There’s nothing quite like a deer walking around with an arrow sticking through its head to jump start the lingering conversation about bowhunter education.
The full details of last week’s Elbert County episode perhaps never will be known. Was the errant shot fired by a licensed hunter who flunked the ultimate sportsmanship test? By a poacher on a shoot-and- run?
The emotional electricity generated by such a visually shocking event raises certain concerns about bowhunting and the way it is viewed — both from inside and outside the sport.
Colorado Bowhunter Association spokesman Paul Navarre defends archers as “the most ethical, passionate and law-abiding group of hunters out there,” an assertion that indeed may be true. He further makes the point that certainly applies to the wounded doe deer that ultimately was euthanized by officers from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
“When someone sees a dead animal that may have been struck by a vehicle or even shot by a rifle, they don’t react. But if they see one with an arrow sticking out, there’s a big reaction. It only takes one of these pictures to turn people off.”
But that image also serves to resurrect the question that won’t go away: Why doesn’t Colorado require a separate education course for bowhunters?
After all, as Navarre points out, the very essence and appeal of archery is that it makes far more demands than does hunting with a firearm.
“We get a lot of newbies who might grab a bow right before hunting season. They don’t have the necessary personal tools — knowing the effective range, the skills of getting close, shot placement, blood trailing.”
Navarre and the CBA took a run at the issue a couple of years back with a petition to the Colorado Wildlife Commission to institute mandatory bowhunter education. In response, the policy-making body authorized a survey of 2,400 hunters, both residents and nonresidents, who purchased archery tags. A majority rejected the proposal, and the initiative foundered.
Two key points must be made here. One is that the survey result might have been skewed by the fact that nonresidents — who represent 18,500 of the 44,000 total of Colorado bowhunters — are presumed heavily opposed because of inconvenience. Some states require classes transferrable to Colorado; many do not. Courses are offered online, but again with an element of bother.
The other consideration is that the requirement might cause nonresidents to avoid Colorado, with a considerable loss of license revenue. Little wonder the motion bogged down.
Only a bare 12 percent of resident bowhunters belong to CBA, and many disagree with some of the organization’s policies. But some among the nonmembers feel strongly that education deserves greater emphasis. One is Mark Bogner of Broomfield, a veteran of 40 years hunting with a bow.
“I’m totally in favor of bowhunter ed, also a proficiency test,” Bogner said. “There’s an etiquette and understanding that makes archery different from everything else. There are basics you should know before you pull back and throw an arrow at a deer.”
Navarre believes some good evolved from the earlier dialogue. The Colorado Division of Wildlife not only makes bowhunting a larger part of the standard hunter ed course all license holders must complete, it now offers a separate, one-day voluntary class for archers.
It’s understandable that those who have accumulated long hours of personal practice or years of hunting experience might object to a mandatory course.
No one says whether mandatory bowhunter education might have prevented last week’s incident, or others like it. But it sure couldn’t hurt.
