Some states have a proficiency test for bowhunters to pass before they can obtain their permit. What is the test? I'd like to see this implemented, but I think it would cost PA in the license sales department. What's your take?
I'm not sure what to think of the proficiency test thingy. My brother for one would struggle big time with this. He don't do well shooting In front of people while at 3-D shoots. No test Is needed here In Mn.
Proficiency tests outside the hunting arena examine a shooter while someone is watching. Sadly, it's the stupid things people do while nobody is watching which hurt us... I'm not sure how to fix this. If I were king, I would require a mandatory archery hunter ed certificate of every person using archery gear within my realm. Those receiving certification would have to meet a minimum standard. During "proficiency" training, "ethics" and the "WILL of the people" could at least be introduced/ingrained. "Ignorance" could no longer be employed as a defense, and I would really make "stupid" hurt! Archery proficiency tests in Colorado are optional. A general "hunter ed" class (mostly firearm safety training--> briefly discusses archery equipment) is adequate for license procurement. A National Bowhunter Education Foundation (NBEF) certificate can be had (i.e. optional) which entitles a hunter to hunt exclusively during Colorado's archery seasons. Ben, As an instructor, I can honestly tell you, "You would be amazed how little people really know about archery" Take "spine" for example. Do you know how many arrows get run through people's hands each year? Yep, old Billybob got a new bow. Now, "Let's get some cheap wood arres from Ace Hardware and shoot em!" "While we're at it, let's shoot a deer with a new arra too-it has a nice bullet point on it, right?" Stuff like this happens....with great frequency!
I think it would improve the public's opinion of bowhunters. And truthfully, I think it would weed out some hunters that shouldn't be drawing down on deer with the amount of practice they have put in. (all types of bows, including Xbows) Heck, I'd be for it with guns too for that matter. It's just my opinion. Heck, there are friends of mine that would not be getting a permit.
California has a "Hunters safety course" that covers mainly firearms that you must take and pass before you can get a license
I'm not talking about making sure everyone is Robin Hood before they can hunt. I'm just talking about something basic. NY guys, don't you have something like this?
Hunters at the park I hunt are required to put in 40 hours of volunteer time and pass a proficiency test. (I think the 40 hours does more to weed out people who don't take the hunt seriously more than anything..... and there are still some yahoos hunting out there.) The proficiency test is you must get 3 of 5 arrows in a 8" circle at 20 yards. If you can't pass it you should have your bow broken on the spot. It's shooting in front of others that makes people nervous... but probably not as nervous as when a deer shows up. Anyhow, I don't think it helps with limiting bad shots/hits on deer at all. The real purpose to post on the park website that the "Hunters are required to volunteer 40 hours of their time to Allerton Park (as well as pass a proficiency test) in order to obtain the right to hunt. " I would support a NBEF type course before I would support a state-wide accuracy/proficiency test. Moot point anyhow tho'. This state wants your $$ for tags... they don't care how many deer are shot/wounded/missed.
In Vermont you have to pass an Archery course test now, however the deer population as low as it is makes it hard enough to kill a deer with a bow in VT so people who cant/ wont be able to hit a deer don't often waste their time in the stand. come the second week of November though... get your Orange, and a flak jacket!
Yeah Ben, in NY we have one....so long ago I cant remember what it is ... Andrew will be taking his this summer, so I will know then
No test or hunters safety req'd here in Wisconsin for bow hunting. (Gun hunting does require Hunters safety). My first gut reaction is that it would be a good idea if done properly. Honestly, I would need to mull this one over in my head and hear arguments from both sides before deciding. My concern is the unintended consequences that could occur. Great topic.
No. Do fishermen need to take a test in order to catch 50 to 100 lb catfish...500 pound tuna? If you don't have the right equipment while big fish angling you may seriously wound or kill a big fish without a chance to eat it. Do people need to take a test to be a parent? Do people need to take a test before they can purchase cigarettes or alcohol?
Traffic signs and abidance of them represent the will of the people. In order to drive on the"People's" roadway, isn't a proficiency test mandatory? A license is given to those who pass a minimum standard. That licenses can be revoked under certain conditions...like "incompetence". It's sad our natural resources cannot be equally protected. Yes, it's invasive when our government butts in-I hope they won't. Actually, it would be nice if we (as hunters) volutarily pursued such proficiency training. We could also encourage those around us to do the same. How cool would it be, for example, if everyone affiliated with BH.com had such training/testing? Wouldn't it demonstrate to the world that we care enough about our sport/pursuits to go the extra mile? Imagine this scenario: On one side of the courtroom, the plaintiff (Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS) shows a photograph of a deer with an arrow through its head to the judge and jury ("we the people"). On the other side, The defendants (Todd Graf/Justin Zarr) both shout out "OBJECTION!" and proceed to explain their reasoning for the objection. They state, "Your Honor, the arrow did not come from a BH.Cer's bow. We are trained and rigorously tested not to do such a thing. We are in good standing with our community and have an incredible track record to prove a high degree of proficiency!. The arrow obviously came from somebody without such training..." When the training is present, it's easy to invoke "reasonable doubt" for the jury. Without the training.......GUILTY! The Season's Over!
IMO, it's not about the right equiptment, it's if the person has the competence to use it. Parenting, if there is a gross inability to do so, that right can be taken away. Cigarettes? Alcohol? Not really sure how that relates.
Cigrarettes and alcohol relate because of the damage that they can do to the user and to others. In fact, the problems incurred from alcohol and cigarette use outweighs the problems in the hunting world by about 100000000 to 1.
Could not agree more on the last statement, but I'm still lost at how you relate requiring a hunter to show he or she is capable of properly using their weapon to smoking and drinking.
Ive bowhunted on a few different military bases when I was stationed in VA, and we had to pass a proficiency test before we could even apply. 3 out of 5 arrows into a paper plate from 20 yards. Think about it...do you want some other guy hunting the same piece of property as you, but he cant hit the broad side of a barn, always wounding deer, etc. Come on, we always talk about ethics on here, but the fact is, someone that isnt a good enough shot to seal the deal when theres an animal in front of them isnt going to stay out of the woods. Theyre going to launch an arrow and cross their fingers everytime. How is that ethical? Might as well weed out the unethical shooters before its too late.
