eliminate some nine year old kids and some women right off the bat. I don't see where it is necessary for the general public. What gets me is, with all the promotion from people in Michigan to get a nation wide Bowhunter safety program, Michigan didn't buy into it. bvd

Regulators? Government? Big Brother? Bureaucrats?

I don't know where everyone here lives of course, but most Game Codes and Rules that I know of come directly from hunters through public hearings and hunter advocacy groups in conjunction with biologist from the Fish and Game...These Rules come from us, the way they should be.

Len Cardinale a New Jersey Bowhunter and member of the Archery Hall of Fame helped write the Bowhunter Education course in New Jersey...These thing have always come directly from us.

http://www.archeryhalloffame.com/Cardinale%20Len.html

We've been following the lead from Roy Case for 80 years and nearly all states basic laws look like the ones he penned for Wisconsin in 1931.

There is nothing nefarious in this ideas....I just wish people could exchange ideas without personal attacks. :-(

Amazing how you would call us close-minded simply because we don't agree with you.

Wow, that was interesting. Guess ill go back to shooting in the backyard.lol

SteveBNY said.

"You are sadly mistaken and more than a bit rude to think and/or suggest that those not wanting to partake in your silly little plea for attention are doing so from lack of ability."

Repeated here because it is not only the truth but very well said.

Fred Bear and others proved the efficacy of archery hunting too many decades ago and then the rest of us did it millions of times over in the interim. Proficiency tests are a joke and I hold myself to a higher standard than "pie plates" to begin with. Others don't and that's fine too. Amazing what some think will actually help our cause.........Get real.

Good work gentlemen! Looks like we caught us another one. He fits the profile anyway...

"Double naught spies don't get switched. Pert near cut in two by death rays, handcuffed to atom bombs, have iron hats throwed at 'em, but they wouldn't hold still for switchin'."

Sad to say but the threat of a proficency test would probably be a good thing for the sport. I learned a long time ago that some (too many) trad guys dont spend near enough time honing the craft. Would the threat of having to pass a test make some of those guys spend more time with a bow in there hands? I bet it would. I am not in favor of it but its a good idea...hahaha.

Sadly, too many have come to confuse shooting with hunting. And accuracy as the "end all be all," instead of merely being one important component to be a well-rounded and successful outdoorsman/hunter.

I have no interest in these tests, but if there was going to be one, I would love to see it "test" for a much wider variety of skills than just accuracy.

The Missouri study was done with all bows, compound and Traditional. The wounding rate for traditional equipment was significantly lower.

Our State Bowhunting Organization worked with Lonnie Hansen in this study and the final conclusion was the wounding numbers of Bowhunters was a non-issue.

Chris

I don't own a target so just through the plate on a slope at about 20 yards. Width was ok but the height was about half. 15 yards looked too close. Broke concentration on shot 5 to the left of the group. I absolutely don't believe in proficiency testing.

I did it today for chits and giggles.... shot one arrow and pulled....4 just off the paper and one high of center on the paper.....you will have that from time to time....but I won't tell the deer that on opening day the 27th of this month.

Bowhunting weather today so I'll play along. 8.5 x 11 printer paper folded into fourths from 15ish yards. While I would hope that most of us would be able to complete this, I'm not a fan of proficiency tests.

Here is my next group from 25ish yards on my homemade deer target. I know, I know...it looks more like a dog target. I'm not much of an artist.

I was shooting for the heart. Just a hair low today.

How many of you guys don't ever shoot groups? My target is set up so that I can shoot as far as I want anywhere in a 180 degree arc. I'll usually shoot 1 arrow and either go pull it or walk to a different distance and angle and shoot another arrow.

I really like to be able to practice visualizing where I need to put an arrow for different variations of quartering shots.

HAHAHA. My best friend is a veterinarian. He came over last weekend and asked me why I was shooting at a giant schnauzer!!!

some of us learned a long time ago not to shoot groups if you value your arrows.

Funny you said that. If you notice I have 6 arrows in my first picture and only 5 in the second. I peeled half a feather off in the first group.

what is wrong with you people? George, that's like a pot calling a kettle black, aint it?

I can pass the test but will still miss some deer under hunting conditions. There so much more to work on to make a clean kill than paper at 15 yards.

i'd like some real life, actual facts from states that have made this mandatory....How has it effected the wounding ratio? less?, or did it basically stay the same?

Listen to what you guys are saying, stop and actually think for a minute. how many deer have you heard of that were wounded by guy's that can shoot fantastic in the backyard, especially with a compound?

I'll be the first to say i hear it EVERY YEAR!

I'm not opposed to taking a proficiency test, not worried in the least. But it will solve NOTHING!! or very little.

So just as George mentioned...what happens when rick the rule maker realizes his little proficiency idea didn't work?

Well say's rick we need to enforce more rules..lets lower it to a 3" circle, and do it at 20 yds....sorry but haven't you guy's figured out by now you can't control everything by legislation?.

marshallrobinson...The problem with proficiency tests, other than what has already been stated above, is that they don't really mean anything in the field. Will they prevent a bowhunter from taking a shot he should know better than to take? That shot will naturally be different for all of us but we all know it when we see it. I shot for several years with a guy who could group on a baseball at 20yds all day. Trouble with him was that he never saw a shot in the field that he wouldn't take. 60yds at a walking deer?...no problem..he had no restraint. He would shoot and ALWAYS wound the deer. Failed to recover even a single animal for at least 3 consecutive seasons after wounding no less than 7 or 8 if I recall correctly. He'd pass your shooting test every time..and what would that prove?

I would think the best proficiency test would be "one" arrow at the average distance most deer are taken by bow, (say 18 yards), I last read.

That said, I would not be in favor of a proficiency test for bow hunting. I do not think it would prove someone proficient under hunting situations.

I will take the this test for the fun of the challenge and the the knowledge of the results to the woods with me.

On a lighter note maybe the best test would be at 15 yards, an apple on the head of one of the people that forced this down our throats. Either way a hit or a miss and I am headed for the woods. LOL.

Marshall never advocated mandatory proficiency tests. He just asked us to try an informal one ourselves, think, discuss the results and the idea of mandatory tests.

Instead of being open-minded and trying it, most here just attacked with statements like "I shoot game like a champ, but don't shoot targets well," or "I don't shoot groups, just single arrows," or "a paper plate doesn't simulate a deer under hunting conditions," or "it's too easy for me to participate." All these ideas sound like excuses, and to me, there is no such thing as an excuse. You do something or you fail. Only ego, self-esteem and fear keep us from trying new things.

The logic most of you use suggests that since the only realistic hunting practice is a real-live animal in the woods, that's all we should practice on. Should we encourage new shooters to only practice on live game? To me, all shooting is good. All thought is good. We shouldn't be afraid of it.

Some of you have inferred that since Marshall is new to this site, that his opinion is suspect or holds less value. I've been on this site under one name or another since 1996 or 1997. It's just a website. It really shouldn't give you any degree of credibility unless you are selling something.

I'm still against mandatory proficiency tests. While I'm proud of those who actually participated, I'm really saddened by the number of us who were threatened by it in one way or another.

- John

Okay so then will this count as a proficiency test?

9 out of 13 bulls eyes (1 1/2" X 2 1/2" X 4") swinging target at 20 yards. Started out a little slow but then got warmed up. My misses would still have hit something as large as a paper plate though.

I still think a proficiency test will tell nothing and would just create a stepping stone for the anti's against hunting. I guided all last fall at a hunting club and you would not believe the amount of bad shots I saw from members on deer with their rifles under a hundred yards. Pathetic!

My eye doesn't pick up flat paper targets well. I just don't focus well enough to be a great shot on paper targets. However, I shot a buddy's bow tonight and was putting five outta five arrows in the 3" yellow circle at 15 yards. Does that count? What I consider accurate is far from the standards you present. With that said, I'll walk and stump shoot with anyone here, and stand a very good chance at winning. I just pick it up so much better. Dimensional targets is what I need to really burn a hole and follow through, not boredom that comes with what I consider a stupid, non relevant target.

Even though I don't do well with those paper targets, I'd have zero problems putting five outta five in that plate at that range plus quite a few more, every single time. I won't participate in it because I severely think anyone who suggest a paper target defines what a trad shooter is capable of has spent more time on a target and less time dragging. If I chose to shoot a bow the way I would have to shoot a trad bow to be accurate day in and day out on boring paper, I'd shoot a compound.

Aren't you the guy that said trad bowhunting was so much harder? Now your trying to be the determining factor in the guideline that determines who's good enough to be considered "accurate". I know I'm good enough. That's what matters. I say that as a 3/4 pound strip of whitetail back strap lays defrosting in a bowl on my counter. Save your breath. Practice more. You said it yourself you find it hard. From the Looks of your group, there is plenty of room for improvement. God Bless

I'm not sure about some of you guys. He does have an agenda. One he self proclaims multiple times. He is insisting that proficiency tests are needed and justify's his way of thinking on five different posts minimum. Learn to read and comprehend better gentlemen.

BTW Marshall, your struggling shooting the Mamba to the left because you aren't getting the release hand buried against your face or under your chin as deep as you do with the other bows. Hence the arrow isn't inline with your eye. It is likely caused by a more severe string angle you can't handle as well as the other bows, too much weight on the Mamba, or a combination of both. You need more practice, One-on-One time with your bows, if you haven't figured that one out yet.

Don't deny the reasons I gave for your lack of accuracy with the Mamba. You can take that diagnosis to the bank. More than one can play your game. God Bless

This is the internet yes, many, many, people and different personality's ethics ect..ect.. of people from all over the world can communicate here.

Leatherwall is probably my favorite website. And yes We do not all always agree.

Even though this is "just a website" in time you begin to get a reasonable idea of what a person is like.

Marshall i don't see most of these guys attacking you. Disagree yes.

Nor do many of the guys on here have to fear a proficiency test.

I have gained a lot of respect for some of the men on here, even though i don't always agree.

I can't name them all but when i see men like, George, Jeffer, Kadbow, WVmountaineer, roger ect... certainly there are more.

That are not attacking you but simply saying..tread lightly here,or you may open up a can of worms you wish you hadn't. I certainly respect their opinions, especially since i have no doubt they would all pass.

Mandatory testing, opens up a hole that will eventually allow negative impact on bowhunting, i'm convinced of it.

Just last night i was reading of a large National Park that had a deer damage problem. Herd reduction was needed. So instead of allowing a Quota system for a set number of hunters. They used and i'll quote.."trained, professional marksmen"..instead of hunters.

And that sounds way to close to anti- hunting to suit my taste.

Mandatory proficiency test every day you go hunting. If you can not pass, that day you should not hunt. Second time you can not pass, add an extra day, so now 2 days you can not hunt...Fair to enyone.

thehun, yes that can make sense as long as it is self regulating and not regulated by outside forces. A self regulated proficiency test is the only proficiency test there should be. As soon as something like this is regulated then an entire can of worms would be opened. The regulation becomes a tool for others to use against hunting, period.

The next thing you know they will be regulating the type of weapon which can be used, etc. Usually with this type of situation the people who end up making the decisions are the ones with the least amount of experience. Just look at any government agency and tell me this is not so.

Self regulation is the key im my opinion. You know your limitations if you spend any time at all practicing. I think most here try to stay within their limits on game and thats good enough. More regs/rules wont solve anything, the sloppy guys will find a way around this little test that in no way represents a true hunting scenario anyway. Do you advocate this test for rifle hunters? I promise you there are thousands who bore sight a rifle the night before season and are slinging lead the next day. You cant regulate common sense.

cedar flinger hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "You can't regulate common sense". As soon as we see "OFFICIAL" regulatory bodies move in for this then you will really see common sense go out the door.

Some total dishonesty is scattered all through this thread.

I doubt even one of you has ever hit a "pie plate" at any distance. Pie plates are made of glass or sheet metal. You are all shooting PAPER plates.

Very true Jeff, there would likely be a panel whose lead "expert" would be in that position because he watched robin hood on the amc network.

Lol Jimmy D that's true. Except for those aluminum 'pie plates' from the mega grocery stores. They already have holes pre-drilled in the bottom, the proficiency test is already done for you! Very convenient.

All this hub-bub about not hitting a pie plate (a.k.a. possibly wounding deer) at 15 yards. I'd be more concerned about the opposite end of the spectrum...the 'lob it out there at 40 yards and cross your fingers' type of 'hunters'.

How about a compromise? A proficiency test where for every shot you 'say' you routinely make on deer, but then miss, you donate $50 to a local charity. Sort of a 'putting your money where your macho is' approach.

I already got my Diploma back in 1947 8>)

WoW, what a thread, seems jumping to conclusions could win a medal for a few of you if it were a sport, it doesn't surprise me a bit that you rake Marshall over the coals for this thread, as you did the same to me when I brought it up a few years ago, what does surprise me is that fellas that have shot for many years, and without a doubt have seen many "archers" who couldn't hit a stationary target if their life depended on it, are so willing to put the future of trad hunting in those same archers hands, you fellas profess that a simple little ability test is somehow an assault on our freedoms, well they don't need any test to make us look bad, we do it all by ourselves, all they really need to do is keep track of the 3d scores.. Think about that one for a minute....how many archers average at least an 8 in scoring on a foam, stationary target? An 8 is the minimum kill zone score, anything less is a wound on a live animal, I've heard way to many times that an archer that averages 8's would at least place if not win many local competitions, and to me that's pretty sad, now I'm not in favor of mandatory testing, but I do believe we need to shoot a lot better before attempting to take a life, I'm not an idiot either like it or not testing will be a part of archery one day, all you can do is to be prepared, after my raking I have become even more prepared than I already was as I'm unwilling to stake my hunting future on excuses of those who will sit idly by as some of us hit the woods, one thing is for sure though, if testing was implemented across the country, I'd see even less archers in it than I do now.

First I would like to say I have not killed any thing with a bow. I did as the person who started the thread asked. Though the distance was 20 paces maybe 18 yards. (?). Also looking back there were no black circles drawn on the paper. These were the first 5 arrows of the day. Many here can do better. I have to say I don't usually put up an 8.5 x 8.5 paper and although all arrows are on the paper when practicing, I wouldn't be happy with this group. I have a few thoughts:

1. If there was a proficiency test for hunting, I am not sure that 5 arrows at one distance shows proficiency. Remember I have disclosed my bow hunting experience so maybe I am wrong. Also from what I have read here and many places there are many other aspects such as experience or knowledge of how animals act that would also be part of hunting proficiency.

2. For hunting I would think shooting at different targets at different distances would show a better proficiency. The circles are 5 3/4 inches in diameter. Again many can do better.

3. The problem with a proficiency test isn't the idea of a test in and of itself. The problem lies in who delivers it, what regulations might change over time and when you give up one freedom you open the door to giving up more.

BTW Because I put 5 arrows on the paper I am not sure I am proficient to hunt but I am going to keep practicing and I will be hunting with my bow. I will need to have sence when out there to no what I can hit and what is risky.

Maybe directing folks to the archives to research how many times the various topics have appeared would reduce the acrimony on this site. Certainly not a new topic Just came from the state 4H shooting tournament, and found the youngsters more entertaining

"Maybe directing folks to the archives to research how many times the various topics have appeared would reduce the acrimony on this site."

Not a chance. Most of those who post on these threads don't read them before or after posting, unless its to contradict another poster. It disgusts me to see how many people read only the first post, then post the 53rd repetition of what was said way up near the top. Most of those guys won't read your post or this one either.

Jim

This thred was a good read after several adult beverages. Personally I'd rather take a proficiency test than sit through a hunter education course.

Here's a novel idea: buy you own land and do whatever the eff you want on it. If you dislike government mandated inconveniences hunt private land like me :)

I think "test" might be the wrong word. Call it a contest and have some fun.

NO to mandatory testing! Jim :)

I dont know if they still do But to hunt some Places in past years you had to pass a shooting test 6 @ 20 Just dont count on me in a 3 D or Tournament my instinkitve Style wont hold up that Long LoL ~HBK~

Pic of Shots Today !!!

Would love to shoot or hunt with you sometime J.r. You always seem to be having so much fun!

We've been a little hard on Marshall, I think his original question was well-intended and certainly didn't deserve ridicule. Spirited discussion and disagreement maybe, but definately not ridicule.

Testing for shooter accuracy as part of a state-required mandatory bowhunter safety course (that is, provided the course is designed specifically as a precursor to hunting) would make some sense for license eligibility, especially if you haven't hunted with a bow before. It's really not that different than the concept of testing your ability to drive before they hand you your driver's license. If you can't hit a close-range deer target under standardized (no surprises) test conditions then why would you should be trusted to hit the real thing under hunting conditions? Fifteen yards seems a reasonable test distance. The horde problem seems to be with the 'mandatory' part. But like driver's tests and marriage licenses I suppose we'd get over it. Or just learn to live with it.

Thats My Job Having FUN wth Kids Grandkids Archery and hunting all No Pressure activites now that I been put Out To Pasture LoL !!!

Quick question- why do people have a few names or change their names or handles?

I dont think it will ever be brought back or started anywhere again thought this was just for Fun !!!

Took me while but I finally got around to doing this. No practice or do overs - 15 yards / 10 arrows

Then again at 25 yards / 10 arrows

This thread is odd. First, up the line of posts is very sage bit advice from George Stout. Marshall,,,what is your preoccupation with this constant wish to debate testing? WHY are you obsessed with it? Are you working with peta? You seem to think trad hunters are poor shots. That is the glimmer thats coming off your windshield bud. 40 percent? Nonsense. BITTEN

The day I have to take a test to go hunting is the day I go hunting without taking a test..

Geez tradmt, you don't seem to understand that a 'proficiency test' can apply to just about ANY situation that one chooses to apply it to. The ANALOGY (word...look it up if need be) to a car driver's test simply means that such tests are BOTH intended to assess one's ability to do something under TEST conditions, as a means of estimating how well the person might predictably perform under REAL conditions. It isn't exact and has nothing to do with the specific details of each testing procedure (I can't believe this needs to be explained). The DETAILS aren't the same but the BASIC INTENT is exactly the same. See how that works? I hope so because my fingers are getting tired of hitting the caps button.

There's nothing wrong with objectively testing an operator's ability when the consequence of having crappy ability can cost wounded animals. The approach is applied every day in the world of regular people. Now, if you want to argue that BOWHUNTING needs no such testing, or that there are sound logical reasons not to have it for BOWHUNTING, then by all means go for it. I'd love to hear that rationale, but this time let's try something other than hot air and insults mixed with unfounded bias. Let's stop pooping on the birthday cake and offer some LEGIT reasons (starting with something useful, like maybe facts) why testing for hunting with a bow is as bad as everyone here yells it is. Go ahead, make your case. I'd love to hear why the goals behind proficiency testing (cars, planes, archery, plumbing, schools, whatever) have no commonality and make no sense. Just let me grab my notebook and some popcorn.

I hate these kinds of threads, they just underline how silly (and not in an attractive way) archers can sound if they really put their minds to it.

Well... A simple post turns into a crazy debate. How unique!.

The whole concept of the opening post was.... Can you pass. It was nothing more than that until somebody with the drawers in a knot, decided to point at me and say that I was pushing an agenda. I think it was George stout that started that with a pointed question/accusation that I was lobbying for testing.

The fool thing of it is that #1: tests already exist, #2: people dont know about #1, #3: a person (such as myself) cant post anything about testing without being called a anti, which IMO is hate speech plain and simple. #4: People cant simply throw a few arrows at a plate without excuses and innuendo.

I think I did 2 threads about testing. The second was worded so well that nobody could have argued with me over it because it was a simple request to design your own test, if a test were required. The reaction to that was just stupid for the most part.

This thread was designed to allow people to see for themselves what a test is and about. There wasn't any wiggle room but still and all... people just couldn't even handle that.

For those who put up their shots, thanks. It was cool to see. For those who decided that they were more insightful and wanted to degrade me to make themselves feel superior, or whatever that was all about ... Your sad. You are part of what is wrong with the big tent theory and why many modern guys dont want to be around you or your "sport".

Marshall, Bless Your Heart.

Penny,

Indeed.

I’m with KPC on this one.

Thought Experiment: Let’s say we have a guy who has been hunting for a very long time; let’s say he is extremely skilled at getting ultra-close, and has demonstrated exceptionally good judgment in his shot selection over the years, never failing to kill clean. Let’s also say that he’s pie-plate deadly at 12 yards, but his groups loosen up quickly beyond that. Or maybe he’s rock-solid to 15 or 18 yards, but the “Test” standard is at 20.

Is anyone here willing to say that he should not be allowed to hunt because he failed to demonstrate somebody else’s idea of “proficiency”?

If so, explain your reasoning.

Because in this case, any “objective” proficiency standard is ALSO going to be a completely ARBITRARY standard. There is no provision/consideration for the hunter’s discipline or judgment, yet those are far more critical to the outcome of a shot in the field than accuracy on a practice range will ever be. Nobody ever wounded an animal by keeping the arrow on the string.

And here’s the next logical thought (and I apologize profusely to those who wish not to be confounded by dumb ol’ Logic, but this is the way my brain works): If a standard is to exist, then some reasonable percentage of those tested MUST FAIL in order for the standard to mean anything. So what’s a reasonable percentage? And that’s going to be a percentage of WHAT group?

[[[[ K Cummings said: "Unfortunately, you just can't test for proficiency in decision making." ]]]]

Exactly !!!!

Hard to get some folks to realize what that means, but that's it in a nutshell. Pretty much makes proficiency testing worthless.

Rick

Wouldn't this whole argument hold true for getting a drivers license?

Been driving for 20 years without one....I drive just fine in traffic; never had an accident, but when that guy from the DMV gets in the car, it all goes to hell in a hand basket. Not fair.

OR...for sniper testing in the military? Yeah, I can drop a hundred terrorist in the field but I just can't pass that test the Army wants me to do.

I'm on neither side of this fence but it could be argued for eons either way...and with merit on both sides.

KPC's last post, BULLSEYE! I hate to admit it, but Kevin's words were exactly perfect

[[[[ K Cummings said: "Unfortunately, you just can't test for proficiency in decision making." ]]]]

YES YOU CAN! er, NO! YOU CAN'T! Well... Wait. What I mean is, UHMMMMMM, You COULD test for it if such a test existed, but then again, it might not always be accurate...

There! Did I pass?

-John

Jaz – in a word… No.

In a driving test, if the posted advisory speed around a curve is 35 mph and a candidate takes it at 25…. there is no penalty. Not even if the posted speed LIMIT on that stretch of road is 45 or 55.

In order to provide a bowhunting license applicant with a comparable option, the examiners on a 15 or 20-yard “proficiency test” would have to allow the applicant to walk up to 10 yards or even 5, if that is the range with which they’re comfortable for testing purposes.

In which case the “test” serves no meaningful purpose whatsoever. True, there may be some cases where it is actually somewhat useful as window dressing, but that’s the extent of it. Responsible individuals will stay within their limits and irresponsible ones won’t, but you can’t tell who’s who when they KNOW somebody is watching.

If you can't put the FIRST HUNTING arrow of the day into a paper plate at a certain distance, what good does 3 out of 5 FIELD arrows in a paper plate do you? Unless you are using them to hunt 50# hogs. bvd

Some countries or areas proficiency tests are nearly impossible for trad bowhunters. Here in Europe for example in Denmark they have had mandatory proficiency test since bowhunting was legalized (1999):

Presently all hunters must take Danish Bowhunter exam in Denmark as well as pass a proficiency test. Five out of six hunting arrows have to hit within the vital area of respectively Roedeer, distance varying from 5 to 25 meters (7 to 28 yards). The bow must fulfill the requirements for hunting. A study is completed on the effects on hunting Roedeer (capreolus capreolus) with bow and arrow over five years have shown a wounding rate of slightly more than 5%, a figure comparable or lower than other methods of hunting.

At few years ago I heard that only one traditional bowhunter has been able to pass it ever.

This test is currently in one part of Finland, actual difficulty has been changing from moderate to "challenging". Targets are small and medium sized 3Ds:

An Alandic proficiency test is required on a yearly basis. This test consists of a short round with six animal targets at varying distances up to 25 meters (~28 yards), were five of the six have to be hit in the vital area/lungs-heart.

In "Alandic" they noticed that people were still missing game despite of the test, so they have made it tougher. I don't know if that helped...

Also some countries have test that are not easy even with a compound bow. In Finland the original proficiency test proposal was a way too challenging for even for compounds (similar to in Denmark). Now it looks like it will be 3 arrows at 20 yards to 8" circle, which is "doable" for trad bows. Still I feel that not many will be able to pass it.

One thing is most people find public proficiency tests a quite stressful; if you can do it easily in your backyard does not mean that official test shoot will be a piece of cake. The failure rates are surprisingly high.

gretsch....

Sounds good to me. Can you expedite the throw over soon?. I fear there are a lot (A LOT) of people here that would be better out of the field!. I would like to see actual kill numbers recorded by the DNR rather than reported the reported kills we get now. LOL! :D We are such slobs over here. Good thing we have enough land to support all this chaos!.

"What is the rifle wounding rate?"

If we need tests any where it would be for fire arms. The wounding rate for fire arms is by far higher then in archery.

I am against such tests for any weapons. When you get into the woods its just you and the animals. The "shooting Proficiency test" that matters is the shots you take on living, breathing animals. They deserve nothing less then 100% respect. Its up to the individual to decide for themselves if they are proficient enough.

The way to tell a bad person from a good person is that a bad person can hurt people or animals and not feel the least bit guilty about it,won't lose any sleep over it.

A good person genuinely feels remorse and guilt for hurting someone or animal and will probably not sleep very well that night.

I have wounded an animal or 2 in my day and personally I felt absolutely like shit. This teaches a person to get better! I started practicing ALOT. I never want to wound another animal as long as I live.

I take it very seriously.

I'm the same way when driving a car. To this day I have yet to hit any animals on the highway. At least I can't remember ever hitting any so far. I often wonder when I see so many dead animals along the highway....Either a lot of people are horrible drivers or there are ALOT of drivers that intentionally try to hit animals with their vehicles....LOL

"I have always tempered my killing with respect for the game pursued. I see the animal not only as a target but as a living creature with more freedom than I will ever have. I take that life if I can, with regret as well as joy, and with the sure knowledge that nature's ways of fang and claw or exposure and starvation are a far crueler fate than I bestow." FB

Marshall, were you serious in your last post? We are such slobs over here?

Only those not agreeing and playing along with Marshall are slobs.

I am eagerly awaiting The Marshall of the Leatherwall's reponse to BITTNMITTEN's question , this should be enlightening I am sure.

Emoticons would be very helpful on this site. This... :D ... isn't cutting it.

K Cummings, re marriage licenses, if your wife is anything like mine we are tested every single day that we wake up and make it to the next day, lol.

Re the driver's license analogy, again you are mistakenly relating testing intent to specific details of the test...i.e. "to ensure the safety of other human beings" for driver tests, but such details aren't the point of the initial question. The focus of the question is, do the results of a standard test re some/any task or objective represent a reasonable approach for guaging whether a person can perform it successfully on a regular basis? Based on life's lessons and societal protocol for almost everything we (society) do, I'd say it does and I think most regular folk agree on this. How should such testing be administered so that it's fair and well-structured? Well that's a whole different and much harder question to resolve. But just because it's hard to do doesn't mean it's not a wise thing to try and do.

If nothing else this thread has at least started people thinking about the need for practice and accuracy when trying to take game. Even if nothing else is in this thread is, at least THAT is a positive.

"How should such testing be administered so that it's fair and well-structured? Well that's a whole different and much harder question to resolve. But just because it's hard to do doesn't mean it's not a wise thing to try and do."

If you guys can figure it out, let us know and we'll listen ;)

Here's my deal on this...

I have a thread going on why I really wish that more of us would keep an honest scorecard around the 3D course and submit the results to the folks running the show, IF ONLY to provide some performance benchmarks to those who are interested. Who knows - maybe there would be less opposition to testing if more of the Anti-Scorekeeping bunch could see the data and discover that 90% of trad-shooters actually shoot BETTER THAN 3 for 5 at 15 or 18 or even 20 yards?

On the other hand, don't expect them to change their tune much if they are among that bottom 10%....

Yes, that was a good-natured poke, but seriously - what (pray tell!) is so damn bad about finding out whether your skill set is as well developed as the "average" shooter? Apart from the obvious, of course...

Man, I just can't help myself today!

The thing is, though, the GOAL of the proposed proficiency testing is... What? Is it to ensure a 60% probability that deer shot at 15 yards and in will be recovered?

Or is the real Desired Outcome a zero percent wounding rate?

If you pose the question "How should such testing be administered so that it's fair...?", doesn't it make sense that the first requirement for "Fairness" should be that the Test MUST BE predictive of the desired outcome? But the wounding rate is not a function of accuracy at 15 yards, it’s a function of JUDGEMENT (at any distance whatsoever) and sticking arrows in a chunk of foam can’t tell you anything about THAT unless you allow those being tested to pass up any shot they’re not happy with… Which makes the whole process optional.

Optional Mandatory Testing. Your tax dollar at work!

K Cummings wrote: "the worst way an animal can die at the hands of a hunter is almost always better than dying of "natural causes."

Sorry, but I have to call B.S. on that. I'd say most that die of "natural causes" freeze to death or are hit by cars. A lot better than dying of septic from a gut wound, having your jaw blown off or whatever. There is nothing wrong with killing animals, but we have a responsibility to do it as humanely as possible. We should strive to be the most humane we can be, not just better than "natural causes."

I get real tired of hearing how we are doing animals a favor by killing them with trad gear and being "reverent" toward them. This is ultimately a mean sport. Get over it. - John

Our local population management hunt has a mandatory proficiency test. Four out of five in a six inch circle at twenty yards. Testing is done at one of several approved archery shops in the area.

John - Roadkill is a "natural cause"??

But beyond that I agree with you completely. Well, maybe "mean" is a bit over the top. Just one step away from "cruel", and there is nothing "cruel" about killing an animal unless you deliberately inflict unnecessary suffering.

Killing is a pretty hard reality even for a lot of hunters... maybe that's why some rationalize past what makes perfect sense... but it's either kill the animal, pay somebody else to kill the animal, go vegan, or starve...

Dave - JMO, a culling operation just about HAS TO have a proficiency test these days, even though it's just window dressing... True confession.. Yes, I own a Contraption, and I could have passed that test the day I first picked it up from the shop, and I could pass it if I were to take it out in the yard right now, even though I haven't shot it in a couple of years now. Oh, wait. No, I couldn't.... because I have no idea where my release is these days. But the point is that I honestly don't need to practice with it to be able to group into a couple of inches AT 20 yards. That's why I bought the damn thing.

Of course, I'm not a whole lot better than useless at unknown ranges that appear to be anything LONGER than 20 yards, and that's why a test like that is of no practical value... But it does help tell the Antis to put a sock in it...

GF, OK, "mean" is a bit over the top, but you just can't "candy coat it" either. K. Cummings first put "natural causes" in quotation marks. I assume he meant any cause that would likely befall them if hunters didn't kill them.

As for the compound thing, that's my main concern; that we will be required to meet thesame standard as compounds and crossbows. I believe we have to maintain a separate identity without appearing lto be some kind of novelty. After all, many states don't allow hunting with stone points now, even though they can be every bit as effective as steel broadheads. I suppose they think it requires placing too much trust in the individual making/using them. - John

Nice shooting Mr. Stout and nice video clip. I to have a Bear Kodiak 45#. But I can't shoot mine near as good as you shoot yours.

I just did the Proficiency Test myself... and the results made my case so perfectly that I thought it belonged under another topic.....

K Cummings wrote..." I agree with you Altek that's why I feel the analogy between a drivers test and an archery proficiency test fails. We already have a test that accomplishes what a drivers test accomplishes. We call that hunter safety."

Hunter safety workshops are not tests per se, they are a form of education. Tests are assigned to assess, educational sessions are designed to inform. Certainly there is overlap in what they accomplish but they really aren't the same thing.

Once again, when it comes to archery proficiency testing there isn't (or at least, there shouldn't be) intent to factor in the ethical choices that hunters must make during the act of hunting. That's a completely different kettle of worms. Ethics is not a concern for the how-to of administering testing since everyone would be tested in exactly the same way and under exactly the same expectations. Ethics is, as you and others have commented, something that can only be determined by each individual at each shot opportunity 'moment of truth' that might be presented to them. Assessing hunter skill under standardized testing circumstances, vs. the issue of how ethical a hunter is or isn't in the woods and on their own, is an apples to oranges comparison that simply doesn't fit the original question.

Tests are tools. They normally have a simple black and white objective and result...pass or fail. Unless the testing protocol is made more complicated by adding the secondary question of how good or how bad you passed or failed, there are no excuses or extenuating circumstances affecting the final result. No, an archery proficiency test would NOT provide a definitive answer to the question of 'Are we good enough in every situation?'. But it WOULD provide an indicator, a piece of data (for those fascinated with that perspective), to apply towards the question of 'Are we bad enough to warrant second thoughts on allowing us to attempt to kill live animals on our own?". To me there is NO downside to asking that question (through testing) and plenty of room to suggest irresponsibility (as a state wildlife agency assigned the job of managing public resources, and as responsible hunters) if we FAIL to ask that question. The difficulty comes in figuring out exactly how to do it. That's for the individual states to figure out.

Should we do it? Yes. How do we do it? Carefully and thoughtfully.

I don't know but did anyone watch Jaffer's video, or does everyone shoot like that . That was awesome shooting.

Jeffer would pass--no sweat, no question. Don't let HIM set proficiency standards or he could have the woods all to himself!

Should we do it? NO.

How do we do it? WE DON'T!

If you guys that support it want to go ahead and test each others that's fine. Just leave all of us that don't want tests alone.

Next thread.....

Tell us what these potential "pitfalls" are, Kevin...maybe some examples of your foreboding would help us understand your POV. And by the way, I'm not advocating for testing, but I believe we will see it happen in many places. Might as well prepare for it just in case.

Kevin,

How many deer do you really believe die from "wearing their teeth down too far?" By that time they are just old and something else gets them.

Popular belief holds starving and freezing to death as similar in that after a period of discomfort, the subject gets disoriented, weak, and tired (numb). The actual death is much like going to sleep. I guess we will have to agree to disagree too.

Nature isn't kind, but since we are intelligent, "apex predators," we have a responsibility to do all we can to minimize suffering. If you don't care to develop your skills enough to put 5 arrows in an 8 1/2" circle @ 15 yards, should you really be out there? While this "test" certainly doesn't define most hunting situations, it does show a basic level of commitment/achievement.

This basic commitment is essential if we expect the public to consider our sport a viable hunting method in a reality where the popular image of archery represents high-tech weapons a novice can routinely use to kill humanely at 75 yards plus.

Freedom without individual responsibility results in anarchy and chaos. If we are not responsible enough (as individuals) to set high standards, society will do it for us. We don't need that. - John

Yep. John nailed it. Bet he can nail 5 out 6 arrows into a paper plate at 15 yards, too...or better.