Proficiency testing

[BT]

Simple question....
For it? ... against it? or Not sure?

I put this question to the forum maybe 7 years ago...maybe less. whatever the case, I am wondering what the folks now-a-days are feeling and thinking.

Place a vote and explain why or why not

[BT]

Years ago I was a hard core test them all kinda guy but I have gotten a good education over the years by constantly bringing this subject up on various sites of which I am a member.
I never fail to pick up a grain of wisdom here or there when I do so.

The best arguments I have ever gotten are of the traditional sites. Now mind you many of these guys are afraid that testing would indeed keep them out of the woods. I know this because their arguments are based on how a person might fail such a course rather than how a person might pass

Many times I get people commenting that are trying to tell me that they could thread an arrow through a tossed up finger ring at 20 yards but cant hit a coffee can at 10 yards.
Byron ferguson claims that he is a better shot when the target is moving and I believe him... but that doesnt mean he cant hit anything if it is staying still.

Points that have been made that do make sence to me are ones that relate to how a person continues to be monitored after the test. This is a very valid point in my mind.
If I qualify to hunt with a sighted bow but then take a unsighted bow into the woods then such testing does nothing.
As I see it, this is something that could be regulated same as a gun (rifle or pistol carry) and this would work better than no checks put into the qualifying at all after the fact.

There is also the question of distance. What is a distance that is fair?. Some trad guys wont unleash an arrow past 15 yards but at that distance or closer they are as deadly as any sight shooter.
There are other modern bow shooters who are good enough at 15 but fall apart past 20 yards... the average range for a hunting shot.

The question of moral character always enters into it as well. You cant legislate morality as they say. If you test for 20 and pass but cant shoot worth a hoot at 40 but will take a shot at 40... how is that deterred through testing?.
This is the best argument against I have been poised with and it is a strong and valid argument.

In the end I am still for testing as a part of the hunter education programs mandated by the states... although practically none require it in order to pass the exam and qualify to hunt with the bow.
I am just at a loss as to how to implement such a standard without adversely effecting innocent and decent members of the hunting community.

I know it isn't up to me in the first place but this is something I would like to see thought through and (if possible) enacted to insure good moral character in the field as it pertains to ability.

[Greg Krause]

I agree with you. What is a fair distance and what does that prove in the real world. I take part in two hunting programs and they both have a proficiency test. The test is the same as nearly all the management programs in this area. I always thought of it as a joke because it is 3 out of 5 arrows in a 9" circle at 25 yards. It's a pretty low standard. Every year I am amazed at the amount of people who fail it, often miserably. Even with a stickbow that is a very easy requirement to meet. I certainly don't want to be out there with guys who can't pass that. Does it mean that the guys who pass can shoot that well in the woods or stick to distances they can shoot well? No, but if you can't shoot well under ideal, controlled conditions, how can you expect to do any better when nothing is ideal? Maybe that is the way to go. Set the bar low enough to allow most anyone who practices at least a bit to pass. It isn't perfect, but at least it will encourage people to practice and keep the real slobs out.

[Greg Krause]

My main concern would be the availability for hunter Ed classes. Around here they can be very hard to find. I know plenty of people that want to get into hunting and hunter Ed is where they learn how to start going about it. They may not even win a bow yet. Sometimes the only way to make sure that you'll be eligible to buy a license before opening day is to take your course months before season. I wouldn't want to turn someone away from hunting, just because they are only beginning their journey. I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Doegirl]

Alot of suburbs in the Cleveland area require proficiency testing before you can hunt.
It's very difficult to get many to accept bowhunting in there backyards so the city councils use proficiency testing to ease the minds of both citizens and law enforcement.
Most testing either happens at a public range or a bowshop that has a range.
Testing can be a wake up call for many people. I know many will say it's not fair to shoot in front a group of your peers. But if you can't take a few people watching you shoot, what are you going to do when a deer steps out in front of you next fall?
Is testing going to solve all our problems? No. Some very good shooters have lost deer. I'm one of them. Me being able to consistently hit 10's and x's on a foam deer does not guarantee every shot I put on an animal will be a killing one. But it does show the community I'm capable of doing so.

[horizontalhunter]

I had to take on for the first time last year for a controlled hunt. It was 4 out of 5 arrows in an 8" target from an elevated treestand at 20 yards IIRC.

I put the first one in the center and then I shot the others "around the clock" so I wouldn't hit one of my arrows. I hate wasting arrows.

I was surprised at how many people failed and how little most practice with their bow. Very surprising for sure.

As was said above. I think that they are a useful tool for suburban controlled hunts to help put the populace at ease.

Bob

[tedicast]

I am totally for it. I have lost deer , and I shoot a lot. 8" at 20 yards....It doesn't take a whole lot of practice to be able to do that. I have blood trailed enough deer that have been hit bad, by hunters who didn't care weather or not the deer was found, that it makes me sick. Hell, it isn;t ven just bowhunters, seen the same with gun hunters.

[CopperHead]

I am completely for it. As far as distance I would say the average bow hunting shot should be fair. In most cases I have read that is generally around 20 yards. You bring out a great point as well if qualification is require the hunter should be required to use the bow of the same type they qualified with. If they want to use both then qualify with both. Don't get me wrong I think everyone should be able to hunt but they should put their time in to ensure they are proficient. When I was a kid I remember everyone saying if you cant hit a pie pan consistently you should not be shooting at a deer that far. I love animals and not just they way they taste and it kills me if I wound something and don't recover it. This is the primary reason I have not hunted with traditional gear in years. I just don't have the confidence that when the time comes I won't jack it up.

[smj]

I am for it - but maybe a bit different stance on the issue.

I don't care so much how well you shoot. Or how far you shoot. Or what you shoot. I care about how much you care about what you are doing, and what is your level of dedication...

Did you catch that?

Reason - If you really care about what you are doing, and really understand all the elements of what you are doing, your actions become self moderating. If you can't shoot your bow, you won't go in the woods. If you know the why behind the "won't work so well" 100 yard shot, you won't take it. If you are dedicated to your art, you will then go learn what you lack before you head out to go kill something.

Being able to hit a 6" round at 20 yards does not make a hunter, and is almost meaningless with todays equipment. Archery is about being a hunter. It always has been and always will be. If you could teach the skills to become a true hunter, you'd have a real hunter ed class that would - maybe - start to accomplish a check on proficiency. IMO - to many folks grab a bow to hunt, when they don't really have a clue about what they are undertaking. And if you've watch them hunt, you know what I mean.

Bad shots happen. I would say that most of the time, it is not the fault of ones skills on a flat target range under controlled conditions that allows a bad shot... Although there are a few of those out there as well. But then again, they didn't care enough about their art to perfect it enough to earn the right be out there, did they?

[BT]

Responding you your thoughts SMJ.... I have seen plenty of people go into the woods hoping they would be able to hit something rather than even having a reasonable expectation. Honest to God.
That said... these types generally stop after a few days.

My idea of a proficiency test wouldn't be a paper plate on flat ground and while that may be the case... I heard someone say (last year) that they had to shoot a course to hunt one area (think it was government but I cant say for sure) and that the course was a typical 3-d type set up with a 25 yards maximum.

That sounded good to me

While I don't take shots with my stick at 25 (I don't need to) I shoot that distance anytime I am at the local 3-D and would easily make the 8 average for the course on a good day or a not so good day. But I have had a day here and there over the years where I averaged 6 or 7... for whatever reason.
Imagine if I tested on one of those days

I guess I keep that in mind anymore seeing as I don't shoot just compounds.