Would you support a mandatory hunting test?

[spectr17]

IMHO every hunter in this country should have to pass a mandatory proficiency test to show they have at least some knowledge on how to track a wounded animal, when to shoot and marksmanship. When I lived in Germany I went with a Colonel one time to watch his hunting test over there. They actually have rolling targets and all kinds of tests to see how tuned in you are.

Having a hunter test here would cut our hunter numbers but it would weed out the goofs and dangerous hunters.

I see way to many people in the field who never had a mentor teach them how to hunt or shoot, they just buy a license and hit the hills and start emptying their gun when they see something move.

We have months of driver training, and refresher courses at many companies but once you get hunting license you almost never have to take any training. This will get worse as our society continues to become more city-fied and the new hunters coming in to our sport have less and less mentoring.

The only problem would be the logistics of taking the tests. There are already many places to take the Bowhunter Education course. Maybe add a dollar to the license fee to cover the test?

I wonder how many people would back a mandatory hunter test?

 

[easymoney]

Boy Jesse, that's going to fire up the old rantometer...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Having a hunter test here would cut our hunter numbers but it would weed out the goofs and dangerous hunters.[/b]

You are probably right, but then again what do I know, I'm from the "old school"...

 

[PIGIG]

i would support it 100%, being a instructor i see alot of people that do not know thier limit and after a class or 2 i get all kinds of thank you's.

this may be a burden on our old school hunters, but most of the old school hunters i teach are not the problem!. i do not think we could go back in time and certify everyone, but going forward is possable.

 

[spectr17]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

this may be a burden on our old school hunters, but most of the old school hunters i teach are not the problem!.[/b]

From what I've seen PIGIG it's the old school guys who are the problem. THey have bad habits and no one is going to teach them any different according to them. Newbies can be taught without the hostilty.

I remember seeing somewhere that most hunter accidents are in my age group, the 35 to 45 year olds. Why? They think they don't need hunter safety and many are unsafe when they handle bows or guns. It was a shock to see that but it makes sense.

I took hunter safety about 10 years ago even though I didn't need to and there were several things that had changed that I didn't know of. Maybe a refresher every 10 years so people can keep current?

 

[PIGIG]

You are 100% correct Jessie, but being 85% of our hunters are in that age group it poses a problem.
1. That old dog is not going to lie down unless you shoot him
2. They are also the majority of voters for this bill.
If we can just start with the new people maybe we can salvage the sport and the safety of the hunting public for our children. I can say I have been shot at and you probilty have also. I think it would be too hard to change it all at once. I do not what to get into a debate with you but I feel very strong about how much things have changed in my short life (yours even more).
All of us old people will soon enough either pass-out our pass-on, but if we can salvage just a little bit one bite at a time maybe we will be remembered like Jessie James some good and some bad but least to say everyone has their own view.
The DFG and the NBEF\IBEP as well as CBH have been going around with this issue for years now just for the bow hunters, and the only way we have found to address the same problem is to grand father all the old certified bow hunters in and focus on the new people with a follow up course every 10 years

 

[sdbowyer]

I'm ok with the mandatory hunters ed we have now in most states. To me that's enough and now i'd like to be left alone and hunt and learn on my own accord.

 

[easymoney]

Choo talkan' to mee...

 

[Franklin3]

If I might just draw a comparison that might shed a different light on the subject.
I noticed that every time I got in my car to drive somewhere i was quickly angered by the "inconsiderate", Rude and dangerous acts of "other drivers." I was quick to blow and my fuse got shorter. My wife and kids commented on more than one occasion. I was right so I felt justified. Then one evening my wife and I are driving to dinner and this guy just cuts me off. I ride his bumper into the parking lot. When I get out of my cqar I see the guy walking toward me. We get into a heated discussion and it rapidly escalates. Suddenly reality grips me. I have a brace on my neck having just had surgery to fuse two vertabrae only days before. My head is held onto my shoulders by 4 screws in a titanium plate. It's held up by the rigid brace and 12 layers of gauze tape. I manage to defuse the situation enough to escape with everything intact but I'm still pissed and plan to look the guy up when my neck heals in about a year. Two days later I get a speeding ticket and because my record is good I get to take an online traffic safety class to keep it off my record. it is during this class that I realize how far out of touch i was with modern driving conditrions. Even though I never had an accident and consider myself a good driver I was getting out of control and I became convinced that I was headed for something bad. By the end of the course my blood pressure had dropped and I had become a better driver and more considerate.
The point here is I thought I knew it all. I never would have taken that refresher course without being more or less forced to. In the end I was better for the experience I learned a lot and now I'm a lot more relaxed on the road.
So you ask me am I in favor of having a refresher course for hunter safety? I still say no! But I bet I would learn a lot if I did!

 

[scr83jp]

I'd guess the minimum requirements to hunt and fish should be a bachelor of science in wildlife,fisheries & range management plus 4 years of military service and lots of range time and be a hunter safety instructor.So how many would qualify besides me?

 

[luvthegsp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I'd guess the minimum requirements to hunt and fish should be a bachelor of science in wildlife,fisheries & range management plus 4 years of military service and lots of range time and be a hunter safety instructor.So how many would qualify besides me?[/b]

 

[lugnut]

seems to me it's already a big enough hassle the way it is now. if you want to cut down on the careless people in the woods; make stiffer punishements for those who shoot people while hunting. I can't speak for every state but i know 2 people that have been shot while turkey hunting in mississippi and the people that shot them were out hunting the next weekend. seems like if you really want to snuff somebody out---just take'm huntin with ya.

the other thing with this topic is that in other countries it's getting easier for the anti's to do away with hunting. just look at england. i think that by making hunting more restrictive we would be cutting our own throats.

 

[Franklin3]

It wasn't anti gunners or anti hunters that did away with hunting in England!
You have to first understand that there are rules.
Rule #1 all game belongs to the king.
Rule #2 You gots to get the Kings ok to kill his game, before you kill it!
Rule #3 The punishment for Violating rules 1 or 2 is death.


so sayeth the king!

We got a saying in our country and it goes a little something like this.

f@#k the king!

USA

 

[PIGIG]

D,D,D,