HB 1119 Hunter Education (Fees, Minimum Age)

[Special T]

This seem similar to a bill from last year.

What is the Problem this bill is trying to fix?
Dont say I594 because its very similar to the one last year (or the year before)

[Bob33]

My opinion is that it is another attempt to institute a minimum hunting age. I don't believe money is the driving force. The I594 bit was added to sweeten a bill that has failed previously. From my perspective it adds little to no value.

[Special T]

Unless Im missing something it appears to be a law just "Because"...

I have a hard time giving that a 

[Greenhorn]

I vote No, we have enough laws!

[bobcat]

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

I haven't figured that out yet. There are two conflicting exceptions listed in I-594, for people under 18. According to the first one, the answer to your question would be no. Under the second one, the answer is "maybe." (my interpretation only)

(4) This section does not apply to:
....
....
....
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or

(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

[Magnum_Willys]

Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state.  Not sure when that changed.  8 is a good age.  Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers. 

[JimmyHoffa]

My opinion is that it is another attempt to institute a minimum hunting age. I don't believe money is the driving force. The I594 bit was added to sweeten a bill that has failed previously. From my perspective it adds little to no value.

Yeah, any suspicions why?  I don't see any big groups behind a min age like Bloomberg, even though I imagine they would approve.  Is there a real problem out there with kids hunting alone?  Or is the rep concerned a kid will do something and then an initiative will decide to do the same but at a higher age?

[bigtex]

Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state.  Not sure when that changed.  8 is a good age.  Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers.

It changed around 20 years ago, and it was really more of a mistake in legislation that caused it to change.

[pianoman9701]

Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state.  Not sure when that changed.  8 is a good age.  Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers.

And yet the incidence of hunting accidents has not increased with this age group since the elimination of the age requirement. The fact that those under the age of 14 are unable to read at the same level as those above has not statistically shown that there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed. I'll say it again: this bill seeks to address problems which don't exist, other than the fees which help support attendance numbers in the classes.

[Bob33]

This is a link to the bill: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1119&year=2015

The bill is sponsored by four representatives:
- Brian Blake Democratic from the 19th district: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Brian-Blake/
- Vincent Buys, Republican from the 42nd: http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Vincent-- Buys/
Mia Gregersen, Democrat from the 33rd: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Mia-Gregerson/
- Luanne Van Werven, Republican from the 42nd:
http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Luanne-Van%20Werven/

RCW 77.32.155 addresses Hunter Education in Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.32.155

WAC 232-12-227 is the corresponding WAC for Hunter Education in Washington: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-227

There are two types of hunter education courses offered in Washington: (1) the “traditional classroom course which typically runs 12 to 20 hours, and (2) an online self-study course which requires that students who complete the online course attend a four-hour “skills evaluation” session.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/classes/basic.php

Here is a breakdown of the key components of the proposed bill:
•   $20 fee: there is currently no legislative minimum or maximum fee for hunter education courses in Washington. The online course collects $20 which is collected by the online vendor (Kalkomey). The cost for traditional courses in Washington varies from program to program. Some charge nothing. Many charge $5. Some charge $20 or more. Some return a portion of the fee to the student upon course completion. Programs may charge $20 now, if they wish to do so.
•   Minimum age of eight to attend hunter education. Washington is one of the few states with no minimum age to hunt. Any student that passes hunter education may hunt. He can hunt rabbits with a .22, or elk with a 460 Weatherby. He may hunt alone.

In the years that I have taught hunter education, the number of students under age eight I have observed that have successfully passed is very small. We have had students as young as five enroll. In the vast majority of cases, these very young students were enrolled by parents with selfish motives. When very young students enroll, we usually talk to the parents up front and let them know about our concerns. While we want to see more hunters, we treat each student equally on his ability to safely handle firearms, regardless of age. I would prefer to have not very young students in our courses, but do not support a minimum age. If there must be a minimum age, eight is a good choice.

•   Hunting alone under age 14. Instructors receive reports each year on all hunting related incidents in Washington. I have not seen any data which supports a minimum age of 14.  The requirement that a young hunter must be accompanied by a licensed hunter is onerous and counter-productive to the goal of developing more youth hunters.
•   “I-594” transfers. The bill addresses the “temporary transfer of a firearm from the instructor of hunter education training course to a student”. WDFW has already issued a legal advisory to instructors that such transfers are legal and not a violation of RCW 9. 41.113. This bill does not address transfers from student to student. Many hunter education courses put students through simulated field condition situations with obstacles such a fence. The intent is to observe and confirm that students can safely navigate obstacles. In many instances, students go through these exercises in groups of two with the expectation that a student can safely hand a firearm to his fellow hunter and receive it back. If the students are over 18, these types of transfers are now illegal under current law. Because this bill does not address the transfer of firearms between students, so it adds virtually no value.

I plan to contact the sponsors of the bill, and also to engage some pro hunting organizations such as the Hunter Heritage Council to address my concerns.

[ghosthunter]

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.

""
I have been teaching 25 years. No fees ,No donations.
Some instructors charge the fee and give it back when the student attends. It helps with no show but creates another book keeping issue for the instructor.
I do not want that issue any more than the no shows.
If there is going to be a fee it should be collected and tracked by the state at time of sight up. Leave the instructors who already have a inch thick manual to follow out of it.
That's what they are after. Permission to collect this fee on line at sign up for traditional classes.








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.

[timberfaller]

Having 25+ years in being a instructor, I voted NO!  for obivious reasons!

YES we have to many laws already!

Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!

Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.

They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.

Most "young" students will fail, especially if they are not around firearms at home, has been my experience.  At the same time I've had teenagers fail time and time again, but that is another story.  The BEST scenario is when the Parent of a young student who passes and THEY say NO my child will not be hunting alone and my child will go out the first time for experience.  I appreciate teaching those kids with that type of parent!!  It is NOT about getting a second or third tag! 

Legislators need to get back to more serious issues facing this state,  The WFWD does a bag up job screwing up the Hunter Ed program!  

[bigtex]

Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!

Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.

They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.

Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???

[timberfaller]

How did I know someone would bring that up!!  Two totally different issues!

We are talking "hunting" not driving a vehicle.

bigtex,  if your a certified instructor, get your "policy's and procedures" book out and read.

We,"instructors" CAN NOT discriminate based on Age,gender,race, disability, etc etc.

The "program" is NOT entirely broken yet,  what the "legislators" need to do Buzz off!  that is putting it politely!!

As Instructor's we have, at present anyways, a lot of latitude on weather a student pass'es or not.  LEAVE the program alone, FIX it yes,  BUT that will require higher ups to get some "backbone".  AND a turn of the clock backwards.

I am not holding my breath on that happening!

Risk assessment anyone!???

[pianoman9701]

Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!

Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.

They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.

Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???

Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety.