WA Hunter Ed Legislation 4/15 Update

[lokidog]

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.

I guess that makes it OK then....   

While other states are making it easier for young hunters to get started, our illustrious Washington Department of no fishing or hunting decides it would be a good idea to go the other way and make it harder and more expensive for youngsters to get started.  There has been plenty of opposition sent from me, I just don't have the luxury of being able to pop over to Olympia every 20 minutes when these meatheads decide they need to make or change a law that doesn't address any actual problem in the real world that the rest of us non-politician/government drones live in.

Everyone opposed to this, start writing the Senators, we still have half a chance that they will shoot it down since many of them are not part of the liberal, gun-hating, grocery store meat buying, Anthony's seafood loving, elite......

[buckfvr]

Indeed loki....its a sad day when lack of common sense dominates state politics.........and to go along with it ...innumerable state employees to run with their every word and desire.   

[arees]

I just sent this email to my legislators:

   HB 1199 claims to be a bill promoting hunting safety among our young hunters. In reality, it is a solution looking for a problem. It is another case of changing the rules so that someone can feel like they are doing something for safety while there is no evidence of any real problem.

I have been discussing this at length with representatives of WDFW and they have claimed two main reasons for proposing this legislation:

1) Increased safety for young hunters (i.e. hunters under 14 who may be hunting alone).
2) Increased access to hunters education classes by charging a fee to dissuade people from signing up from classes and then not showing up.

Neither of these are real issues.

For the first issue, WDFW has not been able to present any evidence of an actual incident that would have been prevented by this incident. For most people, they remember the 2008 incident of a young bear hunter shooting a hiker. It must be remembered that however tragic that incident may be, the hunter in question was 14 and this bill would have had no impact on that incident.

From WDFW's own statistic, they youngest hunter involved in an accident in 2011 (the latest results available) was 16. Outside of the range of this bill.

Please take an analytical look at WDFW's accident statistics shown here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html

These statistics show that for 10 to 19 year olds, there have been 150 accidents over the last 30 years. That averages to 5 per year, but remember that this bill only addresses those incidents where the hunter was under 14. We must also view the chart showing that the accident rate now has fallen to one quarter of what it was 30 years ago. This means that we are averaging less than one accident per year for hunters in the 10 to 19 year age range.

In the mean time it adds costs to introducing our children to our traditional activities. This bill would require the adult accompanying the youth to be licensed for hunting. This would mean that for me to take my child out for a youth only hunt I would need to have my own license as well. While I do purchase a hunting license annually, I oppose any unnecessary barriers being put in the way of our hunting activities.

The bill also sets an arbitrary minimum age to take the hunters education class. This is unnecessary because successful completion of the class depends on passing a test at the end. Rather than picking an arbitrary age, let the test perform its function. If the test does not weed out people who do not understand the material, the test should be fixed. Why let a 9 year old pass who does not grasp the material pass under a bad test and block a younger child who does because of an arbitrary age restriction. If there is a problem, and the falling hunting accident rates indicates there is no problem, address the test.

Clearly, the youth hunter safety aspect is a solution looking for a problem. Perhaps you have heard the term "nannying" before. Here we have another fine example. There is no evidence of a problem, but the state is proposing layering on "safety" rules none the less.

For the second issue, this problem has already been solved. If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end. The mechanism for deterring people for signing up for a class, blocking someone else from taking the class, and then not showing up is already in place.

The only thing this addresses is funneling more money to WDFW.

This is a poorly thought out and unjustified bill. It is a solution looking for a problem. Please oppose it and take a stand against nannying.

[huntingfool7]

Arees- Very well written.  Thanks for sharing.

[bobcat]

Arees- Very well written.  Thanks for sharing.

I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:

If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.

Is it just me or is that a little confusing?

[lokidog]

Arees- Very well written.  Thanks for sharing.

I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:

If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.

Is it just me or is that a little confusing?

Noticed that too.   

[arees]

Damn, I should get a secretary.  The fees are only refunded if you do show up for the test.

[bigtex]

The Senate version of the bill has removed the fees charged for attending courses, it also made the act of hunting alone a infraction not a misdemeanor (just like the house version).

So as of right now:
House Bill: Fee for attending course
Senate Bill: No fee

Both bills are still active, however the Senate bill is further a long.

[huntingfool7]

Damn, I should get a secretary.  The fees are only refunded if you do show up for the test.

I caught that later, while rewriting and using your work as a template.  Still nicely done and gave me a head start.

[bigtex]

The House Bill which still has a fee has been passed on to the House Rules Committee

[JJD]

Arees- Very well written.  Thanks for sharing.

I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:

If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.

Is it just me or is that a little confusing?

I believe what he meant was that some classes charge an intiial fee, but refund the fee if you complete the class.  If you don't complete the class, no refund.
We tried that with a $5 fee (All we are allowed to ask for without special permission) and it had no effect.  Maybe if you charged and refunded $100 it might have an impact.  I mean, $5 to $20 is nothing anymore.

[Bob33]

If this bill passes, the intent is to have class registration fees collected at the time of online registration. That would mean that an individual registering for five concurrent classes (as some do now) would pay $100.

[danderson]

 

[bigtex]

  I can tell you that if the bill passes most every hunter education instructor that I know, me included will quit teaching, the bottom line is the state wants to do away with the traditional  hunter education class all together, make it a online class with instructors only doing the field course evaluations, some people think this is the way of the future, not me.

Why would charging a fee make intructors quit?

[danderson]

Its a slippery slope that were heading down,  its obvious that the game department wants to overhaul the hunter education program, the changes in the new policy manual make that perfectly clear, the traditional class is being  diluted down to were its no longer necessary to teach, the 20.00 fee is just another step in the dismantling of the program and the shift to the online class, they seem to have forgotten the intent of hunter education was to educate  the youth or anyone wanting some basic knowledge on handling firearms safely, and not just another cash cow. Pittman Robbertson Act Money recieved by the state is being shiponed off to other programs taking away from were it was intended, weres the shooting ranges that are supposed to be funded, I contend that the moneys there and its being squandered off for fancy furnuture somewere or gold plated tolets.