Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Shooting Test

Okay I’m bored and didn’t think this one all the way through before asking it. Disregard this post.

Why do we not have a shooting test too get a hunting license like in some European countries? Most anyone that hunts long enough will have an animal get away at some point. However a lot of people can’t hit the broadside of a barn and have no business shooting at anything alive until their marksmanship improves.
I think it would encourage good marksmanship. You cant shoot you don’t get a tag. That’s motivation for improving your shooting skills.
Too edit the reason why I say this is not because of more government intrusion in our Iives but because there are too many idiots that can’t even hit the vitals of a deer even at just 100 yards unless it’s luck. Then you see deer running around because of that with jaws shot off etc.

Why , just simply why ?

More government f~!cking with my life, more money out of my pocket ,thank you , NO !

exactly

How many steps from your ...."have no business shooting at anything alive " to " have no business owning a gun"?
You want to be held to a standard?
What's the standard and who sets it?
You want to be judged against my skills?
Hope you like ground chuck.

I think everyone agrees with your sentiment that we have a responsibility to be a proficient shot, just not that the government should have any say in it.

They already have a hunter safety requirement, which, to me, is stupid—at least the way it’s applied. I safely carried around, slept with, and shot thousand of rounds through all kinds of firearms in the Marines, which doesn’t satisfy the requirement. But the fact that I took and passed a hunter safety course, that I barely can remember, back in 1978 in southeastern Kansas, allows me to hunt.

I'll go out on a limb here and say, because we're not a European Country.

smokepole for the win

You can't legislate stupid.

Why not a grammar test before one is allowed to post on the internet? Maybe an IQ test prior to breeding?

Thank God.

That one might have legs

Yes. We absolutely need a government run proficiency data base.

Wtf

Ummm, no.

I've seen more than a few like right now that gear up
with the intent of shooting at deer from 400-500+
yards away that never shoot a single round of ammo
other than a 25 yard " sight in "
Then they get on the forums and ask where to hold
on a deer at long range with their particular setup
Some of the same ones get back on the forums
during deer season and post on the deer hunting
section " Anybody near XXXXXX county have a
blood trailing dog ? "

There's no way I would know of to cull the poor
hunters from the qualified ones.
And we've already fought 2 wars years ago to
get strict european rule gone from this country
Why would we want it back?

This thread is funny as hell..

I'd happily agree to attempting to legislate stupid, including grammar tests before public posting and IQ tests for breeding, but the problem always lies in the authority inherent in such structures and how they are inevitably co-opted by corrupt people and used for corrupt ends. That's why it never works. Because we surely could "legislate stupid" in a more indirect but also quite successful fashion: removal of the social safety net in all its forms.

The Europeans also have strict gun ownership regulations, licensing requirements, registration, regulation after regulation. Do you really want to go there??? I don't.

Never thought of it that way, but I can see it now. "The suspect was also an expert marksman with advanced training in the use of high-powered rifles......"

And pay a lot for the privilege of hunting, commonly under the direction of a hunt master.

Wyoming required one years back for bison license holders, I had to take it before my 1st bison hunt.
Watched a couple of folks struggle to get 3 shots inside a 4 inch circle at 50 yds. They had so many minutes to do it.
One person had not qualified before I left to go hunt.

I've seen people that were good shots completely fall apart in the presence of game. A shooting test isn't going to fix that.

It naturally would be administered by the government whose employees don't know their ass from a hole in the ground or can't find it with both hands kinda like dealing with TSA? Oh yeah can see it right , an agency full of new hires who were hired because their race, sex, ethnic background, IQ level was needed to fill some quota all deciding if you should be able to hunt. Never mind them actually hiring someone qualified to do their job that went out the door years ago. Don't know what the op is drinking or thinking but he needs to stop both.

Here's a question: does anyone know whether hunting is a right or a privilege. One answer answers the OP.

It depends. Montana still recognizes hunting and fishing for subsistence, but they will still ticket or arrest people and try to get them to cough up money.

Hunting was once a right, but as soon as we created government-run organizations that regulate it, it became a privilege granted by government.

Bingo.

YES

In those European countries, you also have to register your gun and quite likely the cost of that is too high for the common man. You likely also have to store it in a Ft Knox type vault, maybe not even at home.

Doesn't Canada require a marksmanship test? Or was it only a study I saw?

I don't remember if it was maybe a third of the tested could not shoot- or maybe it was only a third that could.

On paper of course - yeah, I used to know a competition shooter who couldn't hit game. Or rather he could, just not well - lots of cripples.... I avioided hunting with him after the second year.

A hunting license is a privilege, just like a drivers license.

Congress has the authority to manage and regulate wildlife. Almost 200 years ago SCOTUS said that Congress has implicitly delegated that authority to states, as long as in the opinion of Congress, the state(s) are managing the wildlife "properly". This doctrine has been upheld by the courts time and again ever since. If Congress has a good and specific reason it can step in and take over management of specific species or class of wildlife. The Migratory Bird Act and the amending Waterfowl Act are an example where the Feds directly oversee management. The MBA required treaties with other countries which is the sole authority of Congress, and required cooperation among states, The authority to manage migratory birds has been delegated to the USFWS.

The Endangered Species Act is another example. The Feds must list a specific species and that species must be considered at risk by those who Congress delegated it's authority to--in this case that's USFWS. The courts have been quite adamant about that. The courts have also upheld--multiple times--for species that are not specifically protected by the Feds, of the authority of states to regulate hunting seasons, population size, to discriminate between residents vs nonresidents, etc.

The bottom line is the states have the authority to manage the wildlife, Congress has the right to manage or delegate management to states or anybody else they feel like.

Sorry, but no.

Call me an arsehole, but I figure a few gut shot deer every year is an acceptable price for freedom.

That's not a rebuttal. And I give no fuucks how you feel.

About 1/2 the states have 'right to hunt/fish' amendments in their state constitutions.

It's a good topic for conversation until you run it off the rails HuntnShoot. Maybe the question is whether it is a right. Currently, most jurisdictions see it as a privilege. If it is a privilege then a firearms proficiency exam, like a driving test, may be appropriate or at the least, lawful. Both instruments - cars and guns - are potentially lethal if improperly used. I shall withhold my own view but am certainly curious how other forum members view the issue.

We are waaaay overregulated.

You can be a safe handler of firearms without being an accurate shot. It comes down to how much government oversight you want to put up with to ensure a "clean kill."

Lots of times when people float ideas like this, the rationale is "the animal deserves better."

Well sure, nobody wants to gut shoot a big game animal, and nobody wants to see an animal suffer unnecessarily. But keep it in context. We're shooting big game animals with rifles and trying to kill them. The animals don't "deserve" to suffer, but then again the animals don't "deserve" to be shot with a rifle in the first place.

But I understand the point of the shooting test is to ensure people can shoot passably well. The driving test does not test whether one can drive like a NASCAR race car drive but rather can one drive in accordance with the basic rules of the road. If we work within the confines of the argument that hunting is a privilege then does the State have the authority legally to define what constitutes acceptable shooting necessary for granting of the hunting license?

PERFECT ANSWER

I think it would be a good idea to add to youth hunter education classes. More fun than sitting in a class room.

All of us old farts are directly descended from Daniel Boone with innate hunting and shooting skills. We don't need no stinking tests.

I already was tested a number of times by the USMC and passed with an A+. Do I get a pass on this new crappy over-regulation of hunting?

But Boston work through the argument that hunting is a privilege granted by the state and whether the state can mandate a minimum shooting ability..

A state likely has the POWER, though you could argue both sides. But, that's why we have elections--so that politicians can compete for the affections of the electorate. In commy states, and in commy countries in places like Europe, they tend to have stupid rules like that because, even if 100% of the small number of hunters there vote against the gun/hunting-regulator politician he/she still will win. But in states where some people still work with their hands and like to shoot their own food, those types of dumb regulations tend to be less common.

There are lots of exceptional trap/skeet/sporting-clays shooters that can barely scratch down rooster pheasant outta the sky, they completely lose focus of all their shooting fundamentals. I know a few "crack-shots" on wild upland birds who aren't worth a hoot shooting any discipline of thrown clay pigeons.

agreed = may i add this we are a FREE NATION UNDER GOD

Good question.

Our in the city limits special draw archery deer hunts require a shooter proficiency test. South Dakota also requires, or they did, a class for those successful drawing an archery elk tag. I enjoyed the class, it wasn't difficult and I spent the time with like minded individuals.

FPNI

Men are born from the womb knowing everything there is know about firearms, firearms safety and shooting proficiency. It's in our DNA for chrissakes.

No need to have any training or testing whatsoever. Dare to question another man at the public range about his firearm safety protocol - they are free to do as they godddamn please!!!

I think that a basic safety and shooting proficiency assessment should be mandatory for everyone. Those that fail or refuse can pay a tax for their added risk.

Where are you from?

United States.

It's not a matter of how good of a shot you are. FAR more important is that you have the maturity to fully identify what you're shooting at. Proficiency in target identification would do more to enhance safety than shooting accuracy.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Take your profciency test and stick it up your butt. Go sell your gun if you have one. You are a disgrace to the hunting and shooting community.

But think of all the accidents that could be prevented! Think of the children! @Rock Chuck you make a very good point. That was implicit with my proposal. I dunno @atse, they did it for Obamacare. Why not for this since there is precedent from that? In fact I will go one step further- they must also own a gun at their household or face another tax. We can't be letting other people's irresponsibility cost responsible gun owners their rights. Rights come with responsibilities!

How many times did you vote for Biden?

OP kind of has the right spirit though. Shoot responsibly. This thread has me reminded of this ranch a buddy showed me- it's in Mexico, hosts trophy Sonoran mulies and has a slew of other game. Rates were pretty cheap too (relatively) I think. Their rule is that if you shoot a deer and the guide witnesses it, whether you recover it or not, that is your tag.
I also remember that the disrespect of game by taking [bleep] shots is a recurring complaint on Randy Selby's videos ("The Real Gunsmith"). Why not have something like the Mexico ranch where game is scarce. Cull hunts are a different matter- those can be [bleep] shots all day long. It's just my opinion on the matter.

Yep.

Bullsh*t.

So, if hunting is a privilege, like driving, is anyone going to tackle the question of whether the state can set a standard for shooting proficiency necessary for the granting of a license? We. An then discuss hunting as a right under the law.

Testing shooting proficiency doesn’t test common sense or the ability to perform under stress. Much wounded game is due to shooting at running game and trying to shoot through brush, and only experience and restraint can fix that. I haven’t seen any crippled deer or found any carcasses on the WMA I hunt in years. Compared to the losses of badly hit game birds of all sorts, I believe big game losses are pretty low.

Based on conversations with people I know, and ones I talk to in the woods, most folks are pretty conscientious about their shooting, and try to make the best of their opportunities. I have zero faith in the ability of any government agency to run any such testing program effectively and fairly. It would just create opportunities for the enemies of hunting to harass us. We already have sufficient motivation to become skilled shooters as it stands: self interest, personal ethics, and peer pressure.

But getting more common by the year—sadly.

No real takers. Fine. How about someone present their view that hunting is a right.

It is likely a matter of expense. How many licensed hunters in the USA? 35,000,000? How long would it take to get all of them to the range? What range? Who would run the range? How would the skill of shooting a still target in a controlled range environment transfer to the woods/field?

I'd say it would be easy to make an argument against it from a simple cost/benefit standpoint.

I told you that the states have the power. They just won't do it if the state legislators and governor believe it will cost them elections.

The 10th Amendment says that all power not given by the federal Constitution to the federal government goes to the states. The Constitution puts a number of restrictions on what the states can and cannot do, such as in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. There is no constitutional provision that says that hunting is an individual right. Of course, there also is nothing in the Constitution providing an individual a right to "privacy," but the Supreme Court, in the most shamelessly result-oriented manner, has read that INTO the Constitution.

While the concept of proving shooting proficiency seems to make sense at some level, there is absolutely no chance it could be administered properly. In many jurisdictions, hunter training is necessary for young hunters to get their first license and some level of marksmanship training is usually included and this should be sufficient. Ultimately, it is enough to simply encourage all hunters to work at being proficient. I think most people want to be. GD

The 4th Amendment deals with privacy rights most clearly.

It protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures …” It protects specific forms of privacy. But they specifically enumerated which subcategories of privacy it protects. If they had intended to protect all forms of privacy, it simply would have said “right of the people to privacy,” not “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures …”

Yes, I can read it. Have you looked at the line of cases on this topic from the Supreme Court? It is interesting reading. But privacy is off topic. At issue now.is whether hunting is a right? While not recognized in the Constitution as.such, individual states have considered the matter. The question is what makes it a right beyond a legislative say so?

Yes.




Nothing.

I think we should go ahead and have the government view/test/approve hunter accuracy, and if the hunter fails, the government won's issue a hunting license and takes the gun(s).
(and put a tracking device on the failed marksman)

Your BS meter is broken Smokey. You should have been able to tell from the first part of my post (which you did not quote to give full context) that I was BS-ing:

"Men are born from the womb kowing everything there is know about firearms, firearms safety and shooting proficiency. It's in our DNA for chrissakes."

But public land is public owned no? If it is then don't we, as owners, have the right to use the resource, subject to reasonable management? If so, would not the game on public land be available for use by the owners?

So what's your point? And why bring "firearm safety protocol" into it? Like I said before it's possible to be a safe firearms handler and not pass a marksmanship test.

I recently saw on TV a Scottish stag hunt where the hunter is not even allowed to carry the rifle! The fricken' guide/PH/regulator carries the cased rifle and when the time is right allows you to hold your own property and take aim.


Screw Europe.

Everything aside...why would anyone want to encourage the government of any level to regulate anything more than it is today.

Hell...I spend my time trying to get rid of regulations. Freedom is a word I like above and beyond.

Winner.

Close the thread.