HB 1119 Hunter Education (Fees, Minimum Age)

[Bob33]

(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

I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.

If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.

[ghosthunter]

(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

I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.

If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.

Bob is spot on.

Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.

The $20.00 serves another purpose.  NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.

If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.

[jrebel]

(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

I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.

If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.

Bob is spot on.

Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.

The $20.00 serves another purpose.  NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.

If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.

I agree with most of what you say.....but $20 dollars is not going to impact the no shows.  If they wanted to prevent the no shows they would require $100 with an $80 refund on the first day of class if they show.

[pianoman9701]

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.

If the real costs were charged they would be many times what's outlined in the bill. In addition, the class fees are needed to incentivize people to attend the classes for which they've reserved spots. Without fees, the no-show percentage is very high. Once the fees come into play, they go way down.

I think this piece of legislation needs re-writing. The part about 594 is unnecessary and the part about under 14s seems arbitrary in light of the 8 year limit for students. I say no as written but it's a good start.

I would seek to clarify transfers between/to adult students from other students, would leave in the fee structure, and would not have an age limit for licensed hunters, as it hasn't been a problem thus far. It doesn't need to be fixed; it's not broken.

[Whitpirate]

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.

Bingo.

[ghosthunter]

(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

I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.

If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.

Bob is spot on.

Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.

The $20.00 serves another purpose.  NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.

If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.

I agree with most of what you say.....but $20 dollars is not going to impact the no shows.  If they wanted to prevent the no shows they would require $100 with an $80 refund on the first day of class if they show.

Take note that many family's take this class as a group. So signing up a family of 5 is $100.00 . If it were more people would yell foul.

I like the 20.00., and the 8 years to sign up. And the 14 to hunt alone.

Lets remember , There are folks out there that would let their 8 year old hunt with a rifle alone without a thought to it.
Passing Hunter Ed doesn't mean you are ready to make life or death decisions. It means you passed Hunter Ed. There is lots of skill learning and life experience which comes afterwards.

A first aide class doesn't make you a doctor.

[JimmyHoffa]

Take note that many family's take this class as a group. So signing up a family of 5 is $100.00 . If it were more people would yell foul.

I like the 20.00., and the 8 years to sign up. And the 14 to hunt alone.

Lets remember , There are folks out there that would let their 8 year old hunt with a rifle alone without a thought to it.
Passing Hunter Ed doesn't mean you are ready to make life or death decisions. It means you passed Hunter Ed. There is lots of skill learning and life experience which comes afterwards.

A first aide class doesn't make you a doctor.

Maybe the age should only go towards big game?  I don't see why a 13 year old couldn't take a shotgun or .22 and go look for grouse, quail and rabbits alone.

[arees]

I believe that many hunter ed classes already charge a fee up front that is refunded if you show.  There is nothing stopping a $20 fee to deter no-shows already.  Why do we need a law to allow something that is already allowed?

For those who claim that the $20 is to deter no-shows, please explain why this isn't currently allowed now and why am I sure I have seen it being done already.

[pianoman9701]

I believe that many hunter ed classes already charge a fee up front that is refunded if you show.  There is nothing stopping a $20 fee to deter no-shows already.  Why do we need a law to allow something that is already allowed?

For those who claim that the $20 is to deter no-shows, please explain why this isn't currently allowed now and why am I sure I have seen it being done already.

The $20 fee currently used is refunded at the end of the class. So there's an incentive to keep your reservation AND attend all classes. The change I believe would mean a mandatory fee. This is in comparison to NO fee, which had a huge no-show rate - there was nothing at stake for the person so they'd make reservations in 3 different classes to get the one they wanted and then for get to cancel out on the others.

[blackdog]

So under I 594 can children under 18 possess a firearm in the field without supervision? 

[pianoman9701]

So under I 594 can children under 18 possess a firearm in the field without supervision? 

Yes, as long as they have the proper licenses for that area to hunt.

[dreamunelk]

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. 

Total agree.  Having that wording in the legislation helps greatly and will help even more when someone tries to challenge that interpretation.

[Stein]

I think every bill should start with "The problem we are attempting to address is....."

What are they attempting to fix here?  No problem = no new law.

[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.

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

Total agree.  Having that wording in the legislation helps greatly and will help even more when someone tries to challenge that interpretation.

If they really wanted to make an improvement the language should reference any transfer conducted in a hunter education courses. As written, it addresses the least controversial (instructor <-> student) and ignores the most controversial: student<->student. If the bill does not pass WDFW will still endorse instructor to student transfers.

[blackdog]

If they amend that it would require a 2/3 vote. I believe this bill is trying to avoid that requirement.