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

[bigtex]

Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.

Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.

[arees]

This law is trying to wrap two issues under "child safety" it the hope that legislator will pass it.

There is no long list of hunting accidents occurring due to hunters 14 and under hunting without a licensed adult along.  This is a solution looking for a problem.

The hunter ed fee is being sold as a way to stop people from registering and not showing up.  Here is the special instructions from a hunters ed class being taught this year (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397):

Special Instructions for All Students
NO CLASS 2/6/14 pay $20.00 deposit to save spot in class get(pay deposit get book and assignments) deposit back on range day.Must attend all classes,if under 12 years old, adult must accompany student.Class held UP-STAIRS in fire hall.BE ON TIME.

Hunter ed instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

What problem is this bill addressing?

[Curly]

I look at this from a dad's point of view. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't take my 12 year old daughter deer hunting unless I stay by her side the entire time. Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

The state probably feels that you aren't a good enough judge of when your kid is mature enough to be left alone.  Maybe parents sometimes have a biased view of their kids' ability to be out hunting alone?   

[bigtex]

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

[arees]

Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.

Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.

The answer to "you can't write a good law" is not "write a bad law."

[arees]

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

If the reason for the money portion is "WDFW doesn't trust the instructors to handle the money." why didn't you say that at the beginning?  Why was there a discussion about how this is to help prevent no-shows at the classes?  I try to make pointed comments about the legislation without bashing the people, but this makes that difficult.

Also, where does this bill say that all instruction and material fees must go through WDFW?

[BIGINNER]

how about just leave it the way it is?

Or how about we change it back to the way it was prior to 1994?

I am not arguing or disagreeing with you. The law was essentially inadvertently changed in 1994 and the supervision requirement was removed. Now some will say if the law was incorrectly changed then why didn't they change it in 1995? Well how much confusion will that have caused? Up until 1994 you cant hunt alone, then in the fall of 1994 you can hunt alone, but law changes in 1995 and now you can't hunt alone?

why change it back? it just gave parents more freedom on how and when to hunt with their kids.  there is no problem with how it is right now. so why change it? you're saying it as if after the law was changed in 1994 there was a huge increase of little kids shooting people in the woods. 

when they changed the law in 1994, it was a positive move for more freedom for the parents,...

the law they are trying to pass now does nothing but restrict parents unnecessarily, claiming it will solve a problem that does not exist

[BIGINNER]

This law is trying to wrap two issues under "child safety" it the hope that legislator will pass it.

There is no long list of hunting accidents occurring due to hunters 14 and under hunting without a licensed adult along.  This is a solution looking for a problem.

The hunter ed fee is being sold as a way to stop people from registering and not showing up.  Here is the special instructions from a hunters ed class being taught this year (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397):

Special Instructions for All Students
NO CLASS 2/6/14 pay $20.00 deposit to save spot in class get(pay deposit get book and assignments) deposit back on range day.Must attend all classes,if under 12 years old, adult must accompany student.Class held UP-STAIRS in fire hall.BE ON TIME.

Hunter ed instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

What problem is this bill addressing?

 

What problem is this bill addressing???

[bobcat]

I look at this from a dad's point of view. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't take my 12 year old daughter deer hunting unless I stay by her side the entire time. Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

The state probably feels that you aren't a good enough judge of when your kid is mature enough to be left alone.  Maybe parents sometimes have a biased view of their kids' ability to be out hunting alone?   

In the examples I gave I'm not even talking about the kid really hunting alone, but only being separated for a relatively short period of time and distance from the parent. Close enough that most likely if a shot were fired it would be heard by the other person. Even this wouldn't be legal under the new law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jackmaster]

That's still not good enough. My dad should be able to accompany my kids but he's old enough that he never had a hunter education class, and he shouldn't have to buy a hunting license that he isn't going to use.

Also, as I said before, it doesn't seem fair to me that kids under 14 could hunt alone if on their family's property. Why discriminate against the kids who hunt public land or private land that isn't owned by their family?

Oh, and another thing- what's the definition of "family?" Would a son be able to hunt alone on a person's property, but not a niece or nephew?

How about a law that wouldn't restrict our freedom as much? Like simply a minimum age of 12 for hunting big game alone?

I could see myself in the future putting my daughter in a ground blind, say when she is 13 years old, and then leaving her for a couple hours while I hunt elsewhere (but still nearby so I could be there quickly if she needed help) Under this new proposed law I couldn't do that. I would be required to stay in the blind with her. I think that choice should be up to me.

all of that 

[BIGINNER]

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

so it has nothing to do with no-shows,...  I'd honestly rather the instructors take all the money to themselves then let the state "handle" it. 

[Bob33]

Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.

Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.

WAC 232-12-828 includes the following language which could be reused in some form:

(f) "Accompany" means the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion are in the physical presence of each other, not to exceed a 1/4-mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.

(3) The designated hunter companion does not need to accompany the hunter with a disability while tracking an animal wounded by either hunter, or while tagging or retrieving a downed animal on behalf of the hunter with a disability.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828

[BIGINNER]

Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."

I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.

Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.

  because this is such a problem right now...     they better make it illegal for a 12 year old to drive,.... oh wait... 

[bigtex]

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

If the reason for the money portion is "WDFW doesn't trust the instructors to handle the money." why didn't you say that at the beginning?  Why was there a discussion about how this is to help prevent no-shows at the classes?  I try to make pointed comments about the legislation without bashing the people, but this makes that difficult.

Also, where does this bill say that all instruction and material fees must go through WDFW?

It is to help prevent no-shows. The following is the $ section from the bill, the bolded sections are the changes to the law as proposed.

(5) Beginning July 1, 2014, the department is authorized to charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for any hunter education training course. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
(6) Upon the successful completion of a hunter education training course instructed by or being taught under a contract with the department in the safe handling of firearms, outdoor safety, wildlife conservation, and ethical hunting behavior, the trainee must receive an approved hunter education certificate.
(7) The department is authorized to collect an application fee, not to exceed ten dollars, for providing a duplicate hunter education certificate. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
((a) The ((director)) department may authorize a once in a lifetime, one license year deferral of hunter education training for individuals who are accompanied ((by a nondeferred Washington-licensed hunter who has held a Washington hunting license for the prior three years and is over eighteen years of age)), while hunting, by a hunter currently licensed to hunt in Washington, age eighteen or older, and whose Washington license is not a one-year deferral license. The commission shall adopt rules for the administration of this subsection to avoid potential fraud and abuse.
(b) The ((director)) department is authorized to collect an application fee, not to exceed twenty dollars, for obtaining the once in a lifetime, one license year deferral of hunter education training from the department. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011), deposited into the fish and wildlife enforcement reward account, and ((must be)) used exclusively to administer the deferral program created in this subsection.
(((c))) (9) For the purposes of this ((subsection)) section, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
(((3))) (10)(a) To encourage the participation of an adequate number of instructors for ((the)) hunter education training ((program)) courses, the commission shall develop nonmonetary incentives available to individuals who commit to serving as an instructor. The incentives may include additional hunting opportunities for instructors.
(b) The department may provide reimbursement for instructor expenditures incurred in providing hunter education training courses.
(c) The commission shall adopt rules specifying the use of program funds for reimbursing instructors. In no case may the total amount of all reimbursements exceed annual program income generated by fees.

[Elkaholic daWg]

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

 As usual it IS about the money. Accountability/ Washington bureaucrats? Oxymoron......

instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up.  This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.

That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.

so it has nothing to do with no-shows,...  I'd honestly rather the instructors take all the money to themselves then let the state "handle" it.