I was surfing the web looking for affordable places to bowhunt this fall in Texas, where I live. I stumbled across some U.S. Army Crops of Engineer Land that looked very promising. When checking the Georgetown area, I decided to look further, as I am planning to apply. Well the drawing process is based on your ability to shoot accurately, amoung other things,on a series of targets set at unknown distance.

It was interesting to note that for our compound toting brothers they could use range finders, scopes, release aids, and whatever else to find the kill zone. Now I am not crying about this because I choose to play the game differently than they do. The max distance for these guys would be 25yards, with a score of 80 percent or more based on four arrows.

We, the stick shooters, will have shots to a max of 20yards. I found this to be the most objective and fair test until I got to the part where they stated that the shooters who shoot scores higher(most cases the cable shooters)would stand the greatest chance at securing a tag during the draw.

Now I have my call in to find out if a specific number of tags will be alotted to the stick and string shoots that qualify, or will they all go into a hat. I have been told, not confirmed, that they all go into a hat.

While this brings up a whole slough of issues, here a a few to chew on. Please let me know what you think. Should proficiency test be a viable tool in deciding who hunts and who won't. If that is a fair method, who decides on how far and what type of bow? Should all bow hunting equipment be considered the same, I think it is in many state game department's eyes? Last but not least. If you decide that it is not fair, what would the effects be on hunting pro or con?

You guys areas sharp as your broadheads, I know where I stand, however I will reserve my thoughts for the end.Heck, I bet some of you may change my mind...O.K., I am out of the way, start shooting......

Everything sounded real reasonable until you got to the part that best scores have best chances. Then I just about coughed up my coffee.

compound should be at least 30 yards.

There should also be a specific number alloted for trad bows. If it turns out there are left over tags, then they can be awarded to compounds.

as for proficiency, its not necessarily a bad thing. they dont want a bunch of wounded animals running around. and w/ 80% over 4 arrows, all 4 have to be kill zone. 1 out and your only 75%. How many different rounds of 4 does one get? Is it one shoot and your done or can you try more than once?

In response to your question regarding how many chances, well you get only one chance to qualifyper round for that hunt. If you fail to make the cut, you are out of the running. It did not say specificly, however it did say several targets. So the 80 percent may be in regard to the number of targets shot in the kill zone, and not based on four arrows per target shot.

I've read a few debates over proficiency testing. I understand there are folks that are deadly in the woods, but fall apart trying to shoot a target with other's watching. I know there arearchers that will pass on a 20 yd shot because it's beyond their comfort zone, while there are others that won't think twice about a "hail mary" shot of 60+ yds. through the trees.

All the tests really prove, IMO, is you can hit a target at 20 yds. Doesn't mean you won't take a shot well beyond that range.

Putting everyone in the same hat isn't really fair in once sense, but on the other hand you have the choice of using the same equipment. I've been to tournaments where every "traditional" shooter was lumped into the same class--didn't matter if you were shooting an Olympic style recurve with carbon or a selfbow with rivercane. The guy with the self bow had the option of bringing a target style recurve.

I've also heard from one or two that had to take these tests that used a compound to qualify, then hunted with their trad bow.

I don't see the point in the tests myself.

Chad

Chad said what I was thinking, I don't agree with those types of test, because it doesn't simulate real life.

Heck that's what I would do if I had to.


BTW shooting at a standing still target doesn't mean squat to meas a realhunting situation test.

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.

The simple answer is that proficiency testing is bad.

One other thing you guys may consider is that these guys also need to remove some deer. The proficiency tests may not be just to make sure you are safe and the deer won't be needlessly harmed.Itsalsoto insure that they get people who will takethe maximum number of deer. Sounds all ethical and noble to hear about how someone will traipse through the woods and only takeshots they are sure they can handle (broadside at 10yds) and be quite content to go home empty handed. However from the land managers side, I would want someone who can throw lightning bolts at 40ydsand will be able to kill everything he comes across. The whole point of allowing hunts on those military camps is to reduce the deer population, theyare not createdto provide us with some spiritual hunting experience. If you get that as a side effect, fine, but bringing home the venison is what its about and if you can't do that as well or as far as someone else can why would they want to choose you over them?