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

[Elkaholic daWg]

 :bobcat!

[BIGINNER]

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

 

[bigtex]

Just a note. Last year the similar bill used the same definition. The bill passed unanimously in the House. This bill is starting in the Senate.

[Gringo31]

I read all of this and can fully understand why people feel the way they do.


But, I think it needs said AGAIN......


Thank You Bigtex!  You are informing us, adding to the debate to allow folks to hash it out while keeping very neutral.  Not easy to do and much appreciated 

[Dhoey07]

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

 

Contact your representatives and let them know what you think  Please!!!

[Bob33]

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. 

Bigtex forgot to mention one significant aspect of this bill that shouldn't be overlooked: instructor pay is doubled.

[dscubame]

Another money grab.

[bigtex]

The bill has it's first committee hearing 1/21 at 1:30 in front of the Senate Natural Resources & Parks Committee

[bobcat]

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.

Heres another thought what is the states legal definition of alone or accompanied by an adult.5-10 20 50 100 1000 yards?visual?what is the states definition?

Read all of this thread and you'll find the definition of "accompany."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

Heres another thought what is the states legal definition of alone or accompanied by an adult.5-10 20 50 100 1000 yards?visual?what is the states definition?

Bigtex already provided it. Twice.

[bobcat]

Ok found it,so then there wouldnt be a problem with putting a kid in a blind and then going off a little ways.audible range,and visual range could be quite far. 

Yes, I believe it would be illegal if this were to become law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lokidog]

This thing just gets better and better doesn't it?  None of these crappers that "represent " us really give a crap about anything but funding their spending and bending over for the King County crowd that controls this state, however it occurs.

    

[bigtex]

The Senate Bill (version states that the accompanying person must have attended hunter ed) had it's committee hearing yesterday.. No opposition

[stevemiller]

The Senate Bill (version states that the accompanying person must have attended hunter ed) had it's committee hearing yesterday.. No opposition

Does this mean regardless as to when the accompanying person was born they would have had to have gone to hunters ed?

[Bob33]

The Senate Bill (version states that the accompanying person must have attended hunter ed) had it's committee hearing yesterday.. No opposition

1) All hunters under age fourteen must be accompanied, while hunting:
(a) By a hunter:
(i) Who is currently licensed to hunt in Washington;
ii) Whose Washington hunting license is not a one-year deferral license; and
(iii) Who is age eighteen or older; or
(b) By a person who is age eighteen or older who has successfully completed a hunter education training course as described in RCW 77.32.155.