Being military i have had to qualify on a few post in order to bow hunt. We had to shoot 4broadheads at 20 and 30 yards. I think 3 of 4 had to be inside a 8 in circle. You had to use the same setup to hunt with, they supposedly spot checked.This was back in the 80's . I have even had to qualify with my shotgun and buckshot in Va at a refuge hunt. I think it is not nessecarily a bad thing since it will weed out some of the guys that just walked out of wally world with a set up they purchased on their way to the woods. I think we owe it to the animal and ourselves to be proficient with whatever we use. Just like a lot of you 20-25 yards is about allthe further i care to shoot so make the test fair and realistic for all the archers.

NYorange, you miss the point (no pun intended). All the tests mean is you can hit a target at a given distance. I haven't shot a compound in umpteen years, but given an hour's practice I have no doubt I could pass the test with one. Does that mean I know what I'm doing with that bow? Of course not.

Someone who has never shot a bow, or even hunted, could do basically the same thing with good instruction. Being able to hit a target doesn't make someone a hunter. Proficiency tests don't have a thing to do with being able to get on the animal, track a wounded animal, get it out, or even make a good shot (targets don't move, and I'm assuming they aren't shot at from a stand, at different angles, etc.).

I agree it could keep a few complete idiots out of the woods, but someone that bad off isn't likely to get a shot in the first place.

As far as getting the job done, I'd put my money on the experienced hunter that won't shoot further than 10-15-20 (whatever)yds. over the wannabe that can hit targets at 40 yds. but has very little to no hunting experience. The proficiency test is much more likely to put the wannabe in the woods and turn down the hunter.

Chad

I agree Chad. I see all kinds of young guys, that go out and have a 1000 dollar setup, and hits a skoal can at 40 yards every time, but somehow gets bad shots on deer, or completely misses. I went thru this for over a decade from age of 13 to 24 or so. I could hit the yard targets, but animals just seemed so hard. Bad shots, lost deer, or just plain missed shots. I can't really pinpoint why I had so much trouble. But I see alot of young guys facing that now. I just know one day, I didn't have trouble, and shots seem to work out. Alot of the guys I see today get frustated and go out and buy faster bows, and what they consider better quality, and the confidense problem is still there.

Don't see how I missed the point. You are under the misconception that you mustbe either an experienced hunter who maxes out at 20 yds or an expert shooter who can hit targets at 40 yds but for some reason only known to you guys, can'thita deer at 30 yds. Reality is you can be BOTH an expert hunter and reliably hit targets at 40yds. Does not have to be one or the other. Accepting this, you also have to accept the simple fact that taking two identical hunters , the one who can hit targets at 10-40 yds reliably is a much deadlier and efficient hunter than someone who can only hit targets at 10-20 yds. Likewise taking two identical hunters, the one with a compound is a much more dangerous hunter (to deer) than the other simply due to technological superiority. To pretend that there isn't aclear advantage to compounds and that experience alone will equalize the two isn't logical.Please remember I am not making a choice saying that its right or that someone shouldn't be allowed to hunt because of their choice of equipment, all I am saying is that testing target shooting ability does reveal the something about the shooter and all else being equal, a better shooter is a better hunter and someone more likely and able to kill a deer. Got to realize that all of those other qualities that make a a good hunter are also impossible for the land manager to quantify and the only thing he can rely upon is objective results like target shooting cuz thats all he has. Never said I approve of the test, merely trying to providea few possible reasons why they may be doing it. Take care.

I am not saying not to have a shooting skills test, just don't rate the shooters in the test who have passed. In other words, you either pass or you do not. Should a hunter be able to hit a 3d deer vitalsout to 20 yards with traditional equipment? You bet ya. Should a compound shooter be able to hit the vitals of a 3d deer at 30 yards? You bet ya.

But whatI see iswrong is scoring the people inside the "passing" criteria for a better chance at a tag.

Experience has told me, that I totally disagree with your better target shooters being better hunters. So I respectfully disagree. Some of the best/proficient hunters I know, and thats alot, are not crazy about super tuning thier bows. They hit the vitals, they are happy.

I am one of those shooters who are obsessed with super tuning a compound or traditional, and I will say I am much better target shooter than most of my friends. I mean I have everything at my house to tune a bow. But a few ofmy friendsare much better hunters and just take thier bows to a pro shop, and get it hitting the vitals at 30 yards, they are deadly.

There is much more to hunting than target shooting.

I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate. What I understand nyorange to be saying is that, given two hunters of equal woodsmanship skill, the one with the better marksmanship skill will be the more prolific killer. And that stands to reason.

How many times have you had a deer walk by just out of range, and there was nothing you could do but sit and hope he turned the right way? If only you were sure you could shoot as well at 25 yards as you do at 20, you'd have made meat right then and there. But you can't, so you didn't.

Looking at the size of the area one can cover from a stand pretty well sums it up.

Say Hunter A is a proficient shot out to 20 yards. He can cover a circle around his stand of 1256 square yards. Hunter B is proficient out to 30 yards. The area of the circle he can cover is 2826 square yards. 2.25 times as much area as Hunter A!

A 50% increase in effective shooting distance gives Hunter B a 225% better chance of getting a deer in his effective range than Hunter A gets. If he shoots a compound and can stretch his proficient range out to 40 yards... He can now cover 5024 square yards. A 100% increase in Hunter B's effective range means he can now cover 400% more area than Hunter A. Which means he's got a 400% better chance of getting a deer in range.

That's oversimplifying and not taking a whole buttload of variables into account. It's just to illustrate the point. It's why compounders have a hunter success rate up around 35% - identical to hunter success rates for crossbows, as a matter of fact - while traditional hunters' success rates are around 12-13%. And why rifle hunters with an effective range of upwards of 100-400 yards kill so many more deer than bowhunters. They get a whole bunch more deer within range than bowhunters do.

Are rifle hunters better hunters than bowhunters? No. They are simply able to take advantage of a LOT more shooting opportunities. Are compounders better hunters than traditionals? No. They're just more prolific killers because most of them can shoot proficiently further than most traditionals can.

My point was simple--just because someone can hit a target (or not) at a given distance only proves one thing--they can hit a target (or not) at a given distance. It doesn't mean they won't take longer shots, running shots, bad angle shots; it doesn't mean they won't quit looking if the deer doesn't fall in sight; it doesn't mean they won't shoot at movement; etc.

I totally agree that one can be good at targets and at hunting. I know archers that are both, and I strive to be one myself. The fact is still the same--proficiency tests don't touch on hunting skill. I personally know at least two excellent archers who generally fall apart when strangers watch them shoot. Both are proven hunters also. One fellow I knowhas killed literally hundreds of deer with a bow, but he isn't impressiveon a 3-D range.I don't know of anyone that has come close to killing as many deer (not to mention other critters) as he has, and I seriously doubt he would pass the test.

All else equal, the compound shooter will generally have the advantage--but not always. I've taken a group I used to work with to my home range to prove to them that a trad bow isn't always a disadvantage, and heard of other situations. On my course (re-set the targets, so I didn't have an advantage of shooting at certain spots), from a tree-stand, I could out-shoot 4 or 5 (all that came over)of my compound-shooting co-workers. They weren't awful shots, there are just situations wherea trad bow has the advantage. I shoot a lot of all-traditional 3-D tournaments, and the shots are usually set in a hunting situation. A compound shooter wouldn't be able to make many of them.

Put us both on flat ground, standing straight up, in the wide-open, a decent compound shooter will wear me out. Let me pick the shots, or even take him with me to a tournament, I'll out-shoot him more often than not.

A fellow I hunted with in Canada had to pass on a moose because he was shooting a compound--equipment malfunction.Back when I shot a compound, I was in a situation where I could have killed a deer with a big rock, but missed (twice, clean) because I was relying on sight pins.

I have worked in and around compound shops, and have heard some real dandy stories of folks that have never shot coming in to buy a bow a week or so before a hunt. Set them up and put them on the range, they could hit the spot with minimal practice--that doesn't mean they would know the difference in shot placement on a broadside, quartering away, quartering to, etc. shot.

I'm not saying these people should be banned from the woods. My point, again, is that proficiency tests prove next to nothing when it comes to hunting. IMO it's a waste of time and money, and it's just as likely to keep a competent hunter out of the woods while letting an incompetent hunter in as the opposite.

Chad

When I started this thread, I was looking to see where people were. I am not professing to have the answer, but since I started this, and I did say that I would present my position later, here goes.

I don't care for the test at all. If a test must be given, let it be a skills test/woodmanship test first. WhileI am not overlooking the importance of shootingskills, I am not elevating it beyond what it should be. Every person picking up a bow, regardless the flavor, should attain the highest skill level attainable. Bow hunting is about getting close, for those of you who love and advocate long range shooting, more power to you, but that is not in line with whatbowhunting was meant to be and is.

I have placed more game within twenty yards and less by woodsmanship and hunting knowledge than any other factor.Justfor the record, I can shoot, and shoot a heck of a lot farther than twenty and thirty yards, I don't like to, and now that I am older/wiser will not do so again. That being saidhow canIhave the right to tell a guy who is deadly at fifteen yards he can't hunt. When he might just be the best woodsmanon the lease, and far more ethical than the vast majority because he won't take a shot farther than his self imposed limit.

On the other hand, how can we say it is o.k. for a guy who drills a static 3D target everytime at 40 yards, when he not only lacks the discipline to limit his shots to that range,but hasfew skills in hunting and less ethics.How do we test ethics, and discipline? While my friend who only shoots at 15yards, would never consider shootingover thatdistance, butthis guy figures, what the hell, it is only 10yards farther and shoots beyondhis ability.

Ifone is going to have a skills test, let it be fair. Let it cover stand placement, shot placement,use of cover, concealment, blood trailing(that's right, heck it is the most important skill you can have in hunting bow or gun)and then shooting skills. You can have thepractical skill test as being multiple choice, and then go to the range.Let the combinedscoretellthe tale.

I remember a conversation a reporter had with the Great Walt Frazier,Hall of Famer of theNew YorkKnicks. He was being asked about guarding the evenGreater Oscar Robertson of the then Royals.Then Walt was known asthe most feareddefensive guard in the NBA during the early to mid-seventies. Oscar having been a scoring machine during the Sixties and into the first part of theSeventies. The reporter asked Walt how is it when he defends against the "Big O". Walt looked down at his sneakers, as sweat dripped from his brow. Oscar just ripped him for 30 points. Walt said, "IfI give him a twenty foot jump shot,he wants a fifteen footer". "If I give him a fifteen footer, he takes aten footer". "If I give him the damn ten footer he takes the five footer, and If I give him the five footer, he takes the layup". We should take a lesson from Oscar Robertson,on our bowhunting and should be taking the closest shot we can, and then get closer. That will reduce wounding, ammo for the Anti's and get bowhunting back to the status of being the special sport it is. You can be a great shooter, but a poor hunter. You can be an average shooter and a great hunter. Remember, archery is target shooting, bowhunting is taking game. One you see how far you can get and still hit the target, the other is seeing how close you can get and not miss......Nuff Said!

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.

I never meant this to sink to the level of people proclaiming there method of shooting is the best/only way, whiledamning all others. This thread didn't have a darn thing to do with how you shoot your bow. Why would you think that any traditional shooter would be afraid of a proficiency test? It is not fear of the test, it is if the test really does what it was designed or stated to do. If you have developed your skills, not respective of how you do it, you would not fear the test. Do you think that just because some people don't feel comfortable shooting in front of people, that they can't shoot, or they maynot be deadly with the practice of their choice? I think proficiency test, the way they are done are a slap in the face of real ethical hunter, and bowhunters of all stripes. It is as wrong for the compound shooter,who believes getting close, which is what being a hunter is what it is all about to be forced to take the test in it's current for as itis for the most dyed in the wool selfbow shooter. Many of which look down there noses at anybody shooting modern traditional tackle.

I hear people say that we need to get together, to unify in an effort to protect what others have fought so hard to get for us.In the same breath, they take cheap shots at the same people they should be embracing. I have no time for the bickering, and muck rakers. When we, God help us, if we learn to stop trying toboost ouregosat the expense of others, and live and let live, maybe this will truly be a brotherhood.I can't help to believe that it is just oregos that competitive streak in so many. Go ahead and talk that noise on the 3D course, or in the backyard with your friends, it teaches the wrong thing here. I shoot instinctive not to brag, but because I have tried other ways and I like it. It works for me, it may not be perfect to your way of thinking, but what the heck is?

Why should I care how you shoot, and why should you care how I shoot. I am not here to be bow shooters police. What I am here to do is this, encourage any and eveyone who will take the challenge, to pick up a stickbow and shoot it. To embrace the thrill, and the mystery of the feathered shaft in flight. Let themshoot as they feel, they will move to the place they feel most at peace , at the right time.

I think many things that I don't make vocal. I hold my peace, because I never want to be the negative in anyone's life. I have learned that not everyone feels the same way, or sees things the way I do. You know something, I wouldn't have it any other way.......