Marksmanship Test, Finland

[sullijr]

A previous thread was asking what skill level a hunter should have.The following is required ind Finland for a big game licence.


Target pattern and completion
of the shooting test
The target pattern used in the Roe Deer and
Moose and Deer Shooting tests has a hit area
23 centimetres in diameter while in the Bear
Shooting test the target pattern’s hit area is 17
centimetres in diameter.
The test requires four shots to be fired at a
non-moving target only from either a standing,
sitting or kneeling position (shooter is free
to choose his position) from a distance of 75
metres. The time allowed to make these four
shots is 90 seconds starting from the first shot.
Supports are allowed as long as the weapon is
not mechanically fastened to its support. The
applicants are allowed no more than five test
attempts during any one shooting test.

[packhuntr]

Bring it on for Alberta PLEASE! Mandatory for rifle and archery, nothing short of simply fantastic...

[Cowtown guy]

This would be absolutely fantastic. I fully support it.

[alpineguy]

I would fully support a shooting test in Alberta.

[Grizzly Adams]

Lest we forget, the Finns gave the Russians a very bloody nose, when the Ruskis figured they were a walk over.:lol:

Grizz

[lannie]

A slippery slope indeed. Where would it stop ? What would suffice for migratory licensing ? Go shoot a set of doubles in trap, need 90 % to get a license ? So you "pass" the rifle test at 75 meters, would they issue a license for this distance ? We have enough rules.

[greylynx]

Pal pal pal pal pal pal

[Got Juice?]

You have to pass both a 'dry fire' COF when trying for your Black Badge in IPSC

Then you have ot pass a 'Live Fire' COF when trying for your Black Badge in IPSC


Why not in hunting? While I agree there are a lot of regs, and paperwork to be done for your PAL/RPAL, CORE etc, Paper does not make one a practical marksman.

Just as Ballistics tables do not always tell the truth :)

[Selkirk]

Bring it on for Alberta PLEASE! Mandatory for rifle and archery, nothing short of simply fantastic...

This would be absolutely fantastic. I fully support it.

I would fully support a shooting test in Alberta.

You can add me to that ^ list :happy0034:


Here's some more details on how it works in Finland ... http://riista07.onet.tehonetti.fi/riistaen/index.php?group=00000040&mag_nr=4

If you ask me, this is long overdue in North America. I have long since lost count of the number of hunters I've run into that can't hit the broad side of a barn ... they spend their hunting season 'wounding' animals, rather than harvesting them. It's enough to make a grown man puke :mad:


TF

[Bushrat]

If you ask me, this is long overdue in North America. I have long since lost count of the number of hunters I've run into that can't hit the broad side of a barn ... they spend their hunting season 'wounding' animals, rather than harvesting them. It's enough to make a grown man puke :mad:


TF

You can give all the tests you want and people will pass them just like they pass a drivers test but it dosen't prevent them from driving like idiots once they have a licence. Nor will a shooting test prevent idiots from using bad judgement and taking shots they shouldn't or being general idiots with a gun once they have passed the test and gotten a licence.. We would all be better off if there were just one simple idiot test, those that don't pass should not allowed to have a licence of any sort.

How much would this test cost, who would give the test, how much would the licence cost and how much would the firearms proficiency registry that records all this cost us?

[greylynx]

And for the individuals who did not pass the test?

What goes through that person's mind?

Well, I guess I take up golf and become a friend of Greenpeace and the Coalition for Gun Control.

Oh yes, Banning hunting would be another thing that goes through that person's mind. I will fix them.

PAL.

Pass Another Law.

[BlackHeart]

The orgs that brought us the boat licence exam and other forms of red tape and beaucracy are probably licking their lips at the new form of revenue.....heck even peta and anti-gun and anti-hunting groups will jump on this as a good idea.....one-two-three more hoops and levels of redtape to get through and more paperwork for us to carry around.

More rules and hoops will eventually kill our sport so you won't have to worry about how well the next generation shoots.

hmmm......lets play the scene.....

"Your hunting"
"Yep"
" Ok now I'm going to need to see
A) your pal
B) your gun registrations
C) NEW if some have their way--your level one general marksmen
D) your level two marksmen for moose
E) your level three marksmen for deer..they are smaller and faster
F) your level four marksmen for small game like grouse
G) your hunting licences---all of them, general, and specific
H) your win card number--thats a process all in itself nowadays
I) your drivers licence----for proof of id cause all the rest could be someone elses-really????
J) your registration insurance for the quad or your boat licence if your going up river
K) did I forget any others

"now sit here for the next few hours while I check your paperwork and cross reference it all (like the gun registry to your papers to your guns and pal) out and then we can start check whether your complying with the rules like a loaded gun in the truck, etc, etc,etc,etc,"

Just because someone can show that they can shoot a target doesn't mean they will perform the same way when they see that monster of a deer, nor does it prove their ethics on taking good or poor shots or chances. Total waste of our money and time.

[packhuntr]

To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field?? Im thinking you need to spend a little more. Its embarrasing out there, and worse than that its damaging on alot of levels.

[BlackHeart]

To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field?? Im thinking you need to spend a little more. Its embarrasing out there, and worse than that its damaging on quite afew levels,,,, theres a small portion of the population of Ab hunters that wouldnt sh*t you...

I spend plenty of time....what I have seen is guys getting too excited....gonna test for that as well??? How far down this paternalistic liberal concept rabbit hole do you really want to go??

[greylynx]

[QUOTE=packhuntr;895359]To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field??

Obviously not as much as you.

Do you support bill C-68 too

[elkhunter11]

Passing a shooting test at 75 yards won't stop a person from attempting 400 yard shots at running game, and it won't stop a person that has never shot at a target at more than 100 yards from attempting a 600 yard shot at a game animal. It would just be another opportunity for the government to over regulate gun owners.

[packhuntr]

Lots of competent capable folk would have ZERO issue showing up for a few minutes to blow afew arrows or bullets through a target every X number years. Im rural like many, not a problem. Set up range days, break em out into alphabetical groups, give time slots for attendance and roll. Its just hypothetical but I would have no issue with this at all. Heck, how many guys here have to do thier physical to maintain a class 1 drivers licence etc etc....

[packhuntr]

[QUOTE=packhuntr;895359]To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field??

Obviously not as much as you.

Do you support bill C-68 too


Give it up man are you drunk

[packhuntr]

Passing a shooting test at 75 yards won't stop a person from attempting 400 yard shots at running game, and it won't stop a person that has never shot at a target at more than 100 yards from attempting a 600 yard shot at a game animal. It would just be another opportunity for the government to over regulate gun owners.

Ok sounds good, so you decide to do those things in the field, noone can tell you not to,,,, but the question Id have for you while your talking is can you prove your competent enough to be licenced to be in the field with valuable resources, other responsible hunters and a world full of private property and innocent bystanders?

[RLG]

To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field?? Im thinking you need to spend a little more. Its embarrasing out there, and worse than that its damaging on alot of levels.

I spend a fair bit of time hunting/scouting each year, not the most, not the least, and i find that in certain areas it can be quite dangerous. I have left areas alone for that reason, but I dont want some idiot who is a better shot now after passing the test shooting at me either! Nobody, and I mean nobody, can put 4 bullets in 8" diameter at a moving animal, especially when your dog tired from walking, pumped up from finally seeing something, and rushing cause its running away. A little more "field" enforcement of the current firearms rules is all we need, there are already enough barriers to hunting. I have a feeling this will be a popular thread!!

[ex811]

I really don't need another level of bureaucracy, goverment interference or make work project for some hammerheads who 'know it all'. I don't know where mandatory testing could lead and I really don't want to find out.

Having said all that, I participated in a very similar test, including a shotgun qualification, while stationed in Germany. MY DOG even had to pass a test in order to accompany me hunting.

[rugatika]

Just another level of bureaucracy and another hoop to jump through. Won't accomplish a darn thing other than to take some power away from people and transfer it to bureaucrats. We do NOT want anything like this. Trust me.

[greylynx]

[QUOTE=greylynx;895366]


Give it up man are you drunk


I wish I was drunk.

Pass another law and the whole word will be perfect. That is the reasoning of a drunken man.

By the way, could you please answer my question.

Do you like Bill C-68?

You seem to have avoided the question.

Good evening sir. Off to my AA meeting.

[Lefty-Canuck]

You can give all the tests you want and people will pass them just like they pass a drivers test but it dosen't prevent them from driving like idiots once they have a licence. Nor will a shooting test prevent idiots from using bad judgement and taking shots they shouldn't or being general idiots with a gun once they have passed the test and gotten a licence.. We would all be better off if there were just one simple idiot test, those that don't pass should not allowed to have a licence of any sort.

How much would this test cost, who would give the test, how much would the licence cost and how much would the firearms proficiency registry that records all this cost us?

^^^^^
X2 , it quite obvious that driver training is working to keep idiots off the road.....or NOT!

for any "test" given now a days all it takes is enough trys and away you go...if you got the money for the test, re-test, test of the re-test....then you will eventually pass.....look at alot of the kids who keep taking their learners/drivers license over and over till they pass.

IMHO this would just add another hurdle, another check point, another goverment regulated dabacle, another way of big brother telling us what we can and can't do......

I already have loads of people telling me what I can and can't do I don't need anymore.

For the record I put in over 25 days during hunting season and I can't count how many times I go the shooting range, archery range, handgun range....so if I am not doing enough to hone my skills then MY BAD.

Lefty

[220swifty]

Good in theory. Unfortunately anyone who thinks that this province has lawmakers competent enough to implement one that works, and wont cost each hunter his firstborn, has huffed a little too much glue this week.

How much must a run of the mill Finnish hunter pay in licensing, etc, per season? I am willing to bet it is a bit more than we do.

[elkhunter11]

Ok sounds good, so you decide to do those things in the field, noone can tell you not to,,,, but the question Id have for you while your talking is can you prove your competent enough to be licenced to be in the field with valuable resources, other responsible hunters and a world full of private property and innocent bystanders?

You could be a world class shooter and still be unsafe. If missing a deer results in an innocent bystander being shot, you had no business taking that shot in the first place. If you shoot up private property, it's not because you are a poor shot.

Don't get me wrong, I wish that more hunters would practice more, so less game was wounded and lost every year, but passing a shooting test would only prove that you could hit a target at 75 yards, it wouldn't prove your safety in the field, or your ability to decide which shots you should attempt at game animals.

[Bushrat]

To the guys saying that something like this is a waste of time etc etc,,, how much time do you spend in the field?? Im thinking you need to spend a little more. Its embarrasing out there, and worse than that its damaging on alot of levels.

I've been in the field a lot for many years, more than most. I know many people who can pass such a test easily, yet they turn into complete idiots when they see a little doe and blast away willy nilly hitting everything but the deer. Sure they can pass a test but it dosen't stop them from shooting towards a house, straight down a paved road out of the window of their truck, shooting livestock, night hunting, blasting away at a buck running full tilt over the horizion at 700 yds, trespassing on private land taking potshots from the truck, or shooting while impaired by drugs or alcohol, etc, etc. Knowing they have passed a shooting test does not make me feel any safer out there.

[SonnyJ]

I've been in the field a lot for many years, more than most. I know many people who can pass such a test easily, yet they turn into complete idiots when they see a little doe and blast away willy nilly hitting everything but the deer. Sure they can pass a test but it dosen't stop them from shooting towards a house, straight down a paved road out of the window of their truck, shooting livestock, night hunting, blasting away at a buck running full tilt over the horizion at 700 yds, trespassing on private land taking potshots from the truck, or shooting while impaired by drugs or alcohol, etc, etc. Knowing they have passed a shooting test does not make me feel any safer out there.

haha...I'd buy you a beer my dear sir..:)

[Bushrat]

haha...I'd buy you a beer my dear sir..:)

sounds good, soon as we pass the shootin test we'll get a couple cases and go huntin.:oregonian_winesmile

[Arn?Narn.]

A previous thread was asking what skill level a hunter should have.The following is required ind Finland for a big game licence.


Target pattern and completion
of the shooting test
The target pattern used in the Roe Deer and
Moose and Deer Shooting tests has a hit area
23 centimetres in diameter while in the Bear
Shooting test the target pattern’s hit area is 17
centimetres in diameter.
The test requires four shots to be fired at a
non-moving target only from either a standing,
sitting or kneeling position (shooter is free
to choose his position) from a distance of 75
metres. The time allowed to make these four
shots is 90 seconds starting from the first shot.
Supports are allowed as long as the weapon is
not mechanically fastened to its support. The
applicants are allowed no more than five test
attempts during any one shooting test.

used to be like this in Newfoundland. I had to qualify...

[Lefty-Canuck]

used to be like this in Newfoundland. I had to qualify...

Every Newfie I know is waaaay over qualified for "shootin the !$@%" LOL

Lefty

[lannie]

Arn-
It is not like that anymore ? What goals were the province trying to meet and were they realized ?

[Iskra]

A previous thread was asking what skill level a hunter should have.The following is required ind Finland for a big game licence.


Target pattern and completion
of the shooting test
The target pattern used in the Roe Deer and
Moose and Deer Shooting tests has a hit area
23 centimetres in diameter while in the Bear
Shooting test the target pattern’s hit area is 17
centimetres in diameter.
The test requires four shots to be fired at a
non-moving target only from either a standing,
sitting or kneeling position (shooter is free
to choose his position) from a distance of 75
metres. The time allowed to make these four
shots is 90 seconds starting from the first shot.
Supports are allowed as long as the weapon is
not mechanically fastened to its support. The
applicants are allowed no more than five test
attempts during any one shooting test.

Hunting, boating, quadding and in some cases fishing is for well off in Europe. There is more to it. Belonging to clubs and organizations (fees) gives one right to activities we enjoy every day. Everything is licensed. I left that continent to enjoy more freedom. Please do not spoil it more then i have observed in last 30 years. :shark:

[wwbirds]

Competency testing can't be a bad thing and I for one when instructing in Ontario gave practical training in rifle, shotgun and archery on the final day (Saturday morning) of the course.
This would be very easy to implement in Alberta.
What concerns me most is watching some of the graduates of Alberta Hunter Safety having the 60 question book knowledge given to them to pass the test without being required to complete a practical demonstration of the skills learned in the course.
I asked my son after graduating from Hunter Safety here if they did not require him to demonstrate how to carry a firearm when hunting with 1 or 2 other hunters, with a dog, crossing a fence or shooting from a boat. he answered no to all.
I caught him up on a few issues in his first year (because I guess I am a bit of a taskmaster on safety due to being a former instructor) but wonder what happened to the other children or even adults who were taught with him in those classes so they and their parents (who may have no history or knowledge of safe gun handling) assume those who graduated from class were trained efficiently and effectively in safe gun handling in theory and practical circumstanceswhen in fact they may not have been.

[Arn?Narn.]

Arn-
It is not like that anymore ? What goals were the province trying to meet and were they realized ?

I don't know...the year I qualified was the last year for it and was also the last year for FAC's..

At 100 yrds, 2 of 3 shots had to hit, If I remember right, an 11x11 square, but it may hace been 8x8 target. I qualified with the 30/30...many others with .303's and a few 30/06's.

The big thing was if you hit the first two, whether or not you took the third.

5 practice shots were allowed, which many guys called "sighting her in"

[elkhunter11]

Target pattern and completion
of the shooting test
The target pattern used in the Roe Deer and
Moose and Deer Shooting tests has a hit area
23 centimetres in diameter while in the Bear
Shooting test the target pattern’s hit area is 17
centimetres in diameter.
The test requires four shots to be fired at a
non-moving target only from either a standing,
sitting or kneeling position (shooter is free
to choose his position) from a distance of 75
metres. The time allowed to make these four
shots is 90 seconds starting from the first shot.
Supports are allowed as long as the weapon is
not mechanically fastened to its support. The
applicants are allowed no more than five test
attempts during any one shooting test.

How many people here think that this test would be difficult? According to the information, you can even use shooting sticks, as long as they are not mechanically fastened to the gun. At 75 meters, being able to sit or kneel, and using shooting sticks, I don't see this test being much of a challenge for most people.

[lannie]

"I don't see this test being much of a challenge for most people."
I agree, many of the candidates would have a higher rate of failure with the urine tests common in today's workforce. The urine tests being passed would do more for safety than the marksman stuff.

[elkhunter11]

I agree, many of the candidates would have a higher rate of failure with the urine tests common in today's workforce. The urine tests being passed would do more for safety than the marksman stuff.

That is a scary thought, and it could quite likely be true.

[densa44]

Every one seems to think this would be administered to somehow protect animals. What if it was set up to eliminate hunting. For example, how many shooters would have to qualify, how many ranges do you have available and in addition to the 90 sec. how long does each shooter take? I suppose there would be paper work too. Does bad weather interfere with the testing?

Why not leave this alone?

If they really want to get into retesting go after the drivers who shouldn't have a licence in the first place.

[SonnyJ]

So one day...many many years ago..I took carefull aim at this blackbird..
I mean he was just sitting there on a wire...I was sure that the old Marlin 22. would clean take his head off.
I held my breath for a split second and squeezed the trigger..Bang...

Oh Crap....moms bras and undies just hit the dirt cause I just cut the clotlesline in half..Yeah I paid for that one so....

Sure wished I would have taken that Marksmanship test..lol

Maybe then Ma wouldn't have beat the tar outa me...lol:sHa_shakeshout:

[chasingtail]

I bet most people that havn't shot a gun before gun hit a 23cm target at 75 yards on at least the third try.

[ctd]

Excellant idea:snapoutofit: maybe we can have more shooting ranges in Alberta that are Goverment funded, one for every major city and town. The cost to run these ranges well who cares. But I will have to take more time out of my busy schedule in order to fullfill hunting requirement.

Why dont we do more to stop crime then put our minds to think about how to regulate our sport more.

Better way to regulate the sport more is only allow one Deer Tag, a Moose or Elk tag every year with only 3 bullets. 1 for each tag and one extra. That way people might be more carefull in what they are hunting for.
Then if you want to go for range practice. You go to your goverment supported range, buy your number of rounds you want to shoot for the day, if you have any left over you turn them in for a refund. That way you can not go over your 3 rounds a year in the field. :bad_boys_20:

[HunterDave]

Bring it on for Alberta PLEASE! Mandatory for rifle and archery, nothing short of simply fantastic...

This would be absolutely fantastic. I fully support it.

I would fully support a shooting test in Alberta.

[LEFT]You can add me to that ^ list :happy0034:

The 12 months of service that all 18 year old Finns have to serve should help them to pass the test. :lol:

I spoke to one of my wife's cousins in Germany about what he had to do in order to qualify for his hunting license. He had to do a 5 week (weekends) course and a shooting test. By the time that he was done it cost him about $5K just to qualify and then he had to buy his license and club fees. :sign0068: In order to qualify for fishing licenses you have to take a course of similar length but it costs a little less. ATV's..........the same thing!

Over in Europe hunting is not for someone that has a hand me down 30/30 and only people that are well off can afford to do it. I'd hate to see anything like that happen in Canada. :(

[Lonnie]

all you guys that think a shooting test wuold be a good idea,must like giving money to the government.becuase they would fined a way to turn it in to a cash cow. and the only purpose wuold be to stop a blind person from getting a gun legaly then we get to pay for court case on discrimination, and in the end it would be us that are the loosers.

[Rufous03]

[QUOTE=Bushrat;895331]You can give all the tests you want and people will pass them just like they pass a drivers test but it dosen't prevent them from driving like idiots once they have a licence. Nor will a shooting test prevent idiots from using bad judgement and taking shots they shouldn't or being general idiots with a gun once they have passed the test and gotten a licence.. We would all be better off if there were just one simple idiot test, those that don't pass should not allowed to have a licence of any sort.
QUOTE]

If anyone doubts this, take a drive to the Homestead public range on Sibbald Trail. Everyone using the facility has taken their required Government test.....or have they? Talk to some of those working at the firearms counters at Wholesale Sports or Bass Pro Shops, and hear what the "crazies" ask for questions. These are the people who have taken their required course. Much the same as those who have passed their Boating Certification...They have the paperwork that says they are qualified, but a ride on the Sushwap Lake in BC will leave you wondering!

[marlin1]

Lest we forget, the Finns gave the Russians a very bloody nose, when the Ruskis figured they were a walk over.:lol:

Grizz

amen to that , sheer numbers in the end overwhelmed . One of the best or had the most kills comfirmed was a Finn in WW2 with over 500 , iron sights .

[Hjortejeger]

Shooting proficiency test, Norway

The test comprises two parts. First, 30 shots must be fired at a target of the applicant's
choice. Then, for each rifle to be used for hunting big game, five shots must be fired at 100 metres at an animal figure approved by the directorate (hit area 30 cm circle).
The test must be taken without a fixed rest, but any position may be adopted.

Minimum 9 grams (139 grain) expanding bullets is required for moose, red deer, follow deer, wild reindeer, wild boar, wild sheep, musk ox, wolf and bear.

This test is easy but some hunters need several attempts to make it. I think a test is good thing because a hunter should touch the gun before season.

[HunterDave]

Shooting proficiency test, Norway

What does it cost you for the course, test and everything else in order to get your hunting licence? :)

[Slash8]

Maybe they should combine it with the boater licence. At least you would have another card to carry around. :scared0018:

[chasingtail]

seems every one wants more regulation, so heres mine.

Ban scopes, trail cameras, scents, camauflage, pretty much anything that just isn't a 303 with iron sights and you can even have a truck. Should be able to get rid of the weekend hunters and the draw system this way.

[TheClash]

sweet the only big game animal I have ever taken was my elk...303 with iron sites...:)

[Redfrog]

Lonnie, while I don't like gov't sticking their nose in a lot of things, and I do agree that a lot of what they do is mismanaged, the hunter ed course is not a cash cow, Far from it.

I've instructed both hunter ed and the federal firearms courses for many years so have some first hand knowledge.

Some think the proficiency testing is a good thing and some not so much. I think you need to ask your self what it is you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to sure stupid then you are on a fool's errand. There will always be knobs who could use a little more twisting before they are turned loose with a firearm, same as a driver's license, or a license to practice law or medicine.

If the purpose is to provide more information and educate the student/hunter/ shooter then I think we have a chance to accomplish that.

When I started teaching the hunter ed course in 1974 there was no requirement to shoot. We taught proper carry and shooting stance etc, like wwbirds referred to, but no live fire.

My friend and fellow instructor and my self decided that live fire would accomplish a lot of things. The student would find out that you need ear protection, that a 12 ga won't really send you backwards several feet, what recoil is and most importantly how to handle a loaded firearm in a stressful situation. When you have 30 other people watching everything you do in a test situation with a firearm you've never fired it is stressful.

We set up on the trap range and students were required to shoot 12 ga shotguns at clays. We did the usual demos to start with to show the power of various firearms and we instructed until everyone had hands on and were comfortable. We then went to live fire with an instructor on each student.
To add a little more stress we added colored clays with instructions to not fire on the colored clays.

We had youngsters on the light side of a hundred pounds as well as small framed women all shooting 12ga. How did it work?

Well we ended up with some pretty good women trap shooters and Every student that commented said they learned more in one day on the range than they did all the classes in the course. They also said it took a lot of the mystery out of firearms and answered a lot of questions they would not ask in class.

So A proficiency test won't clear out the idiots but it could give some shooters a better understanding and it would mean more informed eyes in the field to watch for the idiots.

[Hjortejeger]

@ HunterDave

Hunting course $ 200-400

Hunting licence fee $ 76 /year

Membership gunrange $ 40 /year

Shooting test $10 /year

[HunterDave]

@ HunterDave

Hunting course $ 200-400

Hunting licence fee $ 76 /year

Membership gunrange $ 40 /year

Shooting test $10 /year

That's not too bad. Do you have to do a shooting test every year?

[greylynx]

What are the criteria for this shooting test?...the police?

Who is going to oversee this shooting test?....the police?

What happens to your guns if you fail?....surrender them to the police?

Can't you guys think out the "unintended consequences" of what you want to do?

Also follow the money. Those elk and sheep leases are not far away with this type of reasoning

Wendy Cukier, I know your group monitors this forum.

In the last 20 years I have fought you every legal way I can.

From the above postings you have won.

Congratulations Wendy.

[Selkirk]

I can't believe how 'bent out of shape' some of you guys are getting, over this simple/basic idea. You'd think your mother was being raped! :snapoutofit:

Once again, for the record, this is how the Finnish plan works (similar in many countries); http://riista07.onet.tehonetti.fi/riistaen/index.php?group=00000040&mag_nr=4

It appears to be fairly painless. The tests are run by local game associations, and are open to the public. Hunters have to take the test once every three years, and the cost is only €7 (~$10).


TF

[Lonnie]

Lonnie, while I don't like gov't sticking their nose in a lot of things, and I do agree that a lot of what they do is mismanaged, the hunter ed course is not a cash cow, Far from it.

I've instructed both hunter ed and the federal firearms courses for many years so have some first hand knowledge.

Some think the proficiency testing is a good thing and some not so much. I think you need to ask your self what it is you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to sure stupid then you are on a fool's errand. There will always be knobs who could use a little more twisting before they are turned loose with a firearm, same as a driver's license, or a license to practice law or medicine.

If the purpose is to provide more information and educate the student/hunter/ shooter then I think we have a chance to accomplish that.

When I started teaching the hunter ed course in 1974 there was no requirement to shoot. We taught proper carry and shooting stance etc, like wwbirds referred to, but no live fire.

My friend and fellow instructor and my self decided that live fire would accomplish a lot of things. The student would find out that you need ear protection, that a 12 ga won't really send you backwards several feet, what recoil is and most importantly how to handle a loaded firearm in a stressful situation. When you have 30 other people watching everything you do in a test situation with a firearm you've never fired it is stressful.

We set up on the trap range and students were required to shoot 12 ga shotguns at clays. We did the usual demos to start with to show the power of various firearms and we instructed until everyone had hands on and were comfortable. We then went to live fire with an instructor on each student.
To add a little more stress we added colored clays with instructions to not fire on the colored clays.

We had youngsters on the light side of a hundred pounds as well as small framed women all shooting 12ga. How did it work?

Well we ended up with some pretty good women trap shooters and Every student that commented said they learned more in one day on the range than they did all the classes in the course. They also said it took a lot of the mystery out of firearms and answered a lot of questions they would not ask in class.

So A proficiency test won't clear out the idiots but it could give some shooters a better understanding and it would mean more informed eyes in the field to watch for the idiots.

Redfrog the hunters ed course should be mandatory in all public schools and live fire should be included. as for a proficiency test does not teach any thing just away of making money or to see how many active gun users in an area. most idiots are proficient enough to hit a target. once you become familiar with a fire arm do you realy think that you wuold miss a target at the distance and size thier talking about,proficiency test every five years makes no sense. more education not regulation.

[ctd]

Who knows maybe some of those long range hunters will turn out to be flunk.

So we have multiple tests depending on how far you want to shoot.
0-75yards
75-150
100-300
300-500
500-800
and beyond 800. Of course anything beyond 800 yard you will have to hit gongs that are 6"x6"

You have to do it all with open sights.

[Redfrog]

Lonnie, just to be clear, I don't support a proficiency test for the sake of testing, but I think the education proponent is important.

Hitting a target at 75 yards in a controlled situation has little to do with field shooting. But a lot of shooters don't have much more than the most basic understanding of firearms or how they work.

How many times have you seen some one wave a scope mounted rifle around after he has shouldered it in an attempt to find his target.

As an instructor I've had the opportunity to see a wide range of skill.

Often I had hunters with years of experience sit in on a course that their wife or kids was taking. Some of the comments they came up with would make a statue laugh. I had some take the practical firearms test. Many of them could not pass.


I think a program could be put in place that would mak us better shooters without Gov't involvement .

[gitrdun]

"I don't see this test being much of a challenge for most people."
I agree, many of the candidates would have a higher rate of failure with the urine tests common in today's workforce. The urine tests being passed would do more for safety than the marksman stuff.

Although sad to say, I must agree with that. Last year I was repeatedly scoped by the same guy who undoubtedly has a PAL and therefore passed his safety exam. In retrospect, I also think a proficiency test would be an asset providing that it doesn't turn into a mere cash cow. And that likely won't come true. What I'm saying is that I'm on the fence with it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Although sad to say, I must agree with that. Last year I was repeatedly scoped by the same guy who undoubtedly has a PAL and therefore passed his safety exam. In retrospect, I also think a proficiency test would be an asset providing that it doesn't turn into a mere cash cow. And that likely won't come true. What I'm saying is that I'm on the fence with it.

Nothing makes me madder than when I am on a cut line or in a field and I see a guy shoulder a rifle at me.....when I am looking at him through my BINOCULARS! If you can afford to go hunting you can afford to buy even a cheapy set of binos to tell a man from an animal.....my blood boils just thinking about it.....sorry not trying to derail, just one of my "pressure points"

Lefty

[gitrdun]

Oh trust me Lefty, that can be a hot topic with the potential of a thread lock. We shall leave it alone for that reason ;)

[Lefty-Canuck]

Oh trust me Lefty, that can be a hot topic with the potential of a thread lock. We shall leave it alone for that reason ;)

Ok OK....sorry for opening my trap :) ! Had I known I would have kept it to myself.

Lefty

[lannie]

Although sad to say, I must agree with that. Last year I was repeatedly scoped by the same guy who undoubtedly has a PAL and therefore passed his safety exam. In retrospect, I also think a proficiency test would be an asset providing that it doesn't turn into a mere cash cow. And that likely won't come true. What I'm saying is that I'm on the fence with it.

If the guy that scoped you was a little older he may have never taken any type of safety exam or hunter training program. I am not sure what year the cut off date would be for being "grandfathered" into the system. Maybe someone here has more info.

[elkhunter11]

Nothing makes me madder than when I am on a cut line or in a field and I see a guy shoulder a rifle at me.....when I am looking at him through my BINOCULARS! If you can afford to go hunting you can afford to buy even a cheapy set of binos to tell a man from an animal.....my blood boils just thinking about it.....sorry not trying to derail, just one of my "pressure points"



I share your feelings on the topic, but I don't believe that a marksmanship test requirement will prevent such displays of stupidity.

[gitrdun]

Apparently neither does a PAL or firearm safety course, was my point.

[Hjortejeger]

@ HunterDave

I have to take the shooting test every year, but it is not a problem because the system is very simple.

1. I get the paper from the government
2. pay the hunting licence
3. 30 shots at a gunrange, volunteers at the gunrange will do the inspection.
4. shooting test, volunteers at the gunrange will do the inspection and sign the paper
5. ready to hunt.

Police is not involved. I meet the police only when I apply for a new gun.

[Redfrog]

Apparently neither does a PAL or firearm safety course, was my point.


I don't know if you have taken the courses or not, but there are 10 multiple choice questions on the hunting test. Not much of a challenge. Education is more important than testing. I stress the whole bino vs. scope issue on my courses, but some get it and some don't.

It's not only newbies that need educating. I had a guy who had hunted many years on a course. When I did the hands on demo of firearms and had students handle the different firearms he was there of course. He seem to think that if you had testicles you would automatically know every thing about firearms.

I handed him a rifle and asked what was stamped on the barrel. 30:06.

I asked what the 30 meant. He gave me a look like I had insulted him and said 'Well obviously it is the length of the barrel" :sign0161:

[Lonnie]

Lonnie, just to be clear, I don't support a proficiency test for the sake of testing, but I think the education proponent is important.

Hitting a target at 75 yards in a controlled situation has little to do with field shooting. But a lot of shooters don't have much more than the most basic understanding of firearms or how they work.

How many times have you seen some one wave a scope mounted rifle around after he has shouldered it in an attempt to find his target.

As an instructor I've had the opportunity to see a wide range of skill.

Often I had hunters with years of experience sit in on a course that their wife or kids was taking. Some of the comments they came up with would make a statue laugh. I had some take the practical firearms test. Many of them could not pass.


I think a program could be put in place that would make us better shooters without Gov't involvement .

never saw any wave a scoped rifle around to the point that it was dangerous,but seen a lot of stupidity on hand gun ranges. the part about making us better shooters I like, but better shooter doesn't always make for better hunter. to me the bow hunter is the better hunter as they have to be very aware of everything around them and by the time they get good enough to get an animal they are probably are not to bad of a tracker either. now if you could teach that you would most definitely have me at that course.even though I am a rifle hunter.

[ACKLEY ABE]

@ HunterDave

I have to take the shooting test every year, but it is not a problem because the system is very simple.

1. I get the paper from the government
2. pay the hunting licence
3. 30 shots at a gunrange, volunteers at the gunrange will do the inspection.
4. shooting test, volunteers at the gunrange will do the inspection and sign the paper
5. ready to hunt.

Police is not involved. I meet the police only when I apply for a new gun.

Hi Hjortejeger:

Over the years I've guided a fair number of Norwegians for Svortbjorn (poor Norwgian spelling). They have all except for one (there's always one) been fine shots and excellent hunters. In the field on bears even the best have had excitement affect their shots. While testing is a good thing, it doesn't compensate for experience.... Jagt a Jagt. (again poor Norwegian spelling)

Your email has brought back some of the best hunting memories I have.

Several have brought 300 wins, some 30.06's, and one young 50 kilo lady (Gunhenny) even brought a 358 Norma...which she could shoot very well. Not once have I seen a 6.5 x 55 in camp which most Canadians seem to believe is all that Norwegians shoot.

Anyway thanks for your post. I might have to have a Jaegermeister tonight.

Abe

[wolf308]

maybe it worx smoothly in finland ,they amongst most european countries know how to have their ship together,canada on the other hand would drown it out in paper work and super high paid officials not to mention all the bueracracy technicians who love to drown everything thats passed.then they would further compound the problems by adding onto allready strict requiremetns, blah ,blah, id be for it too overall, but not in this day of age.