Proposed legislation will criminalize a 13 yr old hunting alone

[bearpaw]

Bigtex has not disclosed who he works for, and that's his right just as it is for everyone on this forum to disclose what they do and do not wish to.

I respect his privacy and ask that others do as well.

I think it is wise for him to remain completely anonymous, any disclosure would be foolish. His contributions to this site and to everyone's knowledge are highly valued and I would not like to see that input jeopordized. 

[bearpaw]

Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:

It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?

[Bob33]

Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:

It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?

There are several efforts under way intended to identify ways to increase participation from hunter education graduates. Currently only about half of the graduates purchase a hunting license. Reduced license prices are one idea that has merit.

The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.

[lokidog]

Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:

It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?

There are several efforts under way intended to identify ways to increase participation from hunter education graduates. Currently only about half of the graduates purchase a hunting license. Reduced license prices are one idea that has merit.

The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.

And this accompanied by a LICENSED adult will just further reduce the numbers of new hunters.

[Bob33]

Lokidog, I don't disagree with you. Making it more difficult for youth to hunt is not helping our cause.

Of course, any shooting by a hunter like the Sauk Mountain bear hunter who shot and killed a hiker doesn't help either.

I'm very concerned that hunters may lose their "critical mass" stature in the future. In 2012 there were fewer than 200,000 Washington licensed hunters, and the number dropped by about 6,000 per year in 2011 and 2012.  That puts hunters at about 3 percent of our state's population and declining.

[bigtex]

Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:

It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?

The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.

 
I think sometimes it is dad pressure on the child to hunt, and they end up not wanting to. It may be at the end of the class there is a fear of firearms. Think of it another way, why as kids get older are they less and less likely to play in sports?

[lokidog]

Of all of the people hunting each season and over say, the last 20 years, how many shootings are caused by kids in the 8-14 age group versus the others?  I am sure it is lower.  Plus, I bet that in the bulk of incidents that actually do involve someone under 14, an adult was already nearby.  But I guess "just saving one life" makes putting more restrictions on everyone else worthwhile?   

Part of the problem I see is that the HS requirements by the state include a minimum 10 hours, but most instructors stretch that out to at least 20.  Having been an instructor, I realize that there is a lot of info that we would like to pass on to the students, however I think many students have a hard time scheduling three to sometimes five days for a class.  I think rather than spending a bunch of time basically reading the book in class, the bulk of the 10 hours should actually be spent learning to and handling firearms safely along with reviews of regulations and wildlife ecology/management.  But, this last paragraph probably belongs in its own thread.

[bearpaw]

Of all of the people hunting each season and over say, the last 20 years, how many shootings are caused by kids in the 8-14 age group versus the others?  I am sure it is lower.  Plus, I bet that in the bulk of incidents that actually do involve someone under 14, an adult was already nearby.  But I guess "just saving one life" makes putting more restrictions on everyone else worthwhile?   

Part of the problem I see is that the HS requirements by the state include a minimum 10 hours, but most instructors stretch that out to at least 20.  Having been an instructor, I realize that there is a lot of info that we would like to pass on to the students, however I think many students have a hard time scheduling three to sometimes five days for a class.  I think rather than spending a bunch of time basically reading the book in class, the bulk of the 10 hours should actually be spent learning to and handling firearms safely along with reviews of regulations and wildlife ecology/management.  But, this last paragraph probably belongs in its own thread.

I like the idea of doing a lot of this bookwork online and showing up for a range day like they do for the online course, I think the online program will expand over time if it is allowed to. But we still need instructors for the range day and there really seems to be little interest by WDFW to recruit instructors. No matter what they do, there is a bottle neck due to the number of instructors. In addition to recruiting young hunters we need to also recruit instructors.

[Bob33]

" No matter what they do, there is a bottle neck due to the number of instructors. In addition to recruiting young hunters we need to also recruit instructors."

Indeed, that is a real issue.

[Bob33]

Of all of the people hunting each season and over say, the last 20 years, how many shootings are caused by kids in the 8-14 age group versus the others?  I am sure it is lower.  Plus, I bet that in the bulk of incidents that actually do involve someone under 14, an adult was already nearby.  But I guess "just saving one life" makes putting more restrictions on everyone else worthwhile?   

Very few, but unfortunately the 14 year old who shot the Sauk Mountain hiker is still fresh in everyone's mind.

The "if it just saves one life" argument is such a slippery slope.  We could save lives by outlawing swimming pools, trampolines, bicycles, roller blades, 5 gallon buckets, and a whole slew of other items if that were the real objective.

[lokidog]

" No matter what they do, there is a bottle neck due to the number of instructors. In addition to recruiting young hunters we need to also recruit instructors."

Indeed, that is a real issue.

I agree completely.  I am no longer an instructor because I felt the hoops needed for me to jump through were not worth my time.  I now also do not live in a location conducive to putting on classes or boating/driving hundreds of miles to do training classes.  If I did not have to teach a class every year  and did not have to do the "teaching" training (I have a Masters in Teaching and think I know the concept), I would probably sign up again and do the occasional class on Lopez Island or Anacortes, but until they make it more reasonable to stay as an instructor, I will have to pass.

And, yes Bob, the slippery slope was what I am referring to which parallels the whole gun ban thing going on elsewhere with our politicians, and yes, I also believe those in WDFW are politicians more than wildlife managers.

[grundy53]

Bigtex has not disclosed who he works for, and that's his right just as it is for everyone on this forum to disclose what they do and do not wish to.

I respect his privacy and ask that others do as well.

I think it is wise for him to remain completely anonymous, any disclosure would be foolish. His contributions to this site and to everyone's knowledge are highly valued and I would not like to see that input jeopordized. 

I'm sorry... maybe I'm too thick skulled to see it but how would telling us which agency he works for jeopardize anything? Assuming he is not the only person that works for that agency he would still remain completely anonymous. If anything it would bolster his contributions to this site since it would add credence. I know personally I would trust his information a lot more if I knew he actually worked for an agency that is in this field as opposed to some guy with a lot of time on his hands who likes to read law. There are folks on this site who can show you the RCW for just about anything and are not in law enforcement. There are also Leo's on here who have no problem stating they are Leo's. I just don't see how it could hurt. Like I said before no one is asking for his name or address....

[KFhunter]

Most agencies I'd imagine have a policy against representing their respective agency in an official capacity - once he identified himself the he could no longer speak freely.

[grundy53]

Why not? As long as he isn't speaking officially how is he be representing any agency? They are allowed to state facts and have personal opinions too.

[SevenD]

Off topic, but most in gov. Don't want the perception that they are speaking in a official capacity or that their opinions would be misconstrued as the opinion of the agency itself. Just muddys the water if people start judging what you say. My