I've got mixed feelings about proficiency tests.
On the one hand, they do keep certain individuals out of the woods - people who stand a much better chance of wounding an animal than making a clean kill. That's a good thing, IMO. On the other hand, they have great potential for serious abuse. It would be so easy to make up tests that NOBODY could pass.
I've heard all the arguments, yay and nay, and I ultimately come down on the yay side - but not by much. No, it's not a test of ethics - unless you get caught cheating. It's a shooting skills test, period. You simply have to prove that you have a good chance at consistently making a killing shot on an animal at a certain, completely arbitrary, maximum distance. Whether that maximum distance is within YOUR capabilities or not is another matter. Whether or not you would ever shoot at an animal that far is yet another matter.
Almost everyone has a distance where they can hit what they shoot at. It might be 10 yards for some. It might be 60 yards for someone else. I'd like to see the tests done so that the shooter can close the distance to where he is confident he can make a kill rather than force people to stand on a stake. If we could ensure the hunter would not take shots further than what he shoots in the qualification round we'd have something, but it would at least make the hunter be honest with himself about his skill.
For a number of years, our club offered proficiency tests for those wanting to participate in the annual draw hunts at Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge. The requirements were similar to above - 14 deer-sized McKenzie targets, 30 yards max and you had to score 80% to qualify - basically an 8-ring on every target, though a few 10's will help overcome a 5.
I spent about 12 years as the shoot director for our club, so I've seen some things. Every year, a scant few would come through the gate that desperately NEEDED to be kept out of the woods. One case in particular stands out in my mind as the perfect example.
This guy wanders up to the registration desk to sign up for a qualification round. He's toting a 20-year old compound that looks like it's been hanging in the barn for the whole 20 years. Dust and spider webs all over it. Even got a dirt dauber nest on the top limb! It's kinda obvious it's been awhile since this bow's been shot, okay?
I sign the guy up, hand him his score card and point over to the practice range, suggesting he go poke a few holes into our targets to check his sights. "Nope, I'm okay," he says and takes off down the trail, wiping cobwebs off the arrow rest as he goes.
I swear by all that's Holy, I'm not making this up and not exagerating a bit!
Needless to say, he failed the test. Badly. He shoots like 45%. Then he has the gall to get pissed at me when I don't sign off on his score and qualify him!
That is the kind of people that proficiency tests are designed to catch. I'm ever so glad we caught THAT one. People who refuse to practice, who refuse to do even basic maintenance on their gear, people who have no more respect for the game and their fellow hunters than that have no business being in the woods with anything more dangerous than a camera.
I will say that during my time on the job we never failed a single traditional shooter. Although it did take a few people a couple of tries.
I like proficiency tests, in theory. But I'm also terrified by the potential for anti's to get involved in the process and make them completely impossible to pass. We need to be extremely vigilant where these tests are concerned.