ill be taking new jerseys bowhunter safety course in march. from what i understand all you have to do is show competence and general safe handling of your equipment and put 3 out of 5 arrows in the kill zone on a 3D target at 15 yards. im on the side of the fence that thinks it should be a little more strict. when i took my hunters ed(rifle, shotgun and muzzle loader) they didnt care about grouping or accuracy at all. just basic safe handling and competence with the equipment. you didnt even have to bring your own equipment for that. im not saying make it nearly impossible to pass, just focus more on actually hitting where you aimed. hell, even if i didnt hit the target i would have still gotten my little card.
Just make it a take-home test. If people say they passed......just take their word for it. After all......hunters would never BS anyone, right?
Brett, Cigarettes are banned in public places and retricted by age requirements. It is assumed the user is in the majority and of sound mind (questionable). We the people have sought protection for ourselves (and our children), and yet, we have also protected individual freedoms. Essentially, a line has been drawn. Cross that line enough and your freedom is revoked. Same holds true for alcohol. Are the skills to be a better parent innate? If better training was available, then what do you have to lose by engaging yourself voluntarily? You can always go back to the old ways, right? Heck, you can even call BS if you know it all. Again, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain! Society and your children will thank you! NBEF is worth the "look see"
Will the proficiency test expand out to squirrel hunters who use 22 caliber rifles? Should squirrel hunters have to pass a test of shooting their 22 out to maybe 30-40 yards at golf ball sized targets 20 yards up in a tree? Or is this just an archery thing? And who regulates the tests? Who receives the profits from the tests? Who determines what is proficient? Do we have to report the proficiency test results to some non-hunting group to prove ourselves or is this going to be a strictly internal thing?
IL does not have one, but IMHO I think it would be a good thing. If nothing else it might cause some guys to practice a little bit. Dan
I agree with this and this: "Proficiency tests outside the hunting arena examine a shooter while someone is watching. Sadly, it's the stupid things people do while nobody is watch which hurt us..." "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.:
Brett, my answer would be yes...if a public license is involved. If it were up to me, an annual proficiency test would be required-both written and live fire. There are many clubs and organizations around this country which would gladly assist with such annual testing- the NRA for example. IMO, it isn't unreasonable for a person to say, "prove it" to the guy who says he can walk through walls or on top of water. [quotes]And who regulates the tests?[/quote] Sanctioned affiliates/organizations....The Virginia chapter of the National Bowhunter Education Foundation perhaps. In my realm, it would be a free service provided by four on site, impartial, and competent observers who have been tested themselves. We the People...no money exchanges hands, mind you. But, We the People would certainly benefit. I think you and I could come up with a standard within twenty minutes. It could very easily be the individual's "self determined/imposed" effective range. Results are accompanied with game applications to each state's DNR, who inturn allow you the priviledge to hunt for passing such a test. It's the very least we can do, at least in my opinion, to show the public we care enough to protect their interest.
Just because someone passes a proficiency test doesn't mean they're a good shot. People have to pass tests to get driver's licenses and yet a lot of people still don't really seem like they know how to drive.
Rory, Part of that driving test involves an eye exam. If you can't see, you can't drive...no ifs and buts. Nothing humans do will ever be flawless, but it's up to all of us to make it as perfect as possibly. A garden will always have weeds. The trick is culling the weeds so they don't over grow the valued crop. Sorry for all the analogies. I hope you get the point though.
We have one here and the biggest thing I've seen it do is prove to guys that you just can't put your rifle down, pick up a bow and start killing stuff with it. It forces at least a minimal amount of responsibility for knowing the weapon. I've actually had fresh rifle converts that were astonished they couldn't pass the proficiency test with their buddy's borrowed bow that they had never shot! They were grateful for the fact that the course and test were there to open their eyes.
I personally have no problem with proficiency tests. The ones that I've been a part of don't ask you to shoot golf tees at 50 yards, quite honestly... If I was only able to pass the test by the skin of my teeth, I wouldn't deserve to be in the woods. As Will mentioned, it should be as important to the hunter as it is to those giving the test. With the equipment that is available today and even 20 years ago, there is no excuse to not be able to hit a 10" circle at 30 yards. Period.
So if I waterfoul hunt I should take a proficiency test?? Take another test for small game?? A test for Upland birds ?? A test for predator hunting ?? A test for Trapping ?? A test for Deer rifle ?? A test for Archery ?? A test for Deer muzzle loading. And you want me to do this every year ?? I suspect these tests cost a few coins. I can think of a lot of other things I want to spend my money on then this. You start one... the Anti's will always want more. We will never please them until we all quit hunting. Then Joe Blow from bowhunting.com makes a bad hit proving to the Anti's that even with Profiency tests... we are all still cruel, wound animals and hunting should stop. Will you really stop the slobs?? You might make it a little tough to pass but most will pass shooting at 20 yards at a paper plate 3 out of 5 times. It doesn't take much practice to accomplish that. It will not stop them from being slobs while hunting. Taking 40 - 60 yard shots. Taking shoots they shouldn't. Shots that are illegal. Hunting illegally and poaching. Poor Ethics. I suspect they will wound and lose just as many animals. What have you accomplished other then self gratification for us who take pride in practicing, good ethics and hunting legal ?? We already do with no test so what is the point of a proficiency test ?? A proficiency test for bowhunting is just opening the door for more worthless proficiency tests that prove nothing. I'm against it as a waste of time and money. Tim
What about the people who know their limitations, and choose not to shoot from such distances? Tim...that was an excellent post. I agree with you, wholeheartedly. The older I get, the less and less I want big brother in my life. You can't legislate morality/ethicality. Just stop trying.
Great post. It hit's the point of why I think they are (would be) a great idea and would better the sport of Archery.
How many rage BH users are there because they can't get fixed blades to hit with field points? Would knowing how to make your weapon work efficiently and correctly be part of this proficency test? I see posts all the time from guys with 40-50 yard max ranges but, when reading some of the stuff they say, I don't believe their max range should be 5 yards. I don't think a proficiency test would solve any of the problems we see. I think they are a good idea and useful for the folks that actually want to use them but, I don't think they will "weed out" any of the problems. Heck, most of the problems you read about on forums are posted by guys that don't see what they are doing as a problem at all. A proficiency test isn't going to change their thoughts. I have seen guys vigorously defending their head shots and they likely could pass the proficiency test with ease.
I took my IBEP / NBEF in the UK , its some thing I needed to take to hunt the State I chose to hunt . I think its a good thing for introducing new Bowhunters and can only be a good thing for the future of our chosen Sport . I was a crap shot in front of the 15 others on the day , but managed to pass . On the 3D shoot at the end of the course , I hit every target in the boiler room . I'm more relaxed outside of the classroom department and don't think so much about my shot , I would do it all again if I had too .
Like Bails.....I've taken my hunters ed. (NC requires it) and IBEP (not a requirement to hunt in NC, but it is in many states). Unlike Bails, there's no proficiency test attached to ours (hunters ed. or IBEP). I'd have no problems if these were required (both courses). But, I'm not in favor of proficiency tests (in general - for the reasons Tim mentioned).
I don't knowTim, I do hear what you're saying. I guess that's why I opened with, "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..." and maybe the annual thing is alittle extreme. However, things change quickly these days, regulations for example. Is a slob a slob because he's ignorant of the rules? An annual update and written exam eliminates that excuse, and I would/do glady volunteer my time, free of charge, to make sure people are all on board. I'm not sure it's the antis we should worry about. We'll have enough in our ranks to counteract anything they throw at us. I heard Janet Napolitano say something to the effect, 'It's unreasonable for us to expect a complete seal of the border between the United States and our neighbors' . When I heard this I asked, "Why". By making that statement she simply lowered expectations and simply resolved to do nothing more with the situation (why are we paying to have her around if there isn't more to do?). Both you and I know we can always do more...same holds true for the subject here. I still believe there is more we can do to further our positive position among the non-hunters. Taking a proficiency exam annually (voluntarily) can only help. A slob will always be a slob, but who knows, we may save a righteous hunter from the fall.
IF you hunt in the metro( Mpls-St. Paul area) with a certain group you have to take a proficiency test and can be qualified as an expert or sharpshooter. Keeping in mind these hunters could be in someones back yard hunting. If you want to shoot with this organization you have to shoot their qualifier. The better you shoot the more areas are available to be drawn from.
