archery profiency testing before hunting

sliverslinger · 11-14-2002, 09:45 PM

I personally think that we should have a profiency test for all archers before we let them out in the woods. If they cant hit what they are aiming at they shouldnt be out there. Idaho has it, what would it hurt to have it here? The fish and game dept. should make it mandatory before they give out the license and tags.
just my .02

P.S. I am a bowhunter and would be willing to take the test.

lightline · 11-14-2002, 10:04 PM

sliverslinger: are you proposing a one shot deal? once you pass it thats it? I know that Idaho has it along with a few other states, but if you have archery hunted like five years in the state that you live in you are exempt, im not sure of the number of years. ( at least thats the way it was a couple of years ago). My point is if a person doesn't recieve their tag and and passes the test they may not pick up their bow for the next several years. I personally think a proficiency test is a good ideal. I just don't think that where it is needed the most is going to work out very well.

montster303 · 11-15-2002, 05:22 AM

I, personally, am still undecided about being tested. I think there are just too many questions that need to be answered and problems to be thought about. such as:

Who will regulate the testing?

If the answer to Q#1 is ODFW, how would they come up with the money? With the current budget situation of our state (Oregon) and all the budget cuts it would be hard for me to justify paying for this. (thinking to myself...hmmmm....release 4,000 convicted fellons, but we gotta pay for those archers to be tested! don't think so...)

In another thread, someone mentioned that sometimes when a rifle hunter doesn't draw a tag, they blow the dust off the bow and basically say "oh well...i'll just bow hunt." I believe this can/does happen....I also believe the reverse would be true. "oh well, i didn't qualify....i'll just rifle hunt." If someone isn't going to take the time and put out the effort to become proficient with a bow, they probably have the same habits with a gun. I think I would rather have this person hunt with a bow than a rifle. Maybe that would cut down on the amount of stupid hunting "accidents".

I believe most everyone would agree that when you shoot at a target, it's nothing like shooting at the real deal. Someone could be an excellent shot on the range, but if you put a little pressure on them (buck fever, maybe walking up a hill too fast and panting, being cold, being hot, any kind of weather condition) they couldn't make a shot if their lives depended on it.

I do feel that better education would be justified. I remember taking hunters safety classes, and have taken firearms training in recent years as a refresher. If there was something similar for bow hunters, I would be interested in getting the education. (maybe there is and I haven't heard about it yet)

Sorry about the long post....but I still believe that whether with bow or rifle, it boils down to ethics. m2cw

tailchaser · 11-15-2002, 07:05 AM

I think you should have to declare before the drawing. This is committing yourself to the season long before it starts. It's about the only way I know of that someone will have a decision to choose their direction for themselves rather than a drawing do it for them. Most dedicated bowhunters wouldn't have any problem with it because there isn't a question to what they will be doing.

tc

Myles · 11-15-2002, 08:19 AM

A bow hunting safety course is available, If you want to take it here's the link.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/outdoor_skills/ . I've tried to take it the last two years but had conflicting commitments.
But I have a real problem with more useless regulations. How many drivers do you see daily that shouldn't be allowed on the road? They passed their prophency test and have almost daily practice! When a poacher is caught they take away his hunting privilages; sorry but he's a poacher he doesn't care! A one time test won't prove prophency. How about an IQ test? "Sorry Bubba but you just too dumb to carry a lethal weapon". Maybe a physical training class so more rifle hunters would get out of their vehicles. Where do you stop?

Sorry for the sarcasm, some rules/ideas may look good on the surface but won't make any difference. Irresponsible people will always be around.
I hope I don't pi$$ off too many people by this post but I guess I'm in PMS mode right now [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]
I'll get over it soon.
myles

Norm · 11-15-2002, 08:51 AM

My guess is there is a lot more animals wounded during rifle season than bow. Also a lot more accidents. I would welcome a safety/profency test, but for every hunter, Not just bow hunters. 99% of bowhunter practice before season, it's the other 1% that are a problem. Maybe every five years you could re-certify, every year would be a pain. I've been trainning a couple of young bow hunters the past couple of seasons. The rule in my camp is, you can't shoot past the distance you can keep all your shots on a paper plate. I'm applying the same rule to their rifles during a youth deer hunt this year.

Megabites · 11-15-2002, 09:18 AM

Yes I think so and even more so that rifle hunters do the same. You should have to be tested on your abaility to hadle any weapon and that you can reliably hit your target. monster303 has a great point the test should an action shooting drill or a progressive test. Say shoot from a bench and if you can do that then go to a 25 yard run, pick up riffle and shoot ect.. I would also be in favor of a retest as often as every year. Why? to keep the hunters that are not serious out of the woods. As far as how to fund it goes. Make the hunter pay for it. He can buy a riffle, bullets, and tags why not something to make us all safer.

outdoor.spec.ops · 11-15-2002, 10:10 AM

I do not think that "hunting" regulations will be the solution. As long as there is the right to bear arms in the constitution, there will be gun and archery accidents, regardless of the laws in place to make the woods and society safe. The best solution I can see is to have mandatory schooling to own a gun or bow, regardless if you hunt. This would cast a bigger net on the population.
I admit I am not a big fan of the mandatory testing due to the fact that I oppose restrictions on the constitution, but if I had a choice to vote, I would vote to make all people bearing arms take the test, and not just hunters.

Jellyhead · 11-15-2002, 10:26 AM

If this ever takes place, It should be with the setup you plan to hunt with.

Hunting bow w/broadheads, not feild tips. The difference between the two is pretty big. I know guys that practice all year with feild tips, then screw on broadheads the day before the opener. Then they wonder why they can't hit what they're aiming at :depressed:

Just my .02

Aaron

tailchaser · 11-15-2002, 10:31 AM

Realistically people, non of these tests are going to happen even though some of us would like to see it. Think of what it would take for them to hire some people to oversee this. I'm sure they would consider it with the budget cruch they're always crying about. Yeah right.

An idea has to be one that doesn't involve a lot of time and money for ODFW to consider it. It has to be black and white in the writing and intent. Jumping jacks, and running around a course won't fly. I'm going to be having a one on one meeting with the guy who's writing the new elk management plan within a month or so and we plan on discussing things like this. This is a person who has the ability to change certain rules. If I see some good ideas I'll bring them up, but be aware of the forces involved before thinking up the radical ideas.

tc

[ 11-15-2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: tailchaser ]

Stick Flinger · 11-15-2002, 05:19 PM

This is my first post on this site, but thought I would put my .02 in. I am an avid bow hunter and also love to rifle hunt. I shoot my bow at least twice a week 3 months prior to season and constantly during season. I try to fling a few arrows every month to keep my arm and my bow tuned year round. I shoot at different distances and elevations and angles, etc. to try and prepare for every shot. Two seasons ago I missed a 27 yard shot at a five point bull shooting between two trees leaned forward. This was a shot that I had not practiced and did not realize my bow was slightly canted. Luckily, I slammed the arrow into a tree and not deflected into a poor shot into the bull. Regardless, I missed.

If I had hit the bull and been one of the "bow hunters" who always looses an animal, would that have been avoided by me taking a profieciency test. I also passed on taking a second shot at the bull at 58 yards because I don't like to shoot that far. That is where ethical decisions come into play and not profieciency. If you hunt, you owe it to the animals to shoot as good as you can. I do not favor testing at all. I would not want to pay for testing.

I hunt because I love to hunt. Because I love to hunt, I practice to be as good as I can. This is an ethics issue, not a testing issue. My .02.

RJ · 11-15-2002, 05:46 PM

exellent post Flinger, your bottom paragraph says it all.RJ

Tilla · 11-17-2002, 08:20 AM

I do know for a fact that $1500 will buy you a bow with all the accuracy you need. Just add a few 15 minute practice sessions.
I hope these classes are more than shooting at pie plates!

springer_97011 · 11-17-2002, 02:31 PM

any idiot can hit the target in a controlled situation if the equipment is set up right just the same as a rifle so this is unrealistic anyways.i would bet that rifle hunters miss twice as many shots as archery hunters but much easier to fire several shots,which archers cant really do in most instances.i bet wounding with a rifle would greatly increase if you could only carry 1 bullet.

bigshark · 11-17-2002, 11:38 PM

My guess is that the testing will come in time. It's not done in Oregon now as we do not have the pressure on the resource to the point of needing a "culling" mechanism. When we need to weed out a lot of applicants you can expect this to happen. Your hearts and minds are in the right place IMO, but you are thinking about ethics as most good guys do. When it gets to the point of who gets to hunt and who doesn't, this is how it's done. Have you looked lately what an Alaskan hunt will cost you? See how much one of those critters is worth to their economy. Now think what you would do to eliminate some of the guys who want a do it by themself hunts. Add a rumored bias against bowhunters on the board and bingo.
Heaven forbid the day comes that if you want to hunt a ram in this state you will have to bid for the tag. Heck I'm getting off the track and working my blood pressure up. Sorry ! But' IMO you young guys need to keep this stuff in mind and talk about it. If you don't try to protect what you have, it could be much worse for you in the future.

[ 11-17-2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: bigshark ]

Hoosier Daddy · 11-22-2002, 08:25 AM

I think the far greater problem is people that can hit fine at 25-30 yds and then decide to try a 50 yarder. How do you regulate that?

I lived in Idaho when they started the mandatory bowhunter training. When we started the class, the instructor asked us how far we thought we could take a shot. Most people were new to the sport, had high tech stuff, and said anywhere from 40-75 yds! I said 25. At the end of the course he made us shoot at a metal target set at that distance. The only safe place to hit was the center which was foam or something. EVERY ONE of the long distance crowd lost an arrow that day, except for the few that couldn't even get close. A real good lesson I thought.
How to regulate it? I don't think you can, just gotta do something like this instead.

sliverpicker · 11-24-2002, 10:45 AM

In 1992 there were rumors floating around that bowhunter education was going to be mandatory here in Oregon. I signed up for a class at Mer's Archery on Airport Way in Portland. It was an all-day course, and covered everything from animal anatomy for shot placement, to sharpening broadheads, and bloodtrailing.

Just like in Hoosier Daddy's post, we had to write down our effective range in the morning, not knowing why. Being a recurve and longbow shooter who was right-handed but left-eye dominant, I wrote 15 yards. The farthest I shoot at an animal is 20-25 yards. At the end of the day we went out to a vacant lot next across the road. They had a steel bear with a foam killzone setup to shoot at. The instructor's started with the longest yardage people had written down and worked up to the shortest. Some of the compound s******* had written down 40-50-60 yards. They were nearly crying when there expensive carbons (most were still shooting aluminum) whacked into that slab of steel. Out of about 30 people in the class, only 4 of us managed to hit the killzone. I was lucky and didn't break my handmade wooden arrow!

We received cards for passing the class. But for some reason ODFW decided to not require and enforce bowhunter education. But if they ever do, I've already taken the class.

sliverpicker