Marksmenship qualification test?

[1_pointer]

In the most recent issue of Bugle van Zwoll illustrates the marksmenship test one must pass to hunt in many European countries. You must place nine shots within the kill area of a lifesize moose target, all offhand with no aiming points on the target. Three are shot at a still target and six at a moving target.

Do you think something of this ilk would be good as a qualifier in the US to be able to hunt?

**My opinion**
I feel this would be great and would support the rule wholeheartedly. No, it is not going to keep people from making bad shots in the field. But, I feel the practice neccessary to pass the test would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think it would have to be every year, but something like once every three years. I think this would go along way in promoting the ethics of the sport and hopefully lead to safer/better hunting. I guess some would agrue that it is selective, but hunting is a priviledge just like driving and either can be taken away.

What would is your take on the subject?

 

[brokfut]

Did that artical also list all of the other requirements for a license to exercise your privilage to hunt.
I'm not an expert on the european hunting situation but I have a feeling that it is extreemly restrictive in who can even qualify to participate in the sport.

Does anybody know?

 

[Bullhound]

1-Pointer,

I read the article and happen to agree with the comments in it. I brought this topic up before on another site, with regards to bowhunting, and had differing responses. Most seemed to like the idea but there were a few that used the "I can't hit paper, but watch out if you're a real big animal in the timber" excuse.

 

[Lostagain]

Yea, make it really, really restrictive so only IT, buzz and moosie qualify get to be in the draw for the one license.

 

[Moosie]

I think it's Fetching AWSOME !! I think Especially in a Bow situation.... Put up or Shut up, Walk the Talk, Or don't hunt !!

PERIOD !!!! Slackers need not Apply !!!!

Now, that being said, I'm not talking about a plate out at 500 YArds now, but something that an below Average Brush shooter, buy a bow or gun and Head to the hills type guy can't pass.... I'm guessing I don't know what reasonable is...

 

[Bullhound]

Moosie,

I brought this up and spoke to two F&G commissioners about it. Both of those guys said they'd be in favor of it because it would show that we're willing to police ourselves a bit.

When I brought it up I used an example of PASSING VS NOT PASSING. My example was to throw 5 arrows at a known yardage of 20-25 yards. You would need to put at least 4 out of five arrows inside a 6 or 8 inch kill zone. This gives a person a chance to have a flyer so to speak. I, myself feel that if I can't keep all arrows inside of something this generous, I should stick with golf, bowling, or a rifle.

 

[JB]

its a total waste of time and money.

shooting at paper is not much of a test....take the people who passed such a test and re-test them with something that has a heart-beat and see how many pass ...my guess would be 1 out of 10......so whats the point of this test?.......JB

 

[1_pointer]

JB- That is very true. But, wouldn't the added amount of practice needed to pass the test improve the overall marksmenship of the hunters? PH's in Africa have to pass a test with time limits. True it's only paper, but if you're going their your life may be in their hands.

I think the projection of policing ourselves would be great and very true.

LA- Where does a marksmanship test limit the number of tags available? You must pass a marksmanship test to pass hunter's ed.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-03-2003 16:52: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[JB]

"wouldn't the added amount of practice needed to pass the test improve the overall marksmenship of the hunters?"

i dont think it would help......unless they are going to be out hunting paper.

this type of training doesnt really touch the problem....new hunters (and old) need training on how to controll their selves when in kill mode........i have taken kids to hunter saftey courses for the last several years....in these classes they teach them proper gun handling and such.....thats what they need to learn first but then they need to know how to make a clean shot while their heart is friggin pounding out their chest....this propossed idea doesnt touch on that either.......maybe you should recomend a 100 yrd dash before the shoot to get their heart rate up to where it would be if they were shooting at an animal

......JB

 

[Bullhound]

JB,

I know what you're talking about and will not even attempt to say that this type of testing will make a person ready for all hunting situations. What it does is makes everybody that wants to hunt at least have a frigin clue. I'd like to see a tougher test myself. Your example of doing a 100 yard dash and then needing to place your sticks is a good one, and would create more the type of feeling you have when drawing a bow on the real thing. Problem is, if you get to out of hand, everybody will be turned off and decide that you are discriminating against them.

Read what I said earlier about the comments I got when I brought this up elsewhere. I had numerous guys claiming that any test that included shooting paper would not be fair to them because they couldn't hit paper. These same guys said that "by golly though, throw in a steep mountain and a buglin bull, and I never miss!".........
no really, that's what they said............

 

[Nut]

So I guess if we had this rule in effect then the licenses would have to increase in order to pay for the testing?

Then we could eliminate the youth from being able to hunt because they cant hit a moving target in the ring because they are taught to wait until they get a clear shot at a still critter?

Hey nobody excluded the moving targets yet from the test. But having 66% of the test at moving targets for a BIG Game animal test I think is totally screwed up.

If it for upland game critters then you have to go to a trap/skeet range to qualify?

Just how many tests would eventually be required? If a guys hunts with a rifle will he just be limited to the rifle he took the test with? The bow he tested with? The shotgun and same gauge he tested with?
Then there is a muzzleloader LOL (Fire and get it reloaded in 45 seconds to pass)

All I would see be accomplished would be that there would just be a few people left that can afford the tests and license costs . More restrictions under government control to screw with.

Less people to hunt with extremely higher costs to fund because the others have quit.


I guess we should make all fisherman also be able to cast in a certain spot to get a fisdhing license also?

 

[Bullhound]

I'll just make one more comment and then I've got to get my kid to wrestling.

There would be, or could be, issues or draw backs to any kind of testing. No, I don't think any test should be at moving targets. We teach newbies and young to stay away from moving shots. On paying for it, maybe local clubs could help out in donating time. Maybe the hunter education classes could finish with passing the test. Hell, I don't know.

But I do know one thing. A big group of people that scream about needing to pass a test or prove they can at least handle their weapon properly are just the folks that don't or can't shoot worth a crap cause they either don't care, or just haven't spent the time to get profficient with their weapon of choice. And yes, I would like to see people pass a test with any weapon they plan to hunt with be it rifle or bow.

down in flames i go................................................................

 

[JB]

"by golly though, throw in a steep mountain and a buglin bull, and I never miss!".........
how did you refrain from busting a gut,laughing in their face?....been quite a long time since i hunted the pumpkin patch, i forgot how stupid some of those guys are.


i dont see how it could be practical....a one time test....ok, the same guy will practice his ass off to pass the test and then never practice again.(still cant hit a live animal anywhere but the gut or the hoof, if he gets lucky)


a yearly test......your gonna piss some people off with that idea.

some military land hunts require you pass a markmenship test to hunt on their property...i guess it does eliminate sum of the nimrods.


what about out-of-staters?....what about fat asses who cant run a 100 yrds let alone drag a deer?....next we should have a field dressing test, we could get dead dogs from the pound for that test.

...just knocking around sum idea's.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-03-2003 18:11: Message edited by: JB ]</font>

 

[Calif. Hunter]

...and the next thing will be you have to shoot 'em with a Lazzeroni....

that way you can miss them further away...

 

[Deerslayer]

I gotta ask ya, Moosie, why for archery more than rifle? I can wager rather safely that more critters are wounded and crippled each year with a rifle than a bow.

Here is the reason I don't like the whole "testing" idea. I have a grandfather that lives to hunt. That poor ol' bird couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, and it would be a safe bet that he last killed an animal around 1960

.....but he enjoys the hell out of it none the less. It would simply kill him not to be able to take to the field each year. We would certainly lose something when we reduced our sport to just our "best marksmen"......better step back and look at this one real hard....you'll be 80 one day.....eye hand coordination may not be what it once was.....do you want to be denied your annual pilgrimage to the hills in pursuit of biggame because your not the shot you once were?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-04-2003 09:01: Message edited by: Deerslayer ]</font>

 

[MEATHEAD]

Excellent thought Deerslayer,we all will be old one day. And I don't think {hell I know I can't} I could run a 100 yds then shoot my bow.

 

[Washington Hunter]

First of all, I don't feel there would be a need to test shooting skills at a moving target because in general running shots should not be taken anyway. Second, it should be a one-time thing, not annually or every other year, or whatever. I think once would be enough. And you shouldn't even be required to shoot offhand. It should be from any position you want, just like it would be if you were hunting. How does hunter ed. work nowdays? Don't they require them to shoot? I'd say that would be good enough. And if you don't take hunters ed. and want to get into hunting at an older age, without doing the hunter ed. training, that you then be required to pass the same test they do in hunters ed. They would have to keep it simple or nobody would be in favor doing anything at all.

 

[JB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
...and the next thing will be you have to shoot 'em with a Lazzeroni....

that way you can miss them further away...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Shoot one lazzeroni and im labled for life.


could be worse, you know how they get labled in cali,dont ya

 

[Ithaca 37]

We get guys at the trap & skeet range all the time who can't hit clay pigeons but claim they never miss a pheasant or duck! They have a million excuses for missing targets.

But I've hunted with enough great target shooters to know that they are always the best shots in the field, too. Rifle or shotgun.

I have no objection to passing a test once, but when I'm old and shaky I still want to carry my gun.

 

[brokfut]

The older I get the more causious I get. I take fewer chances when it comes to shooting. I have developed a greater respect for the animals that I hunt. I pass up a LOT more shots then I did when I was younger. I can't run, don't walk so good and I am slow to climb the hills. I don't want to drag an animal out of a canyon bottom any more. My shots are very deliberate and taken with certanty that it is the right one. I've already been tested in some of the harshest jungle hunting conditions known to man. Don't challenge my right to participate in my sport.