That's interesting. That's a whole nother can of worms when you extrapolate that out to trophy hunting, but that's another thread.
Agreed, but morality and ethicality can be influenced, shaped, and modeled. For me, this whole debate revolves round "exposure" and a "reality check". Steve, have you ever been exposed to someone you didn't learn something from-even if you LEARNED nothing? Every piece of knowledge you gain can only be discribed as a "good thing". It is a tool you can use to further your existence. Am I wrong to think this way? So why is it so hard for people to expose themselves to more information? I agree with Tim. Passing a proficiency test is certainly self gratication, but I think it goes much farther than that. How could a person possibly argue the "exposure" and information gained is a bad thing, or worse yet, a waste of time? The reality check is a matter of proving it! Again, I do not think that is an unreasonable request. If my daughter says she can pull a 35 pound bow, I am going to stand there and have her demonstrate. I am not going to take her blanket statement blindly. I think much of the proficiency requirements can be accomplished without the intrusion of government. It can be adhered to by families, extended families, associations/affiliations/clubs, and communtities. If these entities get more involved with the shaping (exposing everyone to the same standard conduct), then everyone benefits.
I definitely understand your point and where you're coming from. I just think that a proficiency test won't really help keep slobs out of the woods. Even if it does, that means that the conservation departments are not going to be getting money that they originally would have.
It's always about some new tax and money sham by a new bean counter then they can sell your personal info to basspro/cabelas/gander ect... or anyone else that will pay $$ They dont care how good or bad someone is with there bow. It's just about a few $$
Without the government involved... I agree whole heartedly. Even if you got a few out of the majority to see the light... it is better then what you started with. I don't think anyone is arguing your message. It is a good message !! Tim
I have a few buddies who shot "pro" if you will, and 1 other that can out shoot them all anyday of the week, just picks up his bow and smokes them for the most part...what am I saying, the best shot I know is also the most careless in the woods, he feels 100% confident that he can ALWAYS squeeze one in there. He does with amazing regularity, he also looses them with amazing regularity as well. Not a proficency test out there that he could not pass (when talking a test for the masses) and yet, when he is in a tree he is a big a slob as the guy buying arrows and broadheads at walmart the night of the opener. I get what you guys are saying and for the most part I agree, but the tests are so simple (3 out of 5 in a pie plate) that anyone can pass.
Michael, It sounds like your friend's proficiency is being determined by peers unwilling to sanction. Do your part to change that.
I think that's giving more credit than necessary, thus why I would be in favor of them, just my opinion.
My State has a "half assed" proficiency test. They're not looking for the shooter to be busting shafts at 30yards, rather, just consistent anchor and "pie-plate" grouping, if that. I never took the bow test, in my State. My brother did, and, when he did, he missed the area of the target he was supposed to hit, every shot, but, he held a good group; he passed. It was just a simple sight adjustment, but, the instructor didn't even care. Big thumbs up to him.
He did it after. The instructors, that day, were pretty cool. They could tell who had some formal coaching and/or experience. I was standing right there, with my bro(I was his guardian, for the day). I explained to the instructor that this was my brothers brand new bow and we really didn't get it sighted in, completely; he understood. I watched all of the shooters that went before us. Not everyone was setting the world on fire, but, still passed. Like I said, they were just looking for specific things. In fact, I only saw them fail 1 child, that day. He had a NO anchor, a bow that was like 5" too long in the draw, etc, etc. He didn't even come close to the entire target. They moved him up to 10yards, and, still, missed by a mile. He failed.
This sounds reasonable? I'm not picking on anyone, here. I'm asking how much credence you can lend to a test......when a test-taker can miss with every shot and still pass? This is progress?
Nope...laziness times two (taking the course of least resistence). I personally would not have passed the student until he demonstrated the desired goal, period. All too often this is the stuff we (as a group) let slide. In most cases, it's the cause of wounded animals. New bow or new arrows shouldn't matter; the hunter should have been ready to go well in advance of the season/test. It's called "preparation". It is part of the ethics training a few of us give. Yes, I understand the anchor and the grouping aspect, but I do not understand why the brother wasn't ready. So no, this scenario was not progress. As an instructor, I hold all my bowhunter ed classes in March, April, and May. This give the students June, July and August to prepare for that year's season. I hammer in the concept of "practice, practice, practice". I run my students through a proficiency range which isn't a walk in the park. I make myself available until they pass. With proper trianing/coaching, I've never had anyone extend beyond two weeks. it is truly an earned accomplishment. We should all strive and prepare for the extra mile.
If our sport didn't look at the size of the trophy as a measure of success then we wouldn't need tested we would enjoy the simple aspects of archery and our shooting skills would naturally improve over time.
I hunt a city hunt in Minnesota that requires a proficiencty test. You must shoot 15 arrows at a GelnDel target, 5 arrows from 15, 17 and 20 yards. The heart is worth 15 points, the lungs 10 and the liver and body 5. The top 50 shooters get to hunt. Last year 110 people applied. To get into the hunt, you essentially can't put any more than 4 of your 15 arrows outside of the heart or you wont have enough points to qualify. Anyone shooting all 15 arrows into the lungs certainly will not qualify although they would have had 15 dead deer. Because I also help administer the hunt, I have observed how this proficiency test works. Yes, it truely does pick the best 50 shooters, but it has become clealry obvious to me that although SOME of these guys can shoot, it does not mean they are a good hunter, it does not mean they choose the right shots, it does not mean they can track, it does not mean they understand a whitetail, and it does not mean they know how to approach a wounded deer. If I had my way, the proficiency test would be required AND a written test with questions such as "how long should you wait to track a wounded deer." Just because you can pass a proficiency test doesn't mean you can deer hunt.
Outfitters in Africa have a proficiency test of sorts. You draw blood (one drop), they draw money. Stupid hits you right in the wallet. I've heard outfitters in this country are beginning to take this course(?) I agree, on the flip side, "Just because you can deer hunt, does mean you're proficient". We have to start weeding/policing somewhere, right? Isn't it better to test on paper before flesh? And yes, a written should be part of the test. Jim, I can honestly say "size" means nothing to me. As a conservationist, I let critters come and go. I legally kill em when I feel the need-doing so with the will of the people in mind. I kill a lot of does annually. I consider each a "trophy"-"my trophy". I prepare for every hunt with the same vigor regardless of species or gender. I do enjoy the simple aspects of archery. However, I will continue to strive for proficiency from myself as well as others. I hope there are those among us who feel the same way. Again, we owe that much to the people who give us this priviledge. If we're not willing to make the extra effort, then we need to stop complaining (it summons attention). We'll keep things status quo and take our lumps on the day of reckoning...
As much as competition drives skill levels and abilities I miss the days of shooting my old recurve with friends at a couple bales of hay with a paper deer target pinned to it. Today we have some incredible shooters and some fantastic hunters, yet I will never understand the reasoning behind bow hunters bragging about 50 yard shots. With all of the information available today I find it particularly inexcusable the number of posters that loose deer after deer and then ask what broad head will help them. I don't care if you hit a gnats ass at 50 yards thats not what bow hunting is about, it just seems that expensive equipment is to woodsman ship what steroids are to baseball.
