There have been a few threads about what the memberships opinion is of the "Proper Or Adequate" caliber of rifle to use for hunting white tail deer.

The discussions have ranged from "Elephants with BB Guns" to some believing that Elmer Keith was only partially right, and everything should be shot with nothing smaller than 30 calibers using 200 grain bullets at a minimum velocity of 4500 fps..

The answer should lie somewhere inbetween, as out of 135 votes cast in the poll, show that 39% of those voting feel that the 224's are inadequate, while 35% feel that the 243/6mm group is inadequate.

Of the remaining 26%, I am gonna say that I believe the the 16% that feel that only the 20 cal. & 17 cal. are inadequate, probably actually believe in that concept, and that the 10% that voted that the 264 diameter and larger calibers are inadequate are simply F.O.S..

One point was brought up on one of the threads, that me made me stop and think for a minute, dealt more with hunter proficiency/ability than caliber sizes.

Does anyone feel that instead of restricting the caliber size allowed for hunting white tails, each state game department rework their regulations, so that before a hunter is issued a license, they have to take and pass a proficiency test.

It would be something similar to a drivers test.

Other than staffing considerations, and that the prospective hunters would have to go to a Game dept. approved range for the shooting part of the test, does anyone feel that something like this would help the situation of reducing the amount of hunting accidents and the loss of wounded game, or that it would have a negative effect and force more people out of the sport.

I am basically neutral on this, as I can see both the benefits and drawbacks.

In this state,if you want to get a drivers license,without going through a school,it costs you at least $500 for the class.I doubt that a hunting license class would be any less.

I think it is every hunter's responsibility to be able to put the bullet where it belongs.

Do I believe in mandatory testing, absolutely not. Just what we need, more government intervention/ red tape BS to jump through.

Did I make my son go through my own personal mandatory testing before he was allowed to hunt? Absolutely! Should every parent/mentor? Absolutely!

If I did not feel he was ready and could not put the bullet where it belonged, he would not have hunted this past fall.

He is 10 and he stated this year that the best part of hunting was being with Dad/Grandpa and hunting. The killing was not the most important part, pretty profound for a 10 year old kid.

Would profiency testing help? I think it would, but it would be a waste of resources, and just create another layer bureaucracy within the game dept's.

The last thing I want is the government having more involvement in the shooting sports.

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:

Did I make my son go through my own personal mandatory testing before he was allowed to hunt? Absolutely! Should every parent/mentor? Absolutely!

+1, if we do our job no need for the government to get involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
The last thing I want is the government having more involvement in the shooting sports.

My thoughts, too. No more regulations, no more barriers to recruitment.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
The last thing I want is the government having more involvement in the shooting sports.

+1. However, every hunter, especially those of us in a position to teach other hunters, needs to master their rifle and teach others to do the same.

quote:

they have to take and pass a proficiency test.

Then we could all become Jaegermeister's!

Crazyhorse, I do appreciate your reflective thoughts on issues such as this. But I will say that the problem with this is causing another barrier to a sport where we already have recruitment issues that, IMO, are largely a result of the way our society is raising our children.

---More X-box or whatever, and less outside activities. Everybody gets a trophy in little league, instead of respecting and honoring the actual Winner, this word apparnetly scares a lot of the parents/children of today--implying that somebody else was a loser I guess...chin up a bit, GEEZ.

More government involvement is almost always a negative, and I can tell you that many Game and Fish state departments can't even make reasonable decisions about game and fish issues! We have a decent department in Georgia, but some of the platforms that are proposed by them are ridiculous. Having them administrate a program that is a 'skills' examination would be a disaster IMO, and be very difficult to administrate for anyone. The lack of range situations etc. would make this very difficult on just that one point.

I do think that during the Hunter Education part of a young hunters evolution, it would be very appropriate to put more emphasis on proper shot placement, and the ABC's of firing a rifle properly, but that would be a small augmentation to these courses, and something that is already a part of the process, and something a new hunters mentor should be addressing as well.

Hold on, look back, I said I was neutral on this, I just asked the question.

I can see the drawbacks and the advantages to such a program, it really makes me no difference, I live and hunt in Texas for the most part, so as long as I don't owe child support, have a valid drivers license, and the $$$$ to pay for it, I can go anywhere in the state and buy my hunting license.

I really see nothing wrong with that.

But, since you mentioned Hunter Ed, and since I am a formwer hunter Ed Instructor, I do also see the advantages to having a check system in place whereby younger hunters, possibly ones that did not grow up with a Hunting Influence in their immediate sphere of life, can help.

Would I support a system whereby a hunter had to go thru a 30 minute or so "Obstacle Course", identifying a "Legal Animal from a Non Legal One", being able to pass a test of say 25 questions concerning common game laws, and firing 3 to 5 shots from various stations to prove their proficiency with their rifle or bow, I don't know.

I can see advantages and disadvantages, and really can't see where one out weighs the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


I can see advantages and disadvantages, and really can't see where one out weighs the other.

how about one costs taxpayers probably millions,certainly hundreds of thousand of dollars, to set up,implement and test thousands of people, and the other one doesnt cost anything.
Why not just say " use at least 243(for instance) diameter centerfire?"

I teach Hunter Education here in Utah. The students are required to pass a written test, a shooting test, and an "attitude" test. If I feel the student, for any reason, would not be a responsible hunter, I can fail them. The biggest obstacle for the shooters, especially very young students, is the shooting test. They shoot 30 shots at rabbit and squirrel targets at 50 ft. with a .22. They shoot 10 shots each prone, sitting or kneeling, and offhand. To pass, they must get 15 shots within the kill zone.

To me, this is a very minimal shooting requirement before they shoot at a live animal. Sometimes I have to work with students for weeks and give the shooting test 5 or 6 times before they pass. The law states the score they must make - it does not say that I can not work with them until they pass. One of the biggest obstacles is parents who don't really know how to shoot and will not help their kids work with what I try to teach them. I shot smallbore rifle in competition all through high school and college and highpower later in the Army and as a civilian, so I know the basics for each position and the overall principle of shooting. That makes me really disappointed in the shooting abilities of most Americans.

This is my only chance to try to teach them shooting skills that they can use all their life. I do the best I can and hope that they will continue to learn.

The Hunter Education program has significantly reduce hunting accidents here in Utah. In the 1950s, before the requirement was put in place, as many as 50 people a year (I think the high year was 58 fatalaties) were killed within Utah in hunting accidents each year. Now there is a fatality about 1 year in 3. There are still far too many animals wounded.

Well, you're talking carrot and stick here, how about just the carrot. When I talk to landowners one thing I hear is that they have no way of knowing if someone they grant permisssion to is a compedent shooter or a complete idiot.

IF a private, NGO, would offer a serious certification program with the reward being access to property that non-certified shooter could not hunt the idea might sell.

I doubt that the program would be overwhelmed with hunters wanting to get certified, most people are just not that serious about hunting. It would open up doors to those that where serious and probably do a bit to upgrade the hunter's image in the eyes of the general public.

I'm sure this idea has come up before sooo, I'm guessing it didn't get too far, oh well...

I agree with Dale on this. I went through the New Mexico Hunter's Ed system. It was excellent - 18 hours of class room instruction, a written test and a proficiency test. I think that should be the minimum required to obtain a hunting license.

I would further suggest that the hunter-to-be pay at least $100 to $200 to take the classes. Hunting is a privilege, not a right in our country.

The world and our country has changed. We no longer walk out the back door and go hunting or fishing. It is a recreational activity, not a survival activity. As our society continues to urbanize, less and less access to land and the chance to hunt will slowly shrink our recreation. We are on an irreversible path headed in that direction due to population growth, social changes in attitudes toward hunting and the type of government we are choosing for ourselves. I would suspect that in 100 years, recreational sport hunting by the masses will be gone.

As a further suggestion, I think that resident hunting license costs are too low in most states. I have been a resident in Texas, OK, NM, Wyoming and Colorado. The licensing system is a bit complicated but is too cheap for what we get in return. (Let the howling begin!)

I see this the same as a car driver's license. You must prove you know what you are doing before being turned loose in the field with a gun or bow.

As for demonstrated proficiency for gun ownership... that is another argument.

quote:

how about one costs taxpayers probably millions,certainly hundreds of thousand of dollars, to set up,implement and test thousands of people, and the other one doesnt cost anything.
Why not just say " use at least 243(for instance) diameter centerfire?"

Simply because I do not see it that way.

If such a system was instituted, it would simply be thru a change from the way things are done now to a system where some form of validation process was put in place.

I really don't care one way or the other, but it could be done with minimal cost, if any cost to tax payers.

Here in Texas, it would mean instead of going to a Wally World or the local Quick Mart or whatever, hunters would have to go to a certified license vending agent.

There are many ways it could be done, such as an interactive video game type set up, and the test could be done just like voting is done.

This ain't "Rocket Science", and I don't necessarily believe that it is something that would help.

Conversely, I do not know that it would hurt either.

With modern computer technology, developing the programs and setting up the tests would not be that difficult.

I do not see something like this ever happening, but one thing I do know for a fact, and it was mentioned by another responder, "Hunting Is A Priveledge, Not A Right".

That priveledge can be taken away from us, many people are wanting to do just that.

If having to undergo some type of qualifaction test, means that I can continue to have the priveldge of being able to hunt, whether I like it or not, I would prefer that to the alternative of not being able to hunt.

quote:

Hunting is a privilege, not a right in our country.

Where did you come up with that??????

You show me anywhere that says hunting is a right.

There is NOTHING ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HUNT.

Now you have opened your mouth, PROVE that Hunting is a right.

quote:

You show me anywhere that says hunting is a right.

There is NOTHING ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HUNT.

Now you have opened your mouth, PROVE that Hunting is a right.

Man take a deep breath! What's with all the capitol letters?????

How about you prove that hunting is not a right?

I am not one of those people that think the Government gives me rights, I believe that "We the People" give Government rights.

Now I do understand that to hunt I have to purchase a license and obey the laws and rules, but.....as long as I do this NO ONE can stop me from hunting.

I do know that I have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's kinda like breathing.....as long as I obey the rules I get to keep breathing, but if I break the rules the Government can stop me from breathing.

Lighten up guy! Don't be so confrontational, what's the point????

Don't worry about it fellas, the government is on the move right now.
We have the right to keep and bear arms but the government is going to regulate and tax our ammo, even hand loads so that we will not be able to shoot our guns unless we are rich.
After they are done and it costs $40 a shot, anyone that hunts will have to become expert on a video game because there will be no practice ammo.
Do some research, back door gun control is coming FAST and we will be helpless against a dictator.
One that thinks he will be king has already been elected. The gestapo will soon be at our doors! The anti-gun crowd is jumping for joy.

The point is, hunting is not now nor ever has been since this country was founded an actual right.

As long as you buy a hunting license you are allowed to hunt, but the goverment can if they choose, stop selling hunting and fishing license, and your priveldge to hunt or fish is gone away.

If I came across as confrontational, my apologies, but I have seen and heard that "Hunting Is A Right" comment too many times, and many times people try to tie it in with the 2nd. Ammendment.

But, from your post, you get the actual concept, that you have the right to hunt as long as you follow the rules set forth by the state or country you are hunting in.

Many folks try to maintain that they have the right to hunt, regardless of the rules and regulations of any goverment, poachers usually fall into that group.

Again, my apologies for being too forceful in my original response to you.

Have A Happy New Year.

To me it is self-evident that hunting is a right......and it says so in the Constitution in BOR 9 and 10, specifically....

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

End quoted text:

Everyone slow down here...read again what Dale & HunterMontant posted:

quote:

Originally posted by Dale:

This is my only chance to try to teach them shooting skills that they can use all their life. I do the best I can and hope that they will continue to learn.

The Hunter Education program has significantly reduce hunting accidents here in Utah. In the 1950s, before the requirement was put in place, as many as 50 people a year (I think the high year was 58 fatalaties) were killed within Utah in hunting accidents each year. Now there is a fatality about 1 year in 3. There are still far too many animals wounded.

quote:

Originally posted by HunterMontana:
Well, you're talking carrot and stick here, how about just the carrot. When I talk to landowners one thing I hear is that they have no way of knowing if someone they grant permisssion to is a compedent shooter or a complete idiot.

IF a private, NGO, would offer a serious certification program with the reward being access to property that non-certified shooter could not hunt the idea might sell.

I doubt that the program would be overwhelmed with hunters wanting to get certified, most people are just not that serious about hunting. It would open up doors to those that where serious and probably do a bit to upgrade the hunter's image in the eyes of the general public.

I'm sure this idea has come up before sooo, I'm guessing it didn't get too far, oh well...

The states I've hunted in (Ne, Wi, Mn, Wy, Ont,) have all required (Wy?) that "anyone born after date such and so" must have taken hunter safety. Is this such a bad thing?

Is it a hinderance to some people? Yes, I suppose, but only the sort of people who drive up and down the roads and shoot onto other people's property from their trucks. Would that further or advance the cause of Hunting?

And until we're in the kingdom, there's not one of us who hasn't done something stupid while hunting. But Hunter Safety courses, like instruction in any field, not only ingrains positive habits, it also restrains harmful/wrong habits. I took hunter safety as a kid; I spent all my summers at Boy Scout camps & ranges; my father took me hunting 4 or 5 weekends every fall (and we lived in the city). Yet even wiht all this exposure to good habits and instruction in good ethics, I still have taken some shots that could have been terribly tragic. And I can only give thanks to God that I haven't hurt someone with my stupidity.

I know the future, politically, is uncertain for the 2nd Ammendment; but let's not fear the sky falling--some Gov. regulation, especially if it might appeal to those things that motivate hunters--might not be such a bad thing.

And yes, there is a slippery slope.

Best wishes in the new year!

friar

A lot of us do not like it, but hunting is a priveledge. The difference between a right and a priveledge is that a right can not be taken away; a priveledge can be taken away. Your right to a trial by jury can never be taken away. Your hunting license, drivers license, etc. can be taken away if you abuse them.

True Dale, but when they take away our hunting license we will become a country of law breakers and when we can't hunt deer anymore we will become a nation of deer breeders to release in the rich neighborhoods!

quote:

Again, my apologies for being too forceful in my original response to you.

No sweat guy. I might have read too much into it. This internet stuff makes it hard to know exactly the context.

A Happy New Year to you too.

quote:

To me it is self-evident that hunting is a right......and it says so in the Constitution in BOR 9 and 10, specifically....

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is the way that I see it myself. Thanks for posting.

quote:

A lot of us do not like it, but hunting is a priveledge. The difference between a right and a priveledge is that a right can not be taken away; a priveledge can be taken away. Your right to a trial by jury can never be taken away. Your hunting license, drivers license, etc. can be taken away if you abuse them.

Dale-- I pretty much think we are saying the same thing but.....there are many RIGHTS that can be taken away from you. Your right to life is a prime example. Your right to freedom is another. How about your right to vote??

Right to life and "Right" to hunt are not even close.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that actully guarantees a Right to Life.

That is a given.

As I said earlier, hunting is not now nor ever has been a right.

For those that believe it is, stop bying hunting licenses and see what happens.

Actually,I do have a"right" to hunt.
We (minnesota) passed a right to hunt and fish bill a few years ago,as did quite a few other states.

http://www.serconline.org/huntandfish.html

But not ALL states, and just as easy as they passed it, they can take it back.

I'm not sure where you are going with this one CH. But I guess "they" can take away any right then........is that what you are getting at?????

I think we are just busy splitting hairs here.

I am not splitting hairs, any more than you were with you remark about the right to live.

Hunting, is not a right, not now, nor ever has been.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Vote, Right to Own Firearms, these things are all protected by the Constitution and The bill Of Rights, Hunting Is not One Of Them.

As you stated earlier, as long as you obey the game laws and buy your license, than you can hunt, but it is still not a right, it is a priveledge.

I am not sure where you are heading, but my premise remains the same, hunting is not a right guaranteed to anyone.

i'm against any government involvement in hunting (and about anything else for that matter). haven't you noticed that whenever the government gets involved it cost more and we end up with less? government involvement almost always results in reduced freedoms.

Many states have requirements for firearm safety training and minimum age restrictions for big game.

That we have them is as much a problem as a benefit. Taking the class provides a minimum level of education on the subject, but does not guarantee a minimum level of safety or proficiency.

I know people who will look at a target and have no idea about how to adjust the sights to place the shot where they were aiming. I know people happy with paper plate groups at 100 yards from a bench. I know people who cannot estimate range out to 200 yards +- 30 %. When you put all of those afflictions together, you can hardly call the hunter competent, much less proficient. Now think about a hunter with all those afflictions in the field under bad weather and light conditions with a shot of adrenaline thrown in at the sight of game.

Such a hunter I think we could all agree is probably not capable of handling the job at more than 50 yards.

So, do we license them for fifty yards, 100 yards and beyond 200? Do we license them to use nothing smaller than a 30 caliber, or 7mm or 25 or 6 mm or 224?

That's really what this discussion is about. Putting a little teeth into keeping a hunter within his abilities. The essence of that concept is called ethics. Something that we as a species have had a very hard time trying to legislate.

The gulf between one of us capable of loading a .223 to 3300 FPS with a Barnes 53 grain TSX and someone with a cheap AR knockoff and a pocket full of cheap ammo, no idea how to judge range and no idea of the anatomy of his target is beyond bridging without infringing on the capable to a large extent.

If we could teach those ethics we would not need to keep such a tight leash on our politicians.

quote:

I am not splitting hairs, any more than you were with you remark about the right to live.

Hunting, is not a right, not now, nor ever has been.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to Vote, Right to Own Firearms, these things are all protected by the Constitution and The bill Of Rights, Hunting Is not One Of Them.

As you stated earlier, as long as you obey the game laws and buy your license, than you can hunt, but it is still not a right, it is a priveledge.

I am not sure where you are heading, but my premise remains the same, hunting is not a right guaranteed to anyone.

Well you are welcome to your opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion.

You have provided nothing, no reference at all, that states otherwise. Gato, quoted the 9th and 10th ammendment ( which I very much appreciate ) which hit the nail squarely on the head.

You quoted our right to freedom of religion, yep, that's a guaranteed right. Ask the people at Waco about their rights ask those people in Eldorado about their rights.

Right to vote???? Commit a felony and that's gone.

Right to own firearms????? Only the ones that the current administration say is okay. Oh yeah, commit a felony and then no more right to own guns.

I beleive, and rightly so, that "We the People" give rights to the Government. The Government "may" guarantee our rights, but the Government doesn't "GIVE" me any rights.

Getting the government (more) involved in hunter education will be a disaster, and just the foot in the door for the anti's. It is amazing to me that more people can't see this.

Everyone wants to teach "ethics", or help people become better shots and / or hunters. Great! Be a mentor, volunteer your time at the range, etc. Just don't get government involved.

Even Hunter Ed classes are slowly being abolished in several states. They do very little good, and are a waste of resources. Many hunter ed instructors know very little about hunting, but at least are generally pro-hunting. (I am a former hunter ed instructor myself. I met many, though not all, that fit the description above. There are always the great examples to go along with the poor ones.)

The government can't even teach ethics to politicians. Don't expect them to do more for hunters. Does anyone really want Ted Kennedy and Nanci Pelosi involved in Hunter Education? Please! Stop thinking government is the solution! They are the problem, in most cases.

Join the NRA. Become a certified instructor. Again, volunteer to help others learn, and I will applaud your efforts. Try to make that learning "mandatory", and the fight is on.

Bill

Like so many things, this is a no win situation.

More govt control would be a bad thing for the sport for sure. It would quickly drive down the number of hunters,voters who hunt. It would very badly damage the hunting culture.

But letting no-nothing-idiot-slobs into the field with a gun is just basically wrong.
It is proven when the "city feller" brings a goat into the game check station. And when a farm house is hit twice, and their horse killed by a shooter over 1000 yards away taking pot shots at a deer on top of a ridge. And when a hiker is killed by a slob with a rifle. And when the neighbors brown goat is shot while still on a leash. And when somebody in the fog starts lobbing bullets at me because they can hear me walking. And when all of the so very many noble deer suffer bullet holes, jaws shot off, legs blown in half, gut shots, and finally die a slow painful death.

And if we don't trim the deer population, they will starve to death.

That government that governs least, governs best.......