Proposed legislation will criminalize a 13 yr old hunting alone

[huntingfool7]

This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.

As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses.  It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.

I don't see an issue with this.  If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.

[Bob33]

This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.

As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses.  It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.

I don't see an issue with this.  If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.

How about a 6 year old?

[NoBark]

Guys, as an instructor I would rather let the testing decide the age.  If they pass, they can hunt.  Secondly, many counties have rules on the books prohibiting juvies from hunting alone until a certain age.  In Whatcom county you have to be 16 to hunt alone. So, this debate may be a mute point for some.

[Wader]

Guys, as an instructor I would rather let the testing decide the age.  If they pass, they can hunt.

I agree that if a kid can pass Hunter's Education, then he should be allowed to hunt. One twelve year old might pass while his buddy fails--it is what it is.  Beyond that, parents have to make a lot of decisions regarding whether their kid is ready for a given activity, whether it's hunting, hiking, fishing, swimming, or lighting a fire.  Let each parent decide what's appropriate.

And...let's not lose sight of the fact that we're not just talking about a fine or other slap on the wrist here:  We are talking about a kid going to jail for trying to fill his deer tag.  Wow.

[huntingfool7]

This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.

As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses.  It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.

I don't see an issue with this.  If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.

How about a 6 year old?

I've never met a 6 year old that I would leave in the woods alone.  I think you could easily find a 12 or 13 year old that would do fine on stand.  Most kids under 16 would need someone to take them afield, just to get there. 

Parents should decide when they're ready to swim.  Every decision in life should not require legislation to guide us.

[bobcat]

The type of game they're hunting makes a difference too. I could see a lot of 8 year olds being capable of going on a grouse hunt (not alone but with an adult). Yet I doubt many kids that age are ready for elk hunting.

[Wader]

But do you think kids should be subjected to jail if they go hunting alone?

[bobcat]

But do you think kids should be subjected to jail if they go hunting alone?

No, of course not.

[arees]

If you are the sort of parent that would allow your 6 year old to hunt alone, your supervision of the child wouldn't be worth much anyway.  This law does not add anything of value.  It is just another case of the state wanting to be our nanny.

If you are going to propose this law, shouldn't you be proposing a law that states that you can't let anyone under 16 be alone outside at all?  I took hunter ed a few years ago so I could apply for hunts out of state.  I recently sat through it again while my eight year old son took the class.  I seem to remember some discussion on whether you were more likely to get shot or die of exposure.  Does anyone remember which was more likely?

Would the people proposing the change to the age limit to point out why they don't support a law limiting any solo hiking by kids under 14?  Which are there more of, solo hunters under 14 or solo kids hiking under 14?

If you don't think kids under 14 are safe with firearms, perhaps we should have some sort of hunter safety test they could take. 

[lokidog]

Personally, I do think a minimum age of 12 to hunt alone would be fine, unless the kid is on private land owned by the parents or someone giving the youngster written permission to hunt alone, this would not include paper company properties which are essentially "public" for hunting purposes.

I would not allow my son to hunt alone at age 10 unless he was on my property, but that is my personal choice.  Whatever age is put on this there is NO WAY IN HE... er I mean WA, that this should be a criminal offense.

Arees, hiking is a bit different as this is theoretically a safety issue for others, not the hiker/hunter, since most hikers do not have the capability of injuring others.

[KFhunter]

This is pure D bull scat.

[xd2005]

Should an under-age (under 18) person that were to commit a crime while hunting be charged as juvenile or adult?

[arees]

Personally, I do think a minimum age of 12 to hunt alone would be fine, unless the kid is on private land owned by the parents or someone giving the youngster written permission to hunt alone, this would not include paper company properties which are essentially "public" for hunting purposes.

I would not allow my son to hunt alone at age 10 unless he was on my property, but that is my personal choice.  Whatever age is put on this there is NO WAY IN HE... er I mean WA, that this should be a criminal offense.

Arees, hiking is a bit different as this is theoretically a safety issue for others, not the hiker/hunter, since most hikers do not have the capability of injuring others.

I don't let my kid hunt alone either, but this sounds like a solution looking for a problem.  Did we have a rash of youth hunters shooting people that I didn't hear about.  Next you are going to tell me that I would be safer if we banned assault weapons.  Lets see...

It is for the safety of the children...check
I don't do it so no one else needs to do it...check
It might make some people safer, but not from the highest risk items...check
It is just a little restriction now, you don't have to worry about increasing the restrictions later...check

It sure sounds like the AWB logic to me only without the headlines from repeated youth related hunting accidents.

[lokidog]

Easy there... no need to attack.  If you look at my postings on this topic, you will see that I support a minimum age with a whole lot of differences from the State's proposal.

There was indeed an incident of an unsupervised young person shooting someone, not a rash of them however.  I pretty much agree with you, just indicating why bringing hikers into it is apples and oranges.

[arees]

I bring the youth hikers into it because I believe that a young hunter is far more likely to experience problems from getting lost or exposure than they are from a weapon related accident.  If the goal is to save more children, then we should be limiting all solo youth hikers (including solo youth hunters) because they are a larger group exposed to the more significant danger.

That is one of my issues with the AWB.  People propose it as a way to protect children even though it is an insignificant source of danger to children.  There are far more effective things that could be done to protect children, but actually protecting children is not the goal.

I see this as a parallel issue.  This part of the proposed legislation did not come from an analysis of risks to children and the most effective way to reduce those risks.  It either comes from either muddy thinking, or a desire to be seen to be doing something for children.  Its not effective, but it looks like they care.

If your concern is whether we should trust these kids to safely handle guns, we are discussing a problem with the hunter ed testing program.  The point of the program is to teach and test for understanding of safety issues.  I agree that some people are passing without really understanding hunting safety.  I know some ex military (non-infantry) people with deplorable gun handling skills.  This legislation does not address that.  Instead is applies a broad brush based on an arbitrarily chosen age limit.

When my son took the test, I sat on the far side of the room from him.  There was another adult near him to answer any question he might have, but he only asked about two words in the test.  My concern was whether he could read fast enough to complete the test in time.  In the end, he only missed two questions and was not among the last to finish. 

He was eight when he took the test and is nine now.  He is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to hunt (or hike) alone now.  Maybe he will be ready and able when he is twelve or thirteen.  I don't know.  With luck, that will be a decision between me, his father, and him.  I don't want to see that option taken away because somebody thought that some kids might be safer from an already extremely rare risk.