# What's the purpose?



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

There seems to be a lot of threads on here lately that attack others for their poor hunting choices... Words such as 'disgusted' 'outraged' and phrases such as 'beside myself' are thrown around when talking about people taking too long of shots and losing animals... Isn't stuff like this taboo? Of course they shouldn't lose that many animals, or teach their sons to be slob hunters. Do you really need to preach to the choir in such a manner and on such clear cut issues? What exactly is being accomplished? Is it possible that you are trying to vault yourself up amongst your forum peers? Most of this seems to me to be sanctimonious and superficial. However, I don't know what is in your heart and minds when you set out to bash other's methods of hunting on here. Of course there are mistakes made in the field by folks who either don't know any better or blatantly choose to compromise the sacred ethics that you all hold so dear, but what does coming on here and acting like you lose sleep over it do? 

This is just an observation of mine, and kind of a pet peeve. Perhaps I'll be flamed or accused of being guilty for taking offense to such threads, but I am honestly just not that impressed by self righteous hunters on the internet. So I will say something else that is not new to any of us... Don't air hunting's dirty laundry on the WORLD WIDE WEB!!! Bringing these stupid acts to the attention of the planet is arguably as ill advised as those that commit these acts in the first place.


----------



## Pudge (Nov 24, 2009)

Couldnt agree more!  :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well said Idiot. One of the best posts I have read on this forum in a LONG time.

Congrats on your successful elk hunt!


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

PETA and other animal rights and anti-hunting groups have publicly stated that they think archery hunting is vulnerable and they plan to attack. They are very effective, just look at the wolf re-introduction. We feed right into them airing our dirty laundry.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post Brian, but is hunting ethics really that "clear cut"? Fact is, this kind of crap needs to be addressed and talked about. It's the only way the offenders will realize the error in their ways and may be see things differently. Or not... I think HOW we talk about these issues is more important. Instead of bashing and name calling, try to bring an educational twist to your rant and say what you feel but offer some sound advice to help these people become more educated and hopefully in the end, less of a slob hunter. May be the "world wide web" isn't the place to do it, but things need to be discussed. Simply labeling them "taboo" and not talking about them wont make them go away. Your brother once told me that we can't preach ethics to anyone. All we can do is help promote ethics by setting a good example. Is letting these people continue with their stupidity without reading them the riot act once in a while setting a good example? Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away on it's own wont solve anything. We need to voice our outrage so that things can be done to correct, or at least curb, the problem. If we don't police ourselves, that only leaves the government to do it; and we DON'T want that!

In the end, there will always be slob hunters, and other hunters who hate them. After all, ones ethics can only be described by what you do when no one else is looking...


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Good post Brian, but is hunting ethics really that "clear cut"? Fact is, this kind of crap needs to be addressed and talked about. It's the only way the offenders will realize the error in their ways and may be see things differently. Or not... I think HOW we talk about these issues is more important. Instead of bashing and name calling, try to bring an educational twist to your rant and say what you feel but offer some sound advice to help these people become more educated and hopefully in the end, less of a slob hunter. May be the "world wide web" isn't the place to do it, but things need to be discussed. Simply labeling them "taboo" and not talking about them wont make them go away. Your brother once told me that we can't preach ethics to anyone. All we can do is help promote ethics by setting a good example. Is letting these people continue with their stupidity without reading them the riot act once in a while setting a good example? Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away on it's own wont solve anything. We need to voice our outrage so that things can be done to correct, or at least curb, the problem. If we don't police ourselves, that only leaves the government to do it; and we DON'T want that!
> 
> In the end, there will always be slob hunters, and other hunters who hate them. After all, ones ethics can only be described by what you do when no one else is looking...


+1 It does need to be addressed.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

We had a case on the opening weekend of the archery hunt where we felt some less than stellar hunting practices were taking place. In this case, we felt that what the hunters had done was not motivated by malice but rather a case of them not knowing any better. However, they did commit a crime and it indeed needed to be addressed, so we called the DNR and they educated the hunters with some tickets. I felt like that was a great way to police ourselves, by going to the people that we pay to take care of such matters.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Good point Brian, but how do we get the DNR to wright tickets for a guy that hits 3 elk and lets them get away because he's uneducated about the fine art of shot placement and tracking? Or the guy who has his broad heads in an uncovered quiver and is teaching his son to do the same? Clearly an "clear cut" examples of unethical behavior, but no laws to back it up. This is where we need to police ourselves. The game laws ARE clear cut, but the laws governing unethical behavior are a bit fuzzy.

I'm still in favor of mandatory bowhunter education and a shooting test before you can get a bow permit. This would solve a lot of these issues. There might even be some tags left over after the draw next time... :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is my take: Tex is right that we MUST not be silent when we see such action, BUT I think the action must be taken when we see it. If I see slob hunting, I call out the slob hunter, right then and there. I don't just shake my head and say nothing to the slob hunter(s) until I get home and on the internet. What does that accomplish? If the slob hunter isn't called out on the spot, he may not even be aware of being a slob hunter. The odds of the offending hunter reading the offenses on here is between slim and none. What does happen by 'airing our dirty laundry' on the WORLD WIDE WEB is give ammo to those who wish to end hunting and are looking for such fodder. 

IMHO, we are better served as hunters to address the issues when/where they happen. If illegal activity is witnessed, we MUST report immediately to the authorities. If it is just foolish actions, we should address the actions with boldness. Use methods that allow for teaching moments, if the offender(s) is a jerk about it, voice your views and walk away.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> I'm still in favor of mandatory bowhunter education and a shooting test before you can get a bow permit. This would solve a lot of these issues. There might even be some tags left over after the draw next time... :shock:


I disagree. Mandatory bow hunter education will accomplish NOTHING, except maybe add one more hoop for aspiring hunters to jump through. I am in favor of ENCOURAGED bow hunter education, however. If one is forced to become 'educated', they likely will not be any more 'educated' at the end of the course. I see it being like when the DWR mandated Dedicated Hunters attend at least on RAC each year. The overwhelming majority of these 'dedicated' hunters attended but did not participate, in fact many talked and distracted those there by choice. Now, maybe by having incentives to attend some sort of 'ethics' course, such as a bonus point, may have the desired effect, but forcing 'education' makes about as much sense as hitting your head against a brick wall. One must be willing to learn in order to learn, if one is forced to learn they will NOT learn a **** thing, but they will be a distraction to those who desire to learn. Instead, IMHO, we should be education our friends/family/ and ANY one we run across in the field doing dumb things.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

If a CWMU can set the rule, if you shoot it and don't find it you are done, then why not the state? That way if sum douche bag brags about it and keeps hunting then you can turn their butt in.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

OK, I am with you on some points...no more name calling, and a need to be careful when airing plain old "dirty laundry" on the WWW, but some points need a little refining. Yes, it is true the bad guys read and use the things we might say among ourselves against us, but I believe the forum is still a great place for interested parties to exchange views, and the fact that we are preaching to the choir is exactly the point. Forums, be they public like this one or private as sitting around a camp fire or semi-private as in a class room have always been the place to exchange ideas and info among the "choir". The choir then must present this knowledge to the congregation...the forum is where the choir learns, where new and better ideas are hatched. We are blessed to have this forum as a place to learn and argue our views. The different styles used by various members to present their views must be attenuated with an understanding that we come from a great diversity of backgrounds and generations. If some of us miss a point, lay into us, what the hell, a little passion never hurt a good argument. Just keep it up boys...and of course, ladies... and keep in mind, when you're on here, you probably really are among friends.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still in favor of mandatory bowhunter education and a shooting test before you can get a bow permit. This would solve a lot of these issues. There might even be some tags left over after the draw next time... :shock:
> ...


Every once in a while I find myself agreeing with you  Since coming back to Utah a short time ago I have hooked up with a young man that has been hunting only once before, and it was NOT a very enjoyable elk hunt for him. We went last year deer hunting in the northern zone. I paid for the tag, his license and the gas and food to get there. We never took an animal, but he sure had a great time, and we are going again this year. He made a few comments that I have heard many young novice or "uneducated" hunter make. I explained to him how things were and what is and isn't acceptable behavior in the hunting world. He took the words to heart and will be a great addition to our sport. I've also confronted slob hunters in the field as you mention, though I don't know what impact it may have had.

Yeah, it's tough to police our own ranks, and I do believe some sort of education should be offered to those who wish to partake in the sport. How well it works is another matter.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

I think the biggest problem, like others have said, is that we don't open our mouths when we see the idiot in the woods. We wait till we can just "vent" on the WWW. 
We need to start correcting people in the right way, without a big attitude that is going to cause a fight. If a guys has his broadheads uncovered, why not just tell him "man, you might think about covering them, if your son falls he could kill himself, that is a really big risk just to have to sharpen your broadheads 
more often.

If he gets mad about that he is a total maniac and who cares, he might end up re-thinking it and changing though. Getting on here and just fussing about it does nothing!! I think we all need to learn how to talk to others in the field that are being un-ethical or just plane stupid.

As for animals being lost after being shot, it is a shame but also a part of hunting. I'd also guess that 9 times out of 10 coyotes or some other predator is going to end up eating that animal, which means one less animal the predator is going to kill for a meal. You do EVERYTHING that you can do to prevent it, but it still can happen. I stopped shooting ducks past 30 yards because I hate crippling, I still lose a few every year and some are 20 yards over my head! It is going to happen.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

people need to be called out on unethical hunting practices plain and simple


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

Ethics are variable from person to person. We don't need any more stupid laws. 

I don't believe a guy should be bound by law to cover his broadheads anymore than he should be bound by law to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

The state can't possibly prosecute a guy for shooting and losing an animal unless you want every hunter who loses an animal prosecuted-and it happens to everyone. You can't make a law that says an individual must look for his wounded animal for 3 days, 4 hours, and ten minutes. It's rediculous to think you could.

How many of you ethics masters have ever volunteered at a NWTF Jakes event for kids, or a DU Greenwing event, or any other event sanctioned to teach youth about hunting?

There are lots of things we all can do to promote positive hunting skills besides sit here and piss & moan about others who may or may not even be telling the truth.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Renegade I agree 100%, laws are almost never the answere, citizen involvement is the answere. Lets do something about it instead of just ranting on the internet like a bunch of trolls. 
Make it a goal every year to teach an idiot while in the field! If that is not possible, I see no problem in venting on here!!


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

Teaching the young ones is the answer.

And what kind of dumb knuckleheaded moron runs around in the woods with broadheads uncovered? I've never even heard of any dummy doing that?


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Look, those of us who are of age that hunters safety is required had to take a shooting test. I believe if a person takes hunters safety with the purpose of being a bow hunter, they need to pass a bow shooting test. If a person takes H.S to be a rifle hunter then changes later in life to bow he / she should still need to pass the bow shooting test and have the stamp or what ever on the blue card in order to get a bow license.

I have a lot of respect for the guys who can go out and ethically kill a deer or elk with 1 arrow. However, when I myself was fresh out of Hunters Safety at the ripe old age of 12, I was playing next door with my friend when his father pulled up in the driveway after the archery elk hunt. We both rushed out to see if he had anything which he did not and to this day I remember him saying when asked if he saw any, " We stuck 3-4 but were unable to fine them." I'm a decent shot with a bow considering I have never really practiced with one but because of what he said and stories I continue to hear like that, I can not convince myself regardless of what ever stats are tossed my way that the average bow hunter can Harvest an animal with 1 arrow 100% of the time. I know that the first thing that will be pointed out is rifle hunters are just as much to blame for wounded animals but I can only speak for my experience. I have either missed all together or killed them where they stood on every animal Ive shot at.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Renegade said:


> And what kind of dumb knuckle headed moron runs around in the woods with broad heads uncovered? I've never even heard of any dummy doing that?


I had not either, until this viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28034

Well said Tex and Pro. How else does this young hunter being taught by his dad a practice that actually is illegal (must be covered when in transport) if not read on a forum or from a friend if their own mentor/father is not playing with the whole deck? Speaking up on the spot certainly is a good idea, but most people simply are not open to learning from some stranger about what is smart/ethical especially right in front of his son...It certainly can be done, but the average guy would simply discredit you once you are gone...

I think the last topic about how he found a recently killed bull that was not found can also be a lesson to us to just keep looking; you just don't know how close you are sometimes... His post was mainly for letting people know that he found one and if they shot one and did not find it, he could help them locate it.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

"I have either missed all together or killed them where they stood on every animal Ive shot at."

I have heard this so many times that I had to reply. A complete miss is the poorest of shots. A better shot is to hit the animal somewhere but maybe not a killing shot, actually probably not a killing shot as the kill zone is only a small percentage of the body. The next best shot is the kill zone. Anybody who completely misses could logically improve to a better shot but only wounding. Any miss could easily be a wound if the shot was more accurate.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> I have heard this so many times that I had to reply. A complete miss is the poorest of shots. A better shot is to hit the animal somewhere but maybe not a killing shot,


Couldn't DISagree more!

If I'm not gonna hit that animal in the vitals and kill it fast, I'd MUCH rather whiff completely! The last thing I want on my conscience is an R.B.I! And BTW, you can be the best shot in the world and still miss critters. Remember, you're shooting at a live animal. They can duck your string, take a step, you could hit a branch you didn't see and have your arrow deflected, etc, etc. Wanting to "just get an arrow in em" is the poorest of ethics. Make sure you can kill, or don't shoot!


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

You missed my point completely. I am saying that any miss with a bit of accuracy improvement could have been a wound-VERY BAD. Any misses, which we all have, could easily have been a wound. To say that we either kill or completely miss ignors the likelyhood of missing the vitals yet hitting the bulk of the animal that is not with in the clean, quick kill zone. If you are going to miss the kill zone, then it is nice to miss the animal totally but we can't control that.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Whew! Ya, that sounds way better! Ya had me worried for a minute there. :|


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

What is an RBI in archery terms? I can't figure it out.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

RBI = running buck injured


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> RBI = running buck injured


Running Bull Injured...

Running Buzzhead Injured... (doe, cow)

Running Bird Injured... (turkey, pheasant, etc, etc)

Running Bear Injured...

The list goes on...


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

****, I love Wayne county.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

This subject is a really hard one for me. I too agree 100% with the first post but how do we make this idea of unity and keeping the hard issues amongst ourselves really happen? We can do courses, teach our kids, coach friends, be a good example, but the hunting fraternity is like any other cross section of society in that we have people with problems from having a bad attitude to just being an all around bad person. We have in our ranks along with a lot of good folks alcoholics, drug addicts, grouches, know it alls, holier than thou's, law breakers, and people with every other kind of problem you can think of.

In all the years I have thought about this issue the best solution I can come up with is we need good solid representation that make it clear what our general principles are. This representation needs to be in our governments and in our celebrities. Your dollars and votes talk, make them count and think about who you support. There are going to be bad apples, there are going to be people with different varying degrees of ethics, and with the WWW we will never stop the in-fighting on ethics issues. But if you dig hard enough you will find that even the anti's have the very same issues. When we lose a battle it's to their representatives. I say fight fire with fire...be very conscious of where your dollars are going and who you are voting into office from a wildlife pespective. How many here ask where a candidate stands on wildlife issues before going to the ballot box? How many here make sure to support a product where those getting your money share your views say on wolves? I'm not casting stones....I too can do a better job. I'm just trying to look at this issue from a different angle.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

I am in favor of a shooting test. How is this NOT a great idea? Hunters Education requires a very simple rifle shoot. Bowhunters should have to prove they can hit 75% of their shots in a 6 inch spread from 30 yards . 

Killing an animal with an arrow requires more skill than a rifle and there is a greater chance of injuring the animal. If someone wants the right to be able to hunt with a bow they should at least have to take 15 minutes to pass a test.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

UtahMountainMan said:


> I am in favor of a shooting test. How is this NOT a great idea? Hunters Education requires a very simple rifle shoot. Bowhunters should have to prove they can hit 75% of their shots in a 6 inch spread from 30 yards .
> 
> Killing an animal with an arrow requires more skill than a rifle and there is a greater chance of injuring the animal. If someone wants the right to be able to hunt with a bow they should at least have to take 15 minutes to pass a test.


Honest questions:
1]What good will come from a shooting test? 
2]Does shooting an arrow at a target at a set distance relate to how one will shoot in the field when an animal goes into range?
3]How does such a test prevent a hunter from carrying mixed arrows in his quiver, having his broadheads exposed, holding high on a long shot, etc, etc? 
4]Is hitting a target 75% of the time at 30 yards really the standard we want?

*If I could only hit the vitals 75% of the time in a controlled situation I would have NO BUSINESS flinging an arrow at a live animal, according to MY ethics.*


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Great post. Some of the reason said on here is why I stopped post my hunts any more. because of all of the Bs that goes on here any more. This forum has gone down hill fast.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> UtahMountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > I am in favor of a shooting test. How is this NOT a great idea? Hunters Education requires a very simple rifle shoot. Bowhunters should have to prove they can hit 75% of their shots in a 6 inch spread from 30 yards .
> ...


I can answer all of your questions with one simple answer, maybe they don't know better. Kind of along what IWAB said with the hunters they came across, they just assumed they didn't know better, which is much more common than you think. There are many people that are completely oblivious to what is right and wrong. If there was a class that talked about what is a good or bad shot, the importance of same size and weighted arrows and broadheads, the importance of good shot placement, the ability to know how to track an animal, ect I GUARANTEE it would make a difference. Go take a trip to Carbon and Emery County or any other area with small towns and talk to some of those folks that hunt down there. They don't know otherwise, when you got parents teaching their kids the same unethical **** their dads taught them, how do you buck the trend. The problem with suggesting classes is the ones who don't necessarily need it will take it and the ones who need it won't take it. I agree with UtahMountainMan I don't know how it couldn't help.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

A shooting test would only help. Many of the irresponsible hunters would not TAKE or PASS the test so they could not therefore get a tag. If they dont have a tag they dont take stupid shots at animals.

We would have less hunters. 

We would have more accurate hunters. 

It would REQUIRE you to practice shooting. 

I personally know 4 or 5 hunters who buy archery deer and elk tags EVERY year and do not shoot until they take their bow out of the case fri night in camp the day before the hunt. They cant shoot 6 inch groupings at 30 yards that is why I suggested that be the test. It seems like if you practice that is a pretty reasonable barometer. 

If you dont practice you would not be able to get that kind of a grouping.

Make them take 10 shots from 30 yards and they have to get 7 (or 8 maybe) within a 6 inch spread.

If someone cant do this I do NOT want to share the woods with them in august and september but they would still have the right to rifle deer hunt. They just dont have the ability to shoot an arrow at a deer or elk.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

UtahMountainMan said:


> I am in favor of a shooting test. How is this NOT a great idea? Hunters Education requires a very simple rifle shoot. Bowhunters should have to prove they can hit 75% of their shots in a 6 inch spread from 30 yards .
> 
> Killing an animal with an arrow requires more skill than a rifle and there is a greater chance of injuring the animal. If someone wants the right to be able to hunt with a bow they should at least have to take 15 minutes to pass a test.


I think it's good idea and worth the time. I think just like with the rifle hunters, people will practice to ensure they can pass the test then put their bows away until opening morning every year. We all know that shooting a bow well is achieved through lots of repetition. Not saying it's not a good idea, just saying I don't know that it even comes close to solving the problem we are trying to solve by putting it into practice.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> UtahMountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > I am in favor of a shooting test. How is this NOT a great idea? Hunters Education requires a very simple rifle shoot. Bowhunters should have to prove they can hit 75% of their shots in a 6 inch spread from 30 yards .
> ...


But I have some comfort knowing at least at one point they could shoot well enough. There are guys out there hunting every year that couldn't pass this test that have been wounding animals for years.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

jahan said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > UtahMountainMan said:
> ...


I agree. Just sayin I think it's only a part of what needs to be done.

Honestly if I were king for a day I would take it to a whole new level. You would have to essentially go through a certification course and re-certify every year. The certification would include shooting, reviewing the kill zones on different animals, guest speakers from the industry, review equipment, and workshops where hunters have to mingle and discuss ethics issues with other hunters. First cert could take 40 and re-cert could take 16 hours.

That's just me though and may be over the top for some.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

More nanny state feel good nonsense! Why stop at 40 hours? Lets go for 1000 hours for good measure. :roll:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> More nanny state feel good nonsense! Why stop at 40 hours? Lets go for 1000 hours for good measure. :roll:


Ok it's easy to criticize....but let's hear your proposal. :idea: ??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot, I already offered my proposal. Maybe you should pay attention..... 

I suggested such training should be ENCOURAGED, but NOT required. Give incentives to take such courses like bonus points or a cheaper permit fee. 

I am a big proponent of individual accountability and individual activism. What I mean is: forcing people to 'learn' is an impossible task, one MUST be willing to learn in order to learn. Unless archers take it upon themselves, through peer pressure and other means, to improve their archery skills, it would be a waste of time/money/resources to implement such a program/mandate. The activism kicks in when we see actions that we deem as bad for the sport to SPEAK UP and not be so **** timid as to stay silent until we get home and suddenly find 'courage' once we get behind the computer. 

Another option is to get the archery programs in the schools up and running like they are in many other states. Teach future bow hunters the finer skills when they are young and we won't be trying to "teach old dogs new tricks". Become a mentor to a new/novice bow hunter is another viable option. 

I helped a complete stranger haul out a cow elk on the opening day, and I used the moment to teach him, his dad, his two brothers, his cousin, his nephew, and his friend how to track, how to quarter an elk out, and how to be prepared BEFORE you head 3 miles down a drainage. I could have walked away and let them try and figure out what to do, when NONE of them had the slightest clue, I could have stayed silent when two of them commented on how they had "flung several arrows" at the herd (which was in excess of 100 animals), I could have not giving them quartering bags, I could have not cinched a hind quarter and the backstraps/tenderloins to my back, but I saw many teaching opportunities as well as a way to keep the successful 18 year cow killer hooked on hunting. There are teaching moments for us EVERY year in the woods and at the archery range(s), we need to nut up and do our part to educate our fellow archers rather than demand someone else do it by FORCE.


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

I have to agree with Pro here. You can require all you want but it wont fix anything if you are not confronting the situation as it happens. 
I agree, The best way to correct this so that everyone wins is to help people understand ethics, safety, sportsmanship and to be responsible for themselves. Laws do not and can not solve problems like this.
I hear Hunter Safety thrown around and look at how many "people" are careless throwing lead. If the program in place is not solving problems for rifle hunting why would it work for bow hunting?
just my 2 cents!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jhunter said:


> I hear Hunter Safety thrown around and look at how many "people" are careless throwing lead. If the program in place is not solving problems for rifle hunting why would it work for bow hunting?
> just my 2 cents!


Your two cents buys a lot! :mrgreen:


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

So Pro, you are saying that those four guys that had the downed elk simply could not have learned those field dressing/packing methods anyplace other than the field? That these are things that can't be taught in a class room, that people can't be taught anything unless they want to learn, that the schools are complete failures except in the subjects that the kids want to attend? Is that what you are saying?..oh, wait a minute, you then turned around and suggested that these subjects should be taught in the schools. OK, I'll go along with that, but what about that kid that takes up hunting after he is out of school?..Any of those among us on this forum?

These basic hunting skills can and should be taught BEFORE ANY hunter is allowed in the field and it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this education can be handled by us fellow hunters on a "teach as you see it basis". Not that we shouldn't take the opportunity to help and guide other hunters when we can. I believe, as you, that a lesson learned in the field and taught by master hunters is probably better, but class room education can provide a good, solid foundation upon which these new and less educated hunters can use in their quest to become good, ethical woodsman and hunters.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Why does shooting a rabbit and squirrel target with a .22 at 12 years old make someone qualified to hunt big game with a rifle or muzzleloader? If you are going to require archers to take a class with shooting requirements then the same should be required for a rifle and muzzleloader hunters. I mean if you can't shoot a 3 inch group at 200 yards you shouldn't be allowed the mountain.

Later,
Griff


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> Why does shooting a rabbit and squirrel target with a .22 at 12 years old make someone qualified to hunt big game with a rifle or muzzleloader? If you are going to require archers to take a class with shooting requirements then the same should be required for a rifle and muzzleloader hunters. I mean if you can't shoot a 3 inch group at 200 yards you shouldn't be allowed the mountain.
> 
> Later,
> Griff


Gee Griff, shooting a .22 rifle at a target at age whatever is certainly not all that is taught in hunter safely class. BUT, at least it does give the instructor a moment to judge whether a student has at least some proficiency with a firearm. Unfortunately, it tells us absolutely nothing about his proficiency with a bow and arrow, yet we give this same person a license to carry and hunt with a very lethal weapon and he has never even been ask if he knows how to use it, or handle it safely...what's up with that?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Education is a great tool. Laws are there to keep us in check. Yet they are broken every day.

Do you speed while driving? Do you roll through stop signs? Do you signal every time you turn?

We are not perfect. Get over it.

Educating any type of hunting/hunter is a great thing and I for one think it should be done even for those of us who think we know everything and don't make mistakes.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> GRIFF said:
> 
> 
> > Why does shooting a rabbit and squirrel target with a .22 at 12 years old make someone qualified to hunt big game with a rifle or muzzleloader? If you are going to require archers to take a class with shooting requirements then the same should be required for a rifle and muzzleloader hunters. I mean if you can't shoot a 3 inch group at 200 yards you shouldn't be allowed the mountain.
> ...


Exactly, its not about shooting a .22 it about learning how to handle a firearm safely while carrying, loading, shooting, cleaning & storing. How much of this is taught the "proper way" to people prior to picking up a bow? I agree with those that have said being able to shoot a bow well enough to pass the test will prompt people to to practice in fear of not passing. I look at my 10yr old daughter who was so worried about passing the shooting test that she made me take her darn near every night for a week prior to taking the shooting test. Turns out she scored 26 out of 30.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I just fail to see that shooting a target with a scoped .22 equates to proficiency with an iron sighted muzzleloader. I also fail to see that shooting a .22 equates to proficiency with a .300 mag. I mean how many 12 year old kids want to sight in a .300 mag. I don't see how shooting a .22 at a stationary target qualifies someone to shoot a 12 gauge at birds.
Why single out archers? 

Later,
Griff


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Idaho requires a bowhunter education course before you can purchase a permit. I think UT should too. I also think every person who is going to carry any dangerous weapon to take animals should prove their proficiency before being allowed to proceed. I know from experience that had i been required to prove my abilities with a bow, i would have not lost the 2 animals that i did. 
I started bowhunting because all my friends were doing it. Did i practice? Hell yes. Did i practice enough or the right way? Hell no. I shot a paper target at 25 yards for 2 months and figured i was good to go. Pretty rude awakening when you miss or wound the first buck you shoot at and he is 15 yards. When you loose a second one, it is time to hang it up!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Another option is to get the archery programs in the schools up and running like they are in many other states. Teach future bow hunters the finer skills when they are young and we won't be trying to "teach old dogs new tricks". Become a mentor to a new/novice bow hunter is another viable option.


I couldn't agree more. This is Finn's big push, he's quite the proponent of NASP and it's actually coming to fruition thanks to people like him.

I like the word "encourage as well". Here's a bit explaining how these types of things are "encouraged" and how all of us can get involved, but it takes some "encouragement" and a deviation from the typical apathetic life that a good majority of us live.

http://bowhuntersofutah.net/


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> So Pro, you are saying that those four guys that had the downed elk simply could not have learned those field dressing/packing methods anyplace other than the field? I said, nor implied, no such thing. I am saying I was able to teach them a few things by opening my mouth and not just staying silent and/or walking away leaving them to their won demise. That these are things that can't be taught in a class room, that people can't be taught anything unless they want to learn, that the schools are complete failures except in the subjects that the kids want to attend? See above, hyperbole does not help your opinion be taken more seriously, so why use it? Ask yourself honestly if you learn better when you want to learn or when you are FORCED to learn. The saying; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." comes to mind. Is that what you are saying?..oh, wait a minute, you then turned around and suggested that these subjects should be taught in the schools. OK, I'll go along with that, but what about that kid that takes up hunting after he is out of school?..Any of those among us on this forum? The father of the kid who killed the bull is 48 years old and told me and wapiti67 he had been hunting elk for several years w/o success. If he hadn't taken the step to educate himself in that time period, how much would he gain by being force fed 'ethics' by an instructor?
> 
> These basic hunting skills can and should be taught BEFORE ANY hunter is allowed in the field and it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this education can be handled by us fellow hunters on a "teach as you see it basis". It is absolutely ludicrous to think one can be forced to learn a **** thing, and that all hunters will after attended such a course will be perfect hunters and only make 'ethical' decisions in the field. Not that we shouldn't take the opportunity to help and guide other hunters when we can. I believe, as you, that a lesson learned in the field and taught by master hunters is probably better, but class room education can provide a good, solid foundation upon which these new and less educated hunters can use in their quest to become good, ethical woodsman and hunters. I agree, but the odds of the student learning go way up when the student is in class by choice not by force.


Tye, I know FINN has been actively pushing the NASP program. I started to push it when my wife's health took a turn and forced me to focus on family at this time. I hope BOU gets this off the ground and flourishing. 8)


----------



## Duckholla (Sep 24, 2007)

My opinion on this is very simple: A wise man once told me that rules/laws etc are for people who can't understand principles. If you understand the principle, you don't need a law to guide your course. 

Example: Red means stop. It's the law, and there isn't any grey area here. However, the principle says, "if you go on red, you'll run into another vehicle and you could be injured or killed, and the law is for your own protection." 

I think that understanding ethics, means understanding the principles behind the laws, and the unwritten laws/rules that we've been discussing here. 

Pro - I understand what you are saying, and you have a valid point, however, I don't think it's fair to say that when somebody is forced to learn that they won't learn. I remember being a young man, and giving my Father my word that I would mow the lawn before he got home from work, and I didn't follow through. When my Father got home, at 2:30AM and saw that I had not followed through, he woke me from my bed and made me mow the lawn at 2:30 in the morning. I was FORCED to follow through, and I hated it then, but I LEARNED that giving my word is an important lesson that I needed to embrace. Hell, I was forced to go trough 13 years of public schooling...and I learned. That said, however, when I CHOSE to go on and get my BA...I learned better. So you have a point...but some people can and will learn when required to do so. Even if a course holds 20 people, who were FORCED to attend, and only ONE walks away having embrased the ethics taught...that's ONE MORE PERSON who didn't hold those ethics/principles dear to them, and put those ethics in place. Pro, I think what you have outlined with your situation and you teaching those boys how to quarter their elk etc is an IDEAL situation, and we should ALL do the same given a similar situation. However, that type of situation won't happen for everybody. 

My bottom line: If a teaching opporunity can be taken advantage of, it should, no matter the teaching environment....even if its on the WWW.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot, I already offered my proposal. Maybe you should pay attention.....
> 
> I suggested such training should be ENCOURAGED, but NOT required. Give incentives to take such courses like bonus points or a cheaper permit fee.
> 
> ...


My apologies I re-read your posts before I posed the question and all I really got out of them was you were advocating help others in the field....not a real proposal.

The way I see it we are basically saying the same thing only you are uncomfortable with the "mandate" part. No sense in arguing that point but I will say IMO you wouldn't be mandated, you only have to do it if you want an archery tag and in my view makes it voluntary.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot, I already offered my proposal. Maybe you should pay attention.....
> 
> I suggested such training should be ENCOURAGED, but NOT required. Give incentives to take such courses like bonus points or a cheaper permit fee. So, forcing people to attend won't work, but bribing them will? Yeah, your right, people that are brided to attend sure are there because they "want to learn" more than those that are "forced to attend". I can see it now, "all right students, those among you that have been forced to attend, take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming!"
> 
> ...


...nice little story, hopefully it will inspire others to do similar deeds when they have the chance


----------

