WA Hunter Ed Legislation 4/15 Update

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic  (myself included).  I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.

That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force?  How about crossing a fence?   

Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.

So, I guess I am confused, does this proposal mean they don't have to do the range portion but still have to pass the written test?  If so, no problem.  But, I think I've read on here, previously, that no student has to do the live shooting, so what's the point of this besides adding more words to whatever government code this is part of?  Anyone taking an NRA or other firearm safety class should then also qualify for the same exemption as the military if that is the reasoning, wouldn't it?   

From my understanding we are only exempted from the firearms portion. Not sure what that is made up of but I am assuming it's some kind of exercise where you walk around with a gun and and faced with various hunting situation (fences..etc.) and in some cases shooting....not sure...I went through hunters ed years ago and we didn't do any of that stuff.

[Tman]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arent they already allowed to charge a fee of up to 20. besides, some of the hunter ed groups give the money back to thr student after they show up.  20 bucks a person doesnt go very far providing the optional ammunition and real firearms for field events. . Its mostly for getting people to only book a class if they plan on attending.

[Bob33]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arent they already allowed to charge a fee of up to 20. besides, some of the hunter ed groups give the money back to thr student after they show up.  20 bucks a person doesnt go very far providing the optional ammunition and real firearms for field events. . Its mostly for getting people to only book a class if they plan on attending.

Yes; we charge $20 and refund $15.

To re-emphasize: the biggest problem facing new hunters today is a LACK OF CLASSES, which is due to a LACK OF INSTRUCTORS.

We opened registration today for an April class. By 5:00 a.m. the class was FULL. I've been getting emails all day asking "can you add one more?"

[bigtex]

Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.

I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).

That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add.   

Hate to say "told you so", but I did   

[lokidog]

Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.

I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).

That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add.   

Hate to say "told you so", but I did   

Hmmm, I guess it's hilarious that our representatives, who, I would assume, are supposed to actually represent us, don't give a crap about our input?  We all know that any comments ever made on something coming out of WDFWs ass mouths aren't worth anything, yet we keep trying even when not given the opportunity.   Hilarious.   

[bigtex]

As I mentioned in another thread this bill was changed. In the original bill it was a misdemeanor for a person under 14 to hunt alone, that offense under the substitute bill is now a natural resource infraction (similar to barbed hook and hunter orange violations).

The bill now goes before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government on 2/20.

[lokidog]

It's still poorly thought out with regards to who can accompany someone under 14, simply a continued money grab by the state having nothing to do with safety issues.

"Trust us, we're from the government and know what's best for you...."   

[arees]

It is still a bill addressing a problem that doesn't exist.  Somebody thought we should do something just in case there might be a case some time that this might help.  It sounds good.  It involves children and safety.  Some legislator can get it passed and feel like they did something.

Meanwhile the real issues facing our state (perhaps like funding education) go unaddressed.

My child is far more likely to drown in a private swimming pool than to die in any of the circumstances (hunting, getting into a shoot out with a mad gunman, choking to death on a high capacity magazine, tripping over a rifle leaning in a corner of the room) that are being addressed in the legislature.  If any of these people were really concerned about child safety they would be addressing the real (higher likelyhood) risks to children.  They aren't, they are just passing feel good legislation to grab headlines.

I don't need a nanny and neither does my son.  He has a mother and a father.

[bigtex]

I will say this, this legislation has been pushed around WDFW for several years, this is not in reaction to the recent school shootings.

[lokidog]

I will say this, this legislation has been pushed around WDFW for several years, this is not in reaction to the recent school shootings.

No, they are simply taking advantage just like all the other bottom-feeding liberals, so they are just as bad.  They figured they couldn't get this passed, that's why it has been "pushed around" for years.  Why put it out now?  See my first sentence.  This is a big stinking pile of diarhea.

[bigtex]

I will say this, this legislation has been pushed around WDFW for several years, this is not in reaction to the recent school shootings.

No, they are simply taking advantage just like all the other bottom-feeding liberals, so they are just as bad.  They figured they couldn't get this passed, that's why it has been "pushed around" for years.  Why put it out now?  See my first sentence.  This is a big stinking pile of diarhea.

You can look on the WDFW website. This proposal was made to the WDFW commission in the Summer of 2012. This is the first year it was actually sent to the legislature.

WDFW has to stagger their bills they submit through the legislature. It is a lot easier to get 2-4 agency supported bills passed in a year then it is to get 10 or 20. WDFW is already looking at bills for the 2014 legislature.

The 2012 legislature had the biggest Fish and Wildlife Enforcement bill in state history. It would have been difficult to get another hunter ed bill passed when the enforcement bill was going through.

[lokidog]

YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?  YOU ARE SIMPLY ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT!!  THIS BILL WILL DO NOTHING TO MAKE THE FIELDS AND FORESTS SAFER, IT WILL SIMPLY PROHIBIT MANY NEW HUNTERS FROM GETTING OUT THERE, OR COST THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES MORE MONEY TO DO IT!

DUH!!

Loki,
Bigtex is here as a service to us, representing the WDFW and bringing to light legislation and rules changes which affect our hunting and fishing privileges, and our Constitutional rights. He has made several posts in the last two days which have brought to light proposed legislation which would negatively affect our rights.

Please treat him with respect or we'll lose this resource which has been extremely valuable. You don't have to agree with everything he has to say. But you do need to treat him with respect and appreciate the perspective he adds to our site. This goes for Outdoor Guardian, as well. Thanks in advance for toning it down.
PMan

[bigtex]

YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?

I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.

You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.

Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.

[lokidog]

YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?

I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.

You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.

Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.

Trust me, I have, several times.  My beef is not the $20 deposit or even the minimum age so much, although there are plenty of 9 year olds that can read and understand better than a lot of high school kids.  And, if someone at WDFW actually filled in the paperwork for a 6 month old, then shame on them fro wasting the taxpayer's money on it.  My beef is with the minimum age to hunt "alone" and the requirements that that person has to meet in order to be the one accompanying.

"Hate to say "told you so", but I did"  Facts?   This is a stick it up yours comment by you. 

And the "facts" are that WDFW felt that now, with the stuff that has been happening, they can get their "safety" agenda passed even though it will have zero effect on safety and a potentially large effect on hunter recruitment.

[bigtex]

YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?

I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.

You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.

Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.

And the "facts" are that WDFW felt that now, with the stuff that has been happening, they can get their "safety" agenda passed even though it will have zero effect on safety and a potentially large effect on hunter recruitment.

How can you say WDFW felt they can get this pushed through now because of what has happened (school shootings, gun legislation, etc) when the WDFW Commission approved this legislation last summer, BEFORE everything started to occur?