Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Shooting Test

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?