HB 1119 Hunter Education (Fees, Minimum Age)

[bigtex]

Representatives Blake and Buys introduced House Bill 1119 today which is related to Hunter Education. The bill would:

-Establish a minimum age of 8 to enroll in Hunter Education
-Charge a fee of up to $20 to enroll in Hunter Education
-Charge a fee of up to $10 to receive a duplicate Hunter Education card
-Establish the temporary transfer of a firearm from an instructor to a student during hunter's education is NOT a violation of the I594 law
-Establish the minimum age of 14 to hunt alone. Those under 14 must hunt accompanied by someone who a) has  a valid WA hunting license and is over 18, OR b) is over 18 and have attended hunter's ed, OR c) someone born before 1972. This does not apply to private property owned by family or friends of the minor. A violation would be a natural resource infraction (not a crime)
-"Accompanied" means to go hunting with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1119.pdf

[huntnphool]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

[lokidog]

I still don't like the accompanied part, as in who can accompany the hunter, I don't think they should have to have a license or have gone through a HS class.

And the term "up to" means this is what it will be....

Although I am happy to see private property owned by "friends" included, not just owned by the hunter's family.

[bigtex]

From what I understand this is something that the legislature will propose every year until it passes.

This is not a WDFW sponsored/requested legislation like it has been in the past. Although I am sure they will support it.

[Bob33]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

[huntnphool]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

 Just goes to show you that none of these legislators have a clue about enforcing 594.

[bigtex]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.

I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. 

[jrebel]

When will take effect if the bill is accepted?  Hoping to sign my daughter up this summer as she turns eight in July.....but I was going to register her sooner as the classes fill up fast.  I am not sure I like the wording of must be eight to register for class.  It should state must be eight at cometion of class.

[bigtex]

When will take effect if the bill is accepted?  Hoping to sign my daughter up this summer as she turns eight in July.....but I was going to register her sooner as the classes fill up fast.  I am not sure I like the wording of must be eight to register for class.  It should state must be eight at cometion of class.

All legislation takes effect around June/July unless it is specifically worded otherwise.

[westsidehntr]

Voted no. We have enough laws.

[huntnphool]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.

I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. 

Why not just get rid of the poorly written legislation, rather than create more to explain the first?

[Bob33]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.

So if this bill does not pass, which is likely based on previous attempts, should instructors ignore WDFW's guidance that it would be legal?

[JimmyHoffa]

If you can pass Hunter's Ed at 8 years old, why do you need to wait until age 14 to hunt alone?

[JackOfAllTrades]

(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9

All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.

-Steve

[JimmyHoffa]

Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed.

Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.

What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.

Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?

He'll probably read it on here, but might be busy with the legislature.