That being said how can I have the right to tell a guy who is deadly at fifteen yards he can't hunt. When he might just be the best woodsman on the lease, and far more ethical than the vast majority because he won't take a shot farther than his self imposed limit.
That's why I said I'd rather the shooting test allow the individual to close the distance to where he feels comfortable taking the shot rather than force everyone to shoot from the same arbitrary distance.
On the other hand, I hate to see so many traditional shooters thinking they must slam the door at 20 yards and never try to extend their effective shooting distance. It takes some work and dedication, and a real barebow aiming method, but I've seen some amazing shooting done with stickbows out to 60 yards, and beyond. Note that I'm not suggesting shooting at game that far. Practicing at 60 yards and beyond simply makes those 20-30 yard shots a lot easier.
With today's near religious zeal surrounding instinctive shooting, it's no wonder many traditional shooters are terrorized by shooting proficiency tests. Howard Hill once said he'd seen thousands of instinctive shooters, but had never seen a good one. I don't know of many people who are more traditional than Howard Hill. He was a longbowman who didn't even like RECURVES! [&:]
The point is, if you really want to hit what you're shooting at, it's OK to aim. Really, it is. The point of archery is hitting what you're shooting at, whether with a primitive selfbow you hacked out of a tree limb or with the most modern, high tech 'bowhunting shooting system' device. There is nothing traditional about missing.
Traditional is NOT an excuse for lousy shooting.