WA Hunter Ed Legislation 4/15 Update

[Bob33]

There is little if any evidence that indicates hunters under age 14 would be safer hunting with an adult. The vast majority already do anyway.

[winshooter88]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

[lokidog]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

That's fine, but what, other than $$$ is the reason that the adult needs to be licensed?  And does the license have to be the same as the kid's?  Can I bow hunt for elk and then take my kid rifle elk hunting?  What if I just bought a small game license, can I take my kid deer hunting.  Here's where the details hit the fan and they can set it up however they want to in order to maximize revenue.  It does not make any sense from a legal or safety perspective to require this.  As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.

[bigtex]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.

Actually more then half of the states I listed require a licensed adult to accompany them, the others do not require them to have a license.

And in WA you would just need a hunting license to accompany them, doesn't need to be the same lincese.

[huntingfool7]

How does a license requirement for the supervising adult add to safety?
There is an assumption here that the kid wouldn't be in the field if Mom and Dad don't hunt. 
AND IF MOM AND DAD DON'T HUNT, GOOD LUCK GETTING THEM TO TAKE A CLASS AND BUY A LICENSE TO TAKE LITTLE JOHNNY AFIELD.

[xd2005]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.

Actually more then half of the states I listed require a licensed adult to accompany them, the others do not require them to have a license.

And in WA you would just need a hunting license to accompany them, doesn't need to be the same lincese.

That could still be quite expensive if dad lives in Oregon and wants to take his son, that lives in WA with his mom, hunting.

[csaaphill]

I like the idea of lowering the age.

[arees]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

Please allow me to respectfully say....no no no no no no. etc.

You are not required to hunt with a high powered rifle.  Small game hunting is still allowed in this state.  If you believe that a hunter should not be licensed until they can shoot the most powerful rifle that can be used in this state, I have some interesting guns to shoot.  What should be covered in hunter ed, is how and why to select an appropriate rifle and cartridge for you and your game (if you are rifle hunting at all).

If you want to bring up the bear hunting accident, get the facts straight:

http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html

The youth in question was 14 and this bill would have had no effect on that incident.  Do you have an actual case of an unsupervised youth hunting accident that this bill would address?  People have been hunting in Washington for a long time.  One such accident must have happened, but we don't need legislation to address all rare occurrences.

This is why I earlier compared this bill to an assault weapon ban.  It doesn't address a significant problem that is really being seen and it wouldn't have changed the most prominent case that people seem to be concerned about.

PS, as far as charging for the courses to deter people from signing up and then not showing up, here is a quote from the class starting on February 24th in Eatonville:

Special Instructions for All Students
There is a $20.00 deposit for the class upon completion you will be refunded $15.00. Deposit can be payed at the clud between 10 AM and Noon on the 16th of February and also pickup your book for the class or mailed to Kevin Watson P.O Box 6048 Spanaway, WA 98387.

So charging people for not showing up is already allowed.  The only question is who the money goes to.  Either this legislation was poorly thought out or it isn't really for addressing the topics it claims to address.

[lokidog]

"So charging people for not showing up is already allowed.  The only question is who the money goes to.  Either this legislation was poorly thought out or it isn't really for addressing the topics it claims to address."

Ding Ding!  The team I taught with did something similar.  The $5 went to cover ammo and other expenses related to the class.  How will the instructors cover that with this bill since the State won't be giving any to the instructors?  Hey, I guess it doesn't matter, they are a dedicated bunch that will just donate their money as well as time right?  Can you say BYE BYE to more instructors? 

I will repeat, this is simply another State money grab and has nothing to do with safety.   

Write your reps people.  This is a bad plan as written!!  Write your Senators as well, they seem to not all have their lips up to the State drinking fountain.

[huntingfool7]

As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.

Please allow me to respectfully say....no no no no no no. etc.

You are not required to hunt with a high powered rifle.  Small game hunting is still allowed in this state.  If you believe that a hunter should not be licensed until they can shoot the most powerful rifle that can be used in this state, I have some interesting guns to shoot.  What should be covered in hunter ed, is how and why to select an appropriate rifle and cartridge for you and your game (if you are rifle hunting at all).
If you want to bring up the bear hunting accident, get the facts straight:

http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html

The youth in question was 14 and this bill would have had no effect on that incident.  Do you have an actual case of an unsupervised youth hunting accident that this bill would address?  People have been hunting in Washington for a long time.  One such accident must have happened, but we don't need legislation to address all rare occurrences.

This is why I earlier compared this bill to an assault weapon ban.  It doesn't address a significant problem that is really being seen and it wouldn't have changed the most prominent case that people seem to be concerned about.

PS, as far as charging for the courses to deter people from signing up and then not showing up, here is a quote from the class starting on February 24th in Eatonville:

Special Instructions for All Students
There is a $20.00 deposit for the class upon completion you will be refunded $15.00. Deposit can be payed at the clud between 10 AM and Noon on the 16th of February and also pickup your book for the class or mailed to Kevin Watson P.O Box 6048 Spanaway, WA 98387.

So charging people for not showing up is already allowed.  The only question is who the money goes to.  Either this legislation was poorly thought out or it isn't really for addressing the topics it claims to address.

It was not a requirement to shoot a centerfire rifle or a shotgun to pass when I went through HS 30 years ago.  There was an option for that on range day.
Most of us start out hunting critters that don't require centerfire rifles or shotguns.

This is  my concern and issue with WDFW.  Legislation to make it harder for youth to get a license and become part of the hunting comunity.  If they don't start when they're young, they are not going to be buying licenses and getting afield when they're older.
 
There is NO good reason to have LICENSED adult supervision.
There is NO good reason to require a 12 year old to shoot a shotgun to get a safety certificate.

WDFW should actively be recruiting hunter safety instructors and working to have enough classes for the students that want to attend.

[huntingfool7]

Senator. Bruce Dammier
Rep. Dawn Morrell
Rep. Hans Zeiger
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

RE: House Bill 1199 relating to hunter safety (education). The bill was written at the request of WDFW and is sponsored by Reps Blake, Chandler, Takko, Buys, Kirby, Orcutt, Lytton, Van De Wege, Nealey, Hudgins, Stanford, Wilcox, and Warnick

Part of this bill requires that hunters under the age of 14 must be accompanied by a WA licensed hunter that is 18 or older.  There is no justifiable reason that a parent or adult should have to be licensed in order to supervise a young hunter. 

This bill does not address an actual problem. There does not appear to have been any hunting accidents in this state that this bill would have prevented.  Instead, it “hopes” to increase safety by putting additional restrictions on young hunters and their families.

This particular bill would have prevented me from going through hunter safety 30 some years ago as my parents did not hunt. 

Further, it would be in the states interest to have more youth participation in firearm safety.  We all should be doing our part to ensure that any and all youth that are interested in hunting or shooting in this state, have the resources to be trained in safe firearm handling practices.

The WDFW should be putting their efforts into recruiting new hunter safety instructors and providing enough hunter safety classes for all that would like to be certified.  Backing legislation that reduces participation and training does not add to the safety of our kids.

Thanks and best regards,

James Halvorson 
(253) 777-7233

[bearpaw]

Collectively, many reasons have been brought to light indicating why this is a bad bill. 

[bigtex]

The bill was voted out of the House Natural Resource committee with 11 bipartisan reps (Blake, Lytton, Chandler, Buys, Dunshee, Haigh, Hurst, Pettigrew, Schmick, Stanford and Warnick) voting in favor, Republican Drew MacEwen of Union was the only one who voted against this bill.

[lokidog]

Lytton is not "bipartisan".     She is completely on the liberal side, so anything she would vote for is bad for us as hunters and gun owners!!!!!!!!!!

[bigtex]

The House bill had a hearing in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government. Nobody in opposition testified or was at the hearing.