Hagetman brings back 80% qualification requirement

[Roger]

Thanks to Doug for eagle eyeing this first thing this am. Looks like a qualification requirement has been added back for this hunt. I'm in favor. Your milage may vary.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[TexasArchery_27]

I think it's absolutely useless. Just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through. The bowhunter education can be taken online through another state, and accepted by Texas through reciprocity. With this work-around, the information retention is going to be lower than in-person attendance. I have serious doubts that taking bowhunter education actually prepares you any more than just the standard hunter education that's required.
The "Proficiency" test demonstrates you can basically hit foam in a non-pressure situation at a really short distance. You can have garbage form, punch the mess out of the index trigger and take long breaks away from archery and still pass. If it were actually about proficiency, the test would include 12 or 11 ring scoring, and be an average shot of at least 10, up to 35 yards with at least some degree of downhill component. The current standard doesn't actual demonstrate proficiency in my opinion. If we were to up the standard I highly doubt all those in favor would be so welcoming to the requirements; it would mean most of them would have to shoot regularly and work on their ability quite a bit more.
Generally, the people in favor state that they don't want to see wounding loss, or jack***es out there shooting the place up with arrows. I think that's a weak argument, and there's several rebuttals that refute them with sound logic.
I seriously doubt that a very inexperienced hunter is actually aware of the draw system, and how to legally access Hagerman. The guys that are applying are pretty serious about it.

[troy_w_7]

I think it's absolutely useless. Just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through. The bowhunter education can be taken online through another state, and accepted by Texas through reciprocity. With this work-around, the information retention is going to be lower than in-person attendance. I have serious doubts that taking bowhunter education actually prepares you any more than just the standard hunter education that's required.
The "Proficiency" test demonstrates you can basically hit foam in a non-pressure situation at a really short distance. You can have garbage form, punch the mess out of the index trigger and take long breaks away from archery and still pass. If it were actually about proficiency, the test would include 12 or 11 ring scoring, and be an average shot of at least 10, up to 35 yards with at least some degree of downhill component. The current standard doesn't actual demonstrate proficiency in my opinion. If we were to up the standard I highly doubt all those in favor would be so welcoming to the requirements; it would mean most of them would have to shoot regularly and work on their ability quite a bit more.
Generally, the people in favor state that they don't want to see wounding loss, or jack***es out there shooting the place up with arrows. I think that's a weak argument, and there's several rebuttals that refute them with sound logic.
I seriously doubt that a very inexperienced hunter is actually aware of the draw system, and how to legally access Hagerman. The guys that are applying are pretty serious about it.

Good points!

[wes122984]

I think it's absolutely useless. Just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through. The bowhunter education can be taken online through another state, and accepted by Texas through reciprocity. With this work-around, the information retention is going to be lower than in-person attendance. I have serious doubts that taking bowhunter education actually prepares you any more than just the standard hunter education that's required.
The "Proficiency" test demonstrates you can basically hit foam in a non-pressure situation at a really short distance. You can have garbage form, punch the mess out of the index trigger and take long breaks away from archery and still pass. If it were actually about proficiency, the test would include 12 or 11 ring scoring, and be an average shot of at least 10, up to 35 yards with at least some degree of downhill component. The current standard doesn't actual demonstrate proficiency in my opinion. If we were to up the standard I highly doubt all those in favor would be so welcoming to the requirements; it would mean most of them would have to shoot regularly and work on their ability quite a bit more.
Generally, the people in favor state that they don't want to see wounding loss, or jack***es out there shooting the place up with arrows. I think that's a weak argument, and there's several rebuttals that refute them with sound logic.
I seriously doubt that a very inexperienced hunter is actually aware of the draw system, and how to legally access Hagerman. The guys that are applying are pretty serious about it.

crossbows are allowed also, so that's an easy test to pass.

[Razorback01]

My points, yours may vary, comments inserted into your reply.

[QUOTE=TexasArchery_27;15684113]I think it's absolutely useless. Just a bureaucratic hoop to jump through. Me- more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to me means that only those with true desire to hunt the H will apply. May weed out some of the "shotgun" applications since they need to do more than a $3 contribution to TPWD.

The bowhunter education can be taken online through another state, and accepted by Texas through reciprocity. With this work-around, the information retention is going to be lower than in-person attendance. I have serious doubts that taking bowhunter education actually prepares you any more than just the standard hunter education that's required. Me- You must be an expert? FYI, under the 2020 regs, someone could take the course and stop at Cabelas the day prior to the hunt and buy a bow, in fact with the current TPWD regs you can stop at Walmart and buy a kiddy bow, strap a razor blade to the arrow and hunt legally. As far as "information retention" please, oh please address that the TPWD.



The "Proficiency" test demonstrates you can basically hit foam in a non-pressure situation at a really short distance. You can have garbage form, punch the mess out of the index trigger and take long breaks away from archery and still pass. If it were actually about proficiency, the test would include 12 or 11 ring scoring, and be an average shot of at least 10, up to 35 yards with at least some degree of downhill component. The current standard doesn't actual demonstrate proficiency in my opinion. If we were to up the standard I highly doubt all those in favor would be so welcoming to the requirements; it would mean most of them would have to shoot regularly and work on their ability quite a bit more. Me, in the past, the proficiency test wasn't easy, you had needed to spend some time with the bow beforehand. Please, oh please send your recommendations to the refuge staff.



Generally, the people in favor state that they don't want to see wounding loss, or jack***es out there shooting the place up with arrows. I think that's a weak argument, and there's several rebuttals that refute them with sound logic. Me- huh? You need to elaborate.


I seriously doubt that a very inexperienced hunter is actually aware of the draw system, and how to legally access Hagerman. The guys that are applying are pretty serious about it. Me- very trusium, and they way it needs to remain.

Please follow up on my recommendations, as I have with TPWD and the Hagerman staff. How about becoming a TPWD volunteer instructor and bringing your expertise, experience, and guidance into the education program? In years past, public comments, as requested by the USFWS have been non-existent, put your money where your mouth is.

Doug- several years hunting Hagerman, BH Ed instructor, and disappointed with the current draw system.

[TexasArchery_27]

2 lines in your response perfectly sum up the argument for those in favor of the additional requirements. It's about promoting a false sense of exclusivity for the good ole boys that have hunted it frequently in the past. It’s a prime piece of ground everyone in the nation has ownership in. You know the additional requirement isn’t right and does absolutely nothing beneficial to growing hunter recruitment or retention. There’s no valid argument with quantifiable data to support the additional requirement's necessity. The requirements aren't even equally applied across the board on hunts there. If you look at the spring turkey description, archery equipment is allowed as a method of take, but the bowhunter education component and proficiency test are not mentioned as they are with the deer hunting application description.

Your reasoning in favor of the requirement in that it "Weeds Out" non-serious applicants doesn't actually accomplish that. They can still apply and purchase the tag. They just need to have met the additional requirements prior to the hunt start. So, this really doesn't help the odds at all for those in favor. The additional requirement would need to be met prior to the application being filled out to actually have some influence in the draw odds. Most people that have not completed the additional requirement will submit the application and then worry about the certification and proficiency once drawn.

It's frustrating that there's an elitist's attitude when it comes to this property specifically. To my knowledge, no other property in the TPWD draw carries that additional requirement - Federal or State managed. Unequal application of the standard, which I'm sure is heavily influenced by those in favor of the requirement, and not necessarily representative of the consensus among the public hunting population as a whole.

I do not recall seeing anything on the TPWD site about a public comment period for this specific topic. I may have missed it, but for something like that I will definitely keep an eye out for in the future. Why is it required that I become an instructor to be in opposition of useless crap? I don't really understand that argument and the call to action. I don't see how that would actually get the rule removed.

[Army of Dad]

Meh, I’m fine with additional requirements. I’m glad I took the bow Hunter education course and if I’m luck enough to get drawn this year I’ll have no problem passing the qualification.

A few hoops to jump through is just the price of admission to the H and let’s be honest, there’s always/almost always some hoops to jump through for public hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hully1029]

I dont see it online on any of the drawn hunts this time.

[Army of Dad]

I dont see it online on any of the drawn hunts this time.

It’s there under national wildlife refuge archery deer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hully1029]

It’s there under national wildlife refuge archery deer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

was a little too antzy.. found it. thanks.

[jnd1959]

It will limit the applications. Which is probably the primary reason. And to insure applicants have at least a modicum of ability, have actually fired a bow and know which part of the deer to shoot at.

[bossbowman]

I'm in favor of it but now that you can use a crossbow not sure its warranted

[Lynn21]

It’s a Total waste of time. Just like the hagerman deal- it should require u to put 9 out of 10 arrows in a 2 inch ring at 20 yds IMO.

[Razorback01]

[QUOTE=TexasArchery_27;15685374]2 lines in your response perfectly sum up the argument for those in favor of the additional requirements. It's about promoting a false sense of exclusivity for the good ole boys that have hunted it frequently in the past. Me, its not exclusivity, not GOB, its the desire to do something different.

It’s a prime piece of ground everyone in the nation has ownership in. Me- yes it is, and it means a lot to some of us, and if other folks were willing to put in the work- it would be to them a well.

You know the additional requirement isn’t right and does absolutely nothing beneficial to growing hunter recruitment or retention. There’s no valid argument with quantifiable data to support the additional requirement's necessity. The requirements aren't even equally applied across the board on hunts there. This is BS, grow the recruitment and retention in the proper way vs. opening the flood gates, again BS- prove it.


If you look at the spring turkey description, archery equipment is allowed as a method of take, but the bowhunter education component and proficiency test are not mentioned as they are with the deer hunting application description. Me- Please note that to the Hagerman staff.

Your reasoning in favor of the requirement in that it "Weeds Out" non-serious applicants doesn't actually accomplish that. They can still apply and purchase the tag. They just need to have met the additional requirements prior to the hunt start. So, this really doesn't help the odds at all for those in favor. The additional requirement would need to be met prior to the application being filled out to actually have some influence in the draw odds. Most people that have not completed the additional requirement will submit the application and then worry about the certification and proficiency once drawn. Me- you cant fix stupid, make sure you are ready, scout the property weeks prior to thee hunt, make sure you are in compliance with the regulations. The Thursday prior to the hunt is for stand setup- not scouting.

It's frustrating that there's an elitist's attitude when it comes to this property specifically. To my knowledge, no other property in the TPWD draw carries that additional requirement - Federal or State managed. Unequal application of the standard, which I'm sure is heavily influenced by those in favor of the requirement, and not necessarily representative of the consensus among the public hunting population as a whole. Me- No elites among the longtime H hunters, just don't turn it into a vacation, and don't take a hunt spot for a leisure 4 hour hunt- go to a WMA where they drive you out to your spot.

I do not recall seeing anything on the TPWD site about a public comment period for this specific topic. I may have missed it, but for something like that I will definitely keep an eye out for in the future. Why is it required that I become an instructor to be in opposition of useless crap? I don't really understand that argument and the call to action. I don't see how that would actually get the rule removed. Me- Well, you missed it. If you want to impact the changes- get involved.

[Grayson]

It will limit the applications. Which is probably the primary reason. And to insure applicants have at least a modicum of ability, have actually fired a bow and know which part of the deer to shoot at.

What novel concepts...