My letter to WDFW regarding the shooting and its implications

I thought that maybe some of you would be interested...

--- ---

Dear Director and Commission,

My name is Rylan Weythman. I am a lifelong resident of Washington State - an avid hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman.

I am writing in regards to the shooting incident that took place this past week when a young bear hunter unfortunately took the life of an innocent hiker. The news shocked me just as much as the rest of the state, and I am deeply sympathetic, both towards the family of the victim as well as the young hunter whose life will never be the same.

In spite of my emotions on this issue, however, I am concerned over the announcement of possible regulation changes - specifically those concerning the closure of public lands to hunters and the establishment of a minimum hunting age.

In times like these it is most important to avoid distraction and stay grounded when evaluating the effects of an incident. Was this a tragic experience? Of course. Should it have been avoided? Of course. Does it necessitate changes to the above-mentioned regulations? Absolutely not.

Public lands are just that: Public. When we restrict public lands to only certain forms of legal activity, we transform those lands into something that is no longer public but selective. Who is to say that hunters and hikers should have different rights to equally public lands? If we prevent hunters from accessing portions of public land to prevent interactions with hikers, are we not shifting from a fair and balanced division of use (something that public land by definition should entail)? The same could be said if the roles were reversed.

Hunters are constantly losing access to nature due to development, community-imposed no shooting zones, and increased regulation. It would be a travesty, however, for regulators in Washington to allow further loss of access due to one very, very rare incident. Hunting is too important to conservation efforts and our culture, and it is something that must be regulated with great care and consideration.

In regards to imposing a minimum age for hunters, I must ask the question, "On what grounds?"

Washington averages approximately ten hunting-related shooting accidents each year; a great majority of which involve the shooting of someone in the hunting party. In fact, the incident I alluded to at the beginning of my letter was the first of its kind in the past twenty-five years.

Furthermore, if we look at the statistics, we see that of those ten accidents per year, children are involved in very few, if any. So on what basis do we establish a minimum age for hunters? Certainly it's not out of public concern over incident rates. If that was the case, we would be better served to regulate the minimum age for riding a bike, playing on a public playground, or chewing gum - as these activities have significantly higher accident rates for American youth.

People will argue that shooting a firearm requires a great deal of responsibility and maturity. I agree. Anyone who has the power to take a life must exercise control over their weapon, their demeanor, and their decisions. But these advocates will further argue that children under a certain age - the age varies with each opinion - are not capable of such control. With this I disagree.

If their argument is true, where are the accidents? Where are the numbers? Where are the news clippings? The short-sighted few will point to the incident this past week as proof, but let us not forget that this hunter was a teenager and that this type of incident is rarer than being struck by lightening.

In light of this, setting a minimum age for hunters accomplishes nothing in the realm of public safety. What it does do, however, is restrict parents from assessing their child's unique ability and maturity, and it prevents parents from introducing their children to an activity that has been passed down from generation to generation. As a society, we are already losing our children to video games, gangs, and drugs. Why would we want to deter them from participating in an activity that promotes health, responsibility, maturity, and self-reliance?

The more I read about last week's incident, the stronger I feel that this isn't about land use or sharing terrain, and it isn't about people being too young to hunt. It's about a lack of supervision.

Instead of restricting hunters' access to public lands or instituting a minimum age for hunters, Washington State should simply require young hunters to hunt under direct supervision of an adult. That way we encourage the role of mentoring and we reduce the already low risk that someone will get hurt in the field.

Sincerely,

Rylan Weythman
Cashmere, WA