WDFW Requested Legislation: Hunter Education Introduced 1/31 BIG CHANGE

[snowpack]

I believe the requirement to have a licensed hunter accompany a youth will be the most controversial point, and will most likely cause the bill to fail. I'm surprised they attached that poison pill to it. A minimum age of eight and a $20 fee would probably pass.

I wouldn't be too surprised if they would consider an amendment to the bill removing that section. Last year this bill started off making it a crime for a "minor" to hunt unaccompanied, enough people complained so they made it a natural resource infraction through an amendment last year.

They are talking up to the age of 14.  Not a bad deal, why would you have someone that young hunting by themselves anyways?  If not on a lease or there own property, they can't drive by themselves.  At 14 your more likely to make some bad decision.  Most don't have enough experience under there belt to know better.  Heck many middle aged people don't have enough common experience half the time.

I think that should be the parent's decision not the state's.  If the kid is competent and safe I don't see any problem walking or riding a bike down to old MacDonald's farm to shoot rabbits and crows...or going a few farms over to shoot some dove after school...or many more examples.

[Bob33]

Online skills evaluation sessions already have a $20 fee. They work just fine. Demand for the online evaluation sessions which cost $20 greatly exceeds demand for the traditional courses which cost $5.

[idahohuntr]

I think the $20 fee would help make sure attendance is high.  I was hearing of classes where lots sign up, but a bunch no-show as there is no real downside?? Not sure how common this is.

At the GMAC meeting we did discuss this hunter ed fee in the context of other fee cuts.  Specifically, WDFW had proposed reducing the price of 2nd deer tags...many folks said no to cutting price of 2nd deer tags (that have always sold out, indicating market support for the price) if we are going to start charging a $20 fee for hunters ed...basically, don't cut $20 from 2nd deer tags and then charge a $20 fee for hunters Ed...just didn't seem right. 

[iusmc2002]

Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.

No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.

I dislike the idea of ANOTHER fee to play, but they could easily make it refundable at the end of the class, not dependent on whether they pass or not.  The classes I've been involved in have had good-sized waiting lists, but once the class starts, the list is no good and now the spot that was taken is also no good.  I've had a college-aged girl drive from Spokane every night of the class so she could hunt with her boyfriend, that's how far people will go to get their cert.  There is no reason not to make the fee refundable.  Like pman said, it would probably solve a lot of the no-show problems.  If a student gets sick and CAN'T make it to class, a simple doctor's note stating such would be cause for refund.  There have been several students who show up the first class and then stop coming.  $20 would be a small step for ensuring they don't just waste that class slot.  If they do waste it, then it should go to the general fund for that particular class/instructor to be used on training aides and such.  I see this isn't the plan for this particular bill, so I voted "no"

[Bob33]

$20 really is a lot when you consider all the less expensive alternatives that kids can engage in: soccer, skiing lessons, music lessons, buying Xbox video games - the list is endless

[Dhoey07]

Online skills evaluation sessions already have a $20 fee. They work just fine. Demand for the online evaluation sessions which cost $20 greatly exceeds demand for the traditional courses which cost $5.

Hold up, I thought that the OP stated that the 20 dollar fee was to help offset the cost of online instruction, but the online portion already costs 20?

[Bob33]

Online skills evaluation sessions already have a $20 fee. They work just fine. Demand for the online evaluation sessions which cost $20 greatly exceeds demand for the traditional courses which cost $5.

Hold up, I thought that the OP stated that the 20 dollar fee was to help offset the cost of online instruction, but the online portion already costs 20?

Yes it does cost $20. The fee is collected by Kalkomey - the firm that provides the registration software. A portion is retained by them. I don't know how much the states receives.

[Bob33]

ooops,This is apples and oranges here,you choose to pay 20 to take the class online instead of going into the class everyday,just like you pay an extra $5 to buy tabs at a store or the dmv, instead of the courthouse.

Online students still have to participate in a skills evaluation session taught by instructors.

[j_h_nimrod]

$20 really is a lot when you consider all the less expensive alternatives that kids can engage in: soccer, skiing lessons, music lessons, buying Xbox video games - the list is endless

Not sure about soccer but when was the last time you priced kids ski lessons and all accoutrements?  Or music lessons for that matter?  You will end up paying a lot more for either of those and have a skill of dubious use in the end. I will not even go into video games and what those damn things cost, I love playing them (for about ten minutes) but they are totally useless and really a bane to most sane people.

As it currently stands I vote NO.  There are some good points in the bill but I am usually against more bureaucracy that really does not address an existing problem. Personally I would like my kids to get their ed card as soon as they are able, probably not until they are 8 or older but I don't want that mandated. I see no reason for a minimum age, if they are able to pass the tests then let them.

I think the reg for accompanied hunters (not by another licensed hunter though, just an adult) until 14 is good for big game but not small game. I probably spent 100 days a year chasing rabbits, gophers, and whatever else I could starting about age 9 and continuing until I had to many other responsibilities. I couldn't start hunting big game as a licensed hunter until age 14 so hunting small game was my main course until then.

The $20 fee is reasonable but don't feel it should be mandated, this state already takes enough out of my pocket. If they could defend that it actually costs $20 for each student then great but they should not use this as another revenue gathering enterprise, they have enough of those.

[Bob33]

"Not sure about soccer but when was the last time you priced kids ski lessons and all accoutrements? Or music lessons for that matter? You will end up paying a lot more for either of those and have a skill of dubious use in the end. I will not even go into video games and what those damn things cost.".

Really?

[blackdog]

The age 14 clause was inserted to restore the old law and to block liberals who wanted to require age 18. A little bit of history is the age 14 requirement was repealed in 1994 when democrats went on a gun control frenzy and inadvertantly removed it.

[bigtex]

The age 14 clause was inserted to restore the old law and to block liberals who wanted to require age 18. A little bit of history is the age 14 requirement was repealed in 1994 when democrats went on a gun control frenzy and inadvertantly removed it.

 

[blackdog]

Look for a new bill this week in the Senate with some additional compromise language that I hope most of you can live with. 

[lokidog]

No as proposed.

As last year, I feel the supervision clause is the major problem.  If supervision is required, it should only have to be by an adult.  There should be no license required for the adult if they are not hunting themselves.  This could be quite discriminatory toward young folks who don't have a hunting relative but do have an adult that would drive them somewhere and go along.  Another example would be if my father was visiting from WI, my son at 10 would not be able to be accompanied by him because my father would not pay the ridiculous price for an out of state deer tag.  THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG!!

[blackdog]

I believe the senate language will address this.