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.

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

That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:

"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"

RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "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.

[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.

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

That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:

"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"

RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "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.

I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication

[bigtex]

That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:

"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"

RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "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.

I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication

The definition of "accompanied" the bill says we must use is "means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication"

There is no set distance

[Elkaholic daWg]

Gotta love the consistency, eh?

[snowpack]

how far can you yell across a clear cut? 

[Elkaholic daWg]

how far can you yell across a clear cut? 

When stalking would you want to yell?

[BIGINNER]

That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:

"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"

RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "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.

I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication

The definition of "accompanied" the bill says we must use is "means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication"

There is no set distance

I know,  I'm saying that you have to be pretty damb close all the time to have unaided visual and audible communication

[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?

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.

Under the current law instructors can charge a fee to deter no-shows and cover costs and they can return the fee to the students if they want.

Under the new law WDFW must collect the fee and they may give some of it to the instructors (or they may not).  WDFW is not allowed to give the fee back if the student shows up.

The current situation allows for discouraging no-shows by charging a fee and giving it back if they show.  The proposed law just collects a fee.

If they want to address no-shows, just ask the instructors to collect a fee and return it if the student doesn't show.  If WDFW is really trying to address no-shows through a fee, have they done this simple, non-law-changing act yet?  If not, they are not really trying to address no-shows.

When my son asks for help I ask him what he has tried for himself so far.  If he hasn't tried anything, he doesn't need my help yet.

[bigtex]

In terms of "accompanying" the law is saying those who are under a hunter ed deferral already need to be "accompanied." The bill uses that definition/language to those between 8 and 14 need to be accompanied as well

[bobcat]

I think a few people misunderstood the point Bob33 was trying to make. He posted that other law as an example of some language that could be used in the new proposed law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIGINNER]

how far can you yell across a clear cut? 

When stalking would you want to yell?

you have no choice,..... you have to tell out a holler and wave you're arms at your child every 25 seconds to make sure you are within the law.. 

[bigtex]

I think a few people misunderstood the point Bob33 was trying to make. He posted that other law as an example of some language that could be used in the new proposed law.

That rule (it's a WAC so it's not a law  ) only applies to disabled hunters.

There is already a law pertaining to hunter education (in this case deferrals) which states what accompanying is. Since the definition is already in law, and it already pertains to hunter ed, that is the definition the bill is going with.

In a perfect world it would be great to have one definition for everything. But its the reason you cant look at a WDFW WAC for a definition that you need on a DNR term. The word may be the same, but the definition can be totally opposite.

[bobcat]

So the proposed law (or rule, whatever it is) is already set in stone and cannot be revised? Is that what you're saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

So the proposed law (or rule, whatever it is) is already set in stone and cannot be revised? Is that what you're saying?

I am saying the term for accompanying is already law. Right now it is being used for when people have a hunter education deferral. They must be accompanied by a licensed hunter.

The bill just says the definition for accompanied for the proposal for 8-14 year olds is the same as it is already written for the deferral term. The bill isn't going to use any other definition then the one already in place under RCW 77.32.155

[bobcat]

Okay, well all we can hope for is that the lawmakers use some common sense and don't pass this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk