Proficiency testing

[Walksalot]

I am starting to lean toward proficiency testing to show you can effectively use the tackle you intend to hunt with.

[416]

l don't think proficiency testing is a real accurate yardstick of a persons capabilities, although it can be indicative. Too many other factors can contribute to an "off or on" day especially when the individual is being marked on their preformance. Competency is a highly disired virtue, and one l am sure most responsible hunters aim for, but more rules aren't going to change much, except make us jump through more hoops, and cost us more.
If proficiency was that great of a tool for insuring competency, we wouldn't have the vehicle accidents we do. People will be what they are, and the majority of aspiring hunters, shooters will be responsible folks without more rules. The idiots will also be what they are dispite more rules. l keep thinking of the phrase "if it saves one life" ..........and look where that has taken us??:
Our sport is being "ruled" to death, and the majority of us where never the problem.

[J_T]

I would agree with 416.

Too many variables. Way too many other variables. What makes a successful hunter with the bow is not necessarily the ability to shoot well.

Are you going to test one's proficiency at being silent or scent free. I could be the best shot, but if at the wrong minute I make a noise or the animal scents me, that pefectly released arrow could be heading to the wrong part of the body.

JT

[Steeleco]

Althought I agree with the idea in principle, like the other have said it would be very hard to implement. I work with people with have the same credentials as I, but I wouldn't let them wash my car. An we fix LARGE aircraft

[Walksalot]

I know what you mean about another hoop to jump thrrough and we all know there are enough all ready but I think it would make an archer/hunter think twice before going afield with a bow until they can shoot it well.

While stalking , bush sense and knowing the animal you are hunting are needed to be a successfull hunter I think accuracy is way up there. I would give accuracy a better than 5o% credit for a successfull hunt.

[Barracuda]

I think it would be a good idea for a few reasons. I belive that if we had some proficiency testing in place it would hold people more accountable for their actions (much like a drivers permit does!). It would also mean a person has the ability to meet a certain standard and if they do not maintain that standard they and they alone are accountable for the actions they perform.(kinda like a person chooses to drive drunk ,chooses to speed, chooses to have no respect for other , etc..)

It is this way in much of Europe (depending the game you pursue and the region you are in) and i think it makes by and large a better sportsman. also it give a certan amount of accomplished credability to hunters in the mainstream educated community. It is the same idea as practical qualifications to be a guide or a master of hounds etc....

If the concept of practicle applications are a problem for you or your judgement is rattled by being tested, perhaps you should not partake in that endeaver .

I am sure there will be some people that dont agree but i think that something should be constructed that at least measures a level of competency .

[Bow Walker]

At first read the idea is a good one. It has some definite merits.

Upon thinking about it - the reason for testing would be to weed out the inept and sub-par, hunter wannabes. But, and it is a big but, are the majority going to be hampered by the minority?

It seems to me that anyone who has an idea to go hunting with a bow and arrow would (if they are in anything resembling their right mind) go to the range and practice hard so as to be able to hit what they are aiming at with a certain degree of confidence. Even a target archer who decides to start hunting would have to get used to the new type equipment - namely arrows with broadheads on them - as opposed to field points.

Legislation and regulations do have their place and they do belong in most areas of endeavor, but IMHO they do not belong here.

If there were a C.O.R.E. type program that one would have to take prior to getting one's hunting license then I think that would be a better way of handling the situation.

Interesting topic though!

Good luck to all this season.

[greybark]

Hey BowWalker , I think a good Archery/Bowhunter segment in the CORE program would provide a wider vison of what is involved . I disagree with the Proficiency testing on the grounds that the majority of bowhunters are aware of their limits. With practicing two times a week and lots of 3-D compitations I an certainly aware of mine. Years ago when on one of the top Military Rifle Teams I still practiced four or five times prior to rifle hunting. The lack of rifle ranges now present a problem of rifle hunters unable to sight in their weapons and more importantly tune their brain into good shooting posture.

REMEMBER -- Keep Your Fingertab On --

[mcrae]

These new archery seasons in regoin 4 have really sparked interest in bow hunting again. I use to shoot a bow but haven't for a couple years so I picked up a nice used recurve and plan to augment my rifle hunting with archery. My plans are to shoot/practice and aim for the 2006 elk season. Unfortunately I know a couple of people with no archery experience planning on chasing elk after about two months of practice with their new compounds! I don't like the idea of more testing but it sure would stop a pair like this dead in there tracks! Crossbows I think should be included as well. They are not my cup of tea but many people have bought them in the past month and plan on hunting in the archery season with them. I realize it takes less time to master a crossbow but it still takes time!


McRae555

[416]

I think it would be a good idea for a few reasons. I belive that if we had some proficiency testing in place it would hold people more accountable for their actions (much like a drivers permit does!).

The other side of the same coin......as you say we all have to have a certain level of proficiency to obtain a drivers permit, BUT, people do choose to drive drunk, do choose to to speed, and do choose to ignore and respect their fellow man......most of these actions already have laws in place to govern this kind of behavior. l don't understand how this requirement of compentancy would make any one who chooses to disobey the existing laws more accountable. Although the idea has merrit, l think it resembles firearms registration laws.....have they made the criminals and those that choose to disobey existing laws any more accountable?
One good thing about using bows, by its very nature its quickly weeds alot of wannabes because of the effort require to become remotely proficient in the first place..