Make it Mandatory

[birdseye]

Pls read the entire post,Agian thisnis not about a first time reg joe hunter.This post is only about those who are (Pro Hunters) sponsored by the manufactures.Not sure how this is so hard to comprehend,pls check spelling,gramer and any other mistakes Dick284

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

I think everyone should pass a shooting test before they can buy a hunting tag. If you cant hold sub moa at 100 or moa at 400 no tag for you!

Lets just rule this sport to death.

When I first started, CIL put out a hunting pamphlet, it claimed you need the ability to hit within 6" diameter at 100 yds. to make a solid shot. Of course nowadays we have reliable range finders, but they take time and under field conditions it's not always there.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by birdseye

Pls read the entire post,Agian thisnis not about a first time reg joe hunter.This post is only about those who are (Pro Hunters) sponsored by the manufactures.Not sure how this is so hard to comprehend,pls check spelling,gramer and any other mistakes Dick284

"Pro Hunters" , some internet heroes with an oversized ego , feeding that off normal people to make a buck besides.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by birdseye

After watching the hunting chanel for a bit,I say its time for the sponsors EG=Sako,Ruger,Savage,Weatherby,Nosler,Hornady,Fede ral,to make the hunters they sponsor profesional marksmen,as in hit certain targets at certain ranges to obtain and or keep the sponsor.They all claim to sell the best products,and most of the shows shooters are less then average to bad.3"-4" group is horrible and i have seen so many of them brag up this kinda accuracy.I think making the hunters applying for or keeping there sponsors should be certified marksmen.Wouldnt this be better for all hunters overvall and the name we all carry.Sorry if this is not written the best,kinda pee'd off and rattled at what i witnessed on a wild chanel program.

If you want to make a major contribution to the hunting community stop watching these self absorbed experts trying to capture the perfect kill shot and glorifying the death of an animal.

I have heard from many anti hunters in my day and the one argument they all have in common is "You get off on killing!"

An ethical hunter kills to have hunted, they kill to have harvested, they do not hunt to have killed.

"We had to pass the shot because we couldn't get the impact of the bullet and the shock/pain of the animal on camera."

No sane person wants to witness that and certainly not followed by a bunch of self congratulatory fist pumping and a recap of how great some red neck thinks he is.

And please, someone explain to me the blood trailing as a form of entertainment. "We'll just leave him suffer overnight, cause that theres the ethical thing to do."

IMO they should eliminate the kill shot completely and the blood trailing. The film should go from a second before the shot to the hunter admiring their harvest in a respectable and thankful manner. I believe they would greatly increase viewership and actually promote the shooting sports rather than be a detriment.

It would be awesome if a non hunter or children could watch a hunting program and become interested rather than disgusted by the content.

[birdseye]

So you agree Mk2750 that sponsors should hold the hunters they sponsor to a certain criteria,or did you read my post until and only too a part you could comaplain about.This is truly getting absurd.Pls proof tead Dick284,want to make sure this meets your standards lmao

[-JR-]

If you hunt as much as I did . You know the hunt is a lot more than that one shot. As that's only 1/100 of the trip .
We can all be great hunters and shooters ,but place us in front of a camera and its all over . We all can't be movie Star actors .

[obsessed1]

If I was a CEO of a hunting brand ( scope rifle etc..) i would want my brand represented in the best possible way. I wouldnt want my particular X brand of rifle " appear" to only be capable of gut shooting a a moose at 65yds or scope brand X put 3" groups on a pie plate...its not great optics for the brand i guess...but being selective in the people who "represent" your brand through sponsorship is probably a choice of the coe of the company and has little to with anyone forcing a certain capability....
As stated I am very much in the camp of less regulation.
My previous post was absolutely tongue in cheek.
Bushrat.. I'm nowhere near as good as I wonce was as a shooter but I can still hold my own driving a rifle lol but Im not certain I could shoot moa @ 400 in field positions every time all the time with a hunting rig. Much of my hunting is done with irons now anyways...

[Bushrat]

Most of the hunting shows are embarassing and used as fodder against the hunting community. Drives me nuts when they gut shoot a stationary critter shooting off a rest out of a blind over a bait pile not even 100 yds away then go on about how great a shot they made, how hard the hunt was and the expert tracking skills they posess to find an animal where it bedded down 50 yds away from where they shot it the next day..

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by birdseye

So you agree Mk2750 that sponsors should hold the hunters they sponsor to a certain criteria,or did you read my post until and only too a part you could comaplain about.This is truly getting absurd.Pls proof tead Dick284,want to make sure this meets your standards lmao

Why is this even a thing? If you don’t like a hunting show, turn it off.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by birdseye

So you agree Mk2750 that sponsors should hold the hunters they sponsor to a certain criteria,or did you read my post until and only too a part you could comaplain about.This is truly getting absurd.Pls proof tead Dick284,want to make sure this meets your standards lmao

I am not complaining about your post, I was adding to it. Not only do I think that "professional hunters" and the ones guided are often poor marksmen, some are even incompetent and their antics are an embarrassment to the hunting community.

Many filmed hunts are shot from a ground blind with the shooter using a tripod. Some of the shot placements are LOL ridiculous.

What I am saying is; If you don't like what you see, don't watch.

I don't for different reasons but your reasons are legitimate as well. When people stop watching, sponsors stop paying and content changes. This is how TV works

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

Why is this even a thing? If you don’t like a hunting show, turn it off.

Kinda what I was thinking.

Change the channel. Cancel the program. Get outside. Breath some fresh air. Mind your own business. Head to the gun range.

So many better things to do than rant about something this silly.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Kinda what I was thinking.

Change the channel. Cancel the program. Get outside. Breath some fresh air. Mind your own business. Head to the gun range.

So many better things to do than rant about something this silly.

So if you feel someone's actions or behavior is damaging your community you should just shut up and go outside for a walk?

Too much of that going on already as far as I am concerned. Just minding our own business has brought this country to the mess it is in.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by MK2750

So if you feel someone's actions or behavior is damaging your community you should just shut up and go outside for a walk?

Too much of that going on already as far as I am concerned. Just minding our own business has brought this country to the mess it is in.

Nope.
What I said specifically was "Change the channel. Cancel the program."
Ranting about it here does squat to change the stupid behavior done by hunting 'celebrities'.
I came up against a similar issue 8 years ago. I canceled WTV and sent an email explaining why. Life goes on. Channel is still up.

What I was basically saying was to do something about it, or go outside and not let it get to you.
Does that clear my stance up?

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Nope.
What I said specifically was "Change the channel. Cancel the program."
Ranting about it here does squat to change the stupid behavior done by hunting 'celebrities'.
I came up against a similar issue 8 years ago. I canceled WTV and sent an email explaining why. Life goes on. Channel is still up.

What I was basically saying was to do something about it, or go outside and not let it get to you.
Does that clear my stance up?

It does

[birdseye]

Yes thank you,I guess as a avid outdoorsmen I want then to do or be better considering they repersent hunting on such a platform.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by birdseye

Yes thank you,I guess as a avid outdoorsmen I want then to do or be better considering they repersent hunting on such a platform.

I don't watch TV as a rule, and have only seen a few of these hunting shows over the years, but I can certainly tell you that if the sponsors of these shows were not making money they would change.
Several of the outfits that sponsor these shows ( Votex Hornady and Savage to name a few) are called junk by a large number of members here and on other forums, yet those companies are still in business and business is booming for them.
If a person does not like a show, all they need to do is not watch it, or buy the products they are being promoted.
Cat

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Dick284

How could more regulations solve anything, especially if the government is involved?

Enjoy your stroll down that road to damnation!

Just wondering about the Hunter Ed course you teach. Was the Gov't involved ? Where does the course material and agenda come from? Apparently the Govt makes the rules regarding everything hunting and Shooting. Between the Feds and the Province I don't see how they can be excluded from anything pertaining to hunting and shooting . If the Status quo regarding the subject is good enough for you , so be it , Others think it isn't.

[Pathfinder76]

That’s exactly the point. The Government would be involved.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

That’s exactly the point. The Government would be involved.

It would be interesting to hear what aspect of Hunting and Shooting you do that they are not involved, in one form or another.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Just wondering about the Hunter Ed course you teach. Was the Gov't involved ? Where does the course material and agenda come from? Apparently the Govt makes the rules regarding everything hunting and Shooting. Between the Feds and the Province I don't see how they can be excluded from anything pertaining to hunting and shooting . If the Status quo regarding the subject is good enough for you , so be it , Others think it isn't.

FWIW I don’t teach hunters Ed, I am an instructor of the CFSC and the CRFSC.

And Hunters Ed has been around in its current format more or less since the late 1960’s.

The requirement for new hunters to take the Alberta Hunter Ed and Conservation course is empty virtue signalling since you can take any hunters Ed course anywhere or also say you held a small game licence in some small jurisdiction and sign off as previously hunted elsewhere.

I know many people who refuse to take the AHEIA governed course and choose to take a web based course from States like Wyoming at 1/3 the price of AHEIA’s course, and ghee whiz it’s damn near a clone of Alberta’s course.

The assumptions that Hunters Ed covers actual shooting, regulation specifics is so far from what’s in the course, I think those who keep expounding these gems should pony up their cash and go do the course, it’s a generalized course with rinse and repeat content. It’s window dressing to quell the nervous Nancy soccer moms is all.

Everything that is beyond the course is what mentors are for, plain and simple.

Wanna get the government more involved watch the costs go sky high, and watch new hunters vanish…….

[Dubz337]

More governance of guns is a no for me.

If something a 'pro' did offended you, its real simple to fix: Don't watch that show.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by Dubz337

More governance of guns is a no for me.

If something a 'pro' did offended you, its real simple to fix: Don't watch that show.

To be fair, the OP's suggestion had nothing to do with the government, or regular hunters. It had to do with sponsers and "pro's".

[MK2750]

The biggest treat IMO to new hunters and hunting in general is lack of land access and a lack of support from the general public.

Hunters and sport shooters are a tiny minority. Without outside support our voices are not heard. If outside support turns against us we are finished.

I have spoken to a ton of anti hunters over the years and the number one argument is that hunters get off on killing animals. The hunters I know and was raised with do not but if you would like evidence to the contrary just turn on a few hunting videos.

I have also spoken to a ton of land owners over the years and the number one argument from them is reckless firearm discharge and wounding of animals. They fear for their families and livestock. If you would like to see evidence of poor and often reckless firearms handling, again watch a few hunting videos.

We can pretend this isn't happening and hide from the boogeyman that is government regulation. The issues will be brought to the attention of the powers and some pencil pusher will bring forth regulation based on what he/she is hearing.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have our voices heard proactively instead of after the horses have left the stable.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by MK2750

The biggest treat IMO to new hunters and hunting in general is lack of land access and a lack of support from the general public.

Hunters and sport shooters are a tiny minority. Without outside support our voices are not heard. If outside support turns against us we are finished.

I have spoken to a ton of anti hunters over the years and the number one argument is that hunters get off on killing animals. The hunters I know and was raised with do not but if you would like evidence to the contrary just turn on a few hunting videos.

I have also spoken to a ton of land owners over the years and the number one argument from them is reckless firearm discharge and wounding of animals. They fear for their families and livestock. If you would like to see evidence of poor and often reckless firearms handling, again watch a few hunting videos.

We can pretend this isn't happening and hide from the boogeyman that is government regulation. The issues will be brought to the attention of the powers and some pencil pusher will bring forth regulation based on what he/she is hearing.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have our voices heard proactively instead of after the horses have left the stable.

Yeah that last part is what the ATA though a few years back, on the issue of snares... unless somethings recently changed I dont think that worked out too well.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You can qualify people at 100m, but that won't help the guy that never shoots at targets past 100m, but won't hesitate to shoot at an animal at 500m.
More government overreach, would accomplish nothing of value.

I think most everyone would agree with the first comment, but the Gov,t overreach thing is a bit of a stretch. Why doesn't A/O sponser a course ? I'm pretty sure the Gov't would sanction that approach if the right presentation were made. I'm also pretty sure there are enough qualified shooters on here that every area in the Province would be well covered. A "Where theres a will", kinda thing. Plus, it would be a lot more useful than pounding on a keyboard.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I think most everyone would agree with the first comment, but the Gov,t overreach thing is a bit of a stretch. Why doesn't A/O sponser a course ? I'm pretty sure the Gov't would sanction that approach if the right presentation were made. I'm also pretty sure there are enough qualified shooters on here that every area in the Province would be well covered. A "Where theres a will", kinda thing. Plus, it would be a lot more useful than pounding on a keyboard.

Too many ranges don’t allow guests, boom, off the rails your theory goes.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I think most everyone would agree with the first comment, but the Gov,t overreach thing is a bit of a stretch. Why doesn't A/O sponser a course ? I'm pretty sure the Gov't would sanction that approach if the right presentation were made. I'm also pretty sure there are enough qualified shooters on here that every area in the Province would be well covered. A "Where theres a will", kinda thing. Plus, it would be a lot more useful than pounding on a keyboard.

As is normal with the government, they would require a standardized test, by approved personnel, at approved locations, and setting it all up , renting the ranges , paying testing personnel, and processing the paperwork would be expesive, and accomplish nothing.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You can qualify people at 100m, but that won't help the guy that never shoots at targets past 100m, but won't hesitate to shoot at an animal at 500m.
More government overreach, would accomplish nothing of value.

I agree that some hunters may do that,but not all. Also feel that the Govt' overeach comment doesn't necessarily have to apply.
Why doesn't A/O get involved and offer a course? We have enough qualified indiviuals on here to cover every inch of the Province if they were willing. I sure the Gov't would support a viable plan for such a course. We also have some great sponsers on here and elsewhere that i think would get on board as well. Kind of a "where there's a will" thing. Plus it would beat pounding on a keyboard.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I agree that some hunters may do that,but not all. Also feel that the Govt' overeach comment doesn't necessarily have to apply.
Why doesn't A/O get involved and offer a course? We have enough qualified indiviuals on here to cover every inch of the Province if they were willing. I sure the Gov't would support a viable plan for such a course. We also have some great sponsers on here and elsewhere that i think would get on board as well. Kind of a "where there's a will" thing. Plus it would beat pounding on a keyboard.

I already answered your question in your previous post, there is no need to repeat it.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Too many ranges don’t allow guests, boom, off the rails your theory goes.

Exactly, ranges would have to be rented where possible, and some locations would not have ranges available for rent. And of course people would have to be certified to run the qualifications, and paid for their travel and time. And someone would have to decide on the test standards, and then process the paperwork.
The entire program would end up being expensive, and
it wouldn't accomplish anything of value. After seeing
some of the behavior that I see at ranges from PAL
holders, I even question the value of the course required
to qualify for a PAL. You can qualify someone today, and within a few months, many seem to forget everything they were taught.