HB 1119 Hunter Education (Fees, Minimum Age)

[Bob33]

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. 

Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.

That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.

[timberfaller]

Thanks to the Hunter Ed program,  HUNTING is one of the safest sports to get involved with.

That said!

YOU have to keep the "government", aka legislators, AWAY for it!!

If something WORKS, government WILL screw it up, THAT is their track record!

Go Redskins!

Spotted Owl anyone?, taste like chicken!!

[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. 

Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.

That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.

It may be legal to discriminate by age, but there's no justification for it with regards to youth hunting. There certainly is with regards to driving.

[Bob33]

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. 

Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.

That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.

It may be legal to discriminate by age, but there's no justification for it with regards to youth hunting. There certainly is with regards to driving.

I agree. I don't support a minimum age.

[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???

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. 

Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.

The way the program is ran right now there is obviously no minimum age. So if Bob said I will only accept those over the age of 15,  then Bob is discriminating. But if the law said you must be 8, that is not an illegal form of discrimination.

Think about it, how many different age restrictions are there for things that many people do everyday? Driving, smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Many states have a minimum age for reserving/checking into a hotel room. So apparently that's not discriminating, but saying you have to be 8 to attend hunter's ed is?

Where are all the lawsuits in the states (like others have said, the majority of the states) that have a minimum age to attend hunter's ed.?

[bigtex]

A good site to read is this: http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx

It shows that most states do have a minimum age to hunt or hunt alone.

[timberfaller]

  So??

Nice link though.

Our state requirement is YOU have to pass the "Requirements" regardless of age.   

It works and has been for years.

WHAT are the legislator's TRYING to fix?

[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. 

Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.

The way the program is ran right now there is obviously no minimum age. So if Bob said I will only accept those over the age of 15,  then Bob is discriminating. But if the law said you must be 8, that is not an illegal form of discrimination.

Think about it, how many different age restrictions are there for things that many people do everyday? Driving, smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Many states have a minimum age for reserving/checking into a hotel room. So apparently that's not discriminating, but saying you have to be 8 to attend hunter's ed is?

Where are all the lawsuits in the states (like others have said, the majority of the states) that have a minimum age to attend hunter's ed.?

BT, I have a lot for respect for you and I think you bring value to the site, no question. But it seems that your justification for an age limit law is that there are age limits for other things, so why not hunting, too? My answer is that there are reasons for all of the things you listed to have age limits. Driving is dangerous. Drinking and smoking are dangerous and can be addictive. Kids staying by themselves in hotels is dangerous. Gambling is dangerous and can be addictive. Children who've taken hunter ed - not dangerous. So, the reasons that there are age limits for other things in and of themselves is not enough for creating a new restriction on our hunters. There should be a need for the restriction. If there's no need, there should be no restriction. And, just because you think it's too young doesn't make it so. I personally require verifiable proof that there's a reason to restrict a citizens activities before doing so. It's called liberty. We do it when it's indicated and necessary and we leave our citizens alone when it isn't.

[bigtex]

per http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx

Montana- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Wyoming- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Utah- Those under 14 must hunt with a licensed adult who is at least 21
Oregon- Nobody under 11 can hunt big game
North Dakota- Minimum age of 14 to hunt big game
Nevada- Minimum age of 12 to hunt big game. Those under 18 must be accompanied by someone over 18 who is licensed
Missouri- Those 6 to 15 can only hunt does and turkey when accompanied by an adult
Minnesota- Minimum age of 12 for big game
Louisiana- Under 16 required to be accompanied
Idaho- Minimum age of 10, must be accompanied for most activities until 17
Colorado- Under 16 must be accompanied
Arizona- Minimum age of 10 for big game. Those under 14 must by supervised by someone over 18. Someone over 18 cannot supervise more than 2 minors

I chose those states for a reason. Mostly conservative, pro gun, pro hunting states.

[lokidog]

There should be no minimum age.  However, I believe there should be much more hands-on firearm handling in class and there should be live fire required of a minimum caliber rifle to hunt big game.  Young kids are usually not physically able to handle a "real" firearm safely and will weed themselves out.

As far as the fees go, I can see a lot of parents (especially moms who don't hunt) not doing the class with their kid(s) because of the increased cost, this would not be a positive development imo. 

If there is a minimum age to hunt "alone" it should not be more than 12.  I have met a lot of 16 year olds that I would trust less hunting alone than many 12 year olds, and the under 16 crowd can't drive anywhere on their own anyways.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to not allow a parent or guardian who is not a hunter or without a HS card to acompany a kid.  Sorry about all of the nots in there, but hopefully this sentence is understandeable.  This requirement would preclude a non-hunting parent from accompanying there kid hunting, just stupid!!

It shows that most states do have a minimum age to hunt or hunt alone.

Other states have lots of stupid laws, does that mean we should follow suit??

[bigtex]

I am not saying WA needs a minimum age to hunt alone law. Minimum age to enroll, I do think should be 8 and there's a lot of hunter's ed instructors who have horror stories of the aggressive dad wanting his 5 year old to pass the class.

And I am not saying that because there's minimums for a lot of things that there should be a minimum for hunting. But when you look at that site I provided and see that WA is one of only a few states that doesn't have a minimum it makes you think that a minimum age to hunt alone isn't so asinine in fact its pretty common. So common that 20 years ago it was the law in WA.

Personally, I don't really care about this bill. I think most under 14 who are hunting alone are most likely hunting on family/friends land so this law wouldn't affect them, simply because most don't have the means of getting far from home to hunt alone at that age.

[Bob33]

The bottom line to me is that the bill does nothing constructive, and hinders the ability of adults to engage youths under the age of 14 from hunting legally.

Everything else in the bill is fluff.

[ghosthunter]

There are not very many kids under the age of 8 passing hunter ed these days.
But every year kids over 8 are shut out of classes because parents enroll a 5 or 6 year old in class. Why because big sister or brother is taking the class.

Half way through the 5-6 year old drops out. You cannot bring in another student in the middle of a class.

Class size is limited for a bunch of reasons. For me it is space. 25 students is plenty to teach good handling skills too. I want quality not volume.

So if Your 12 year old wants to go through a class but cannot find a seat because 5-7 year olds ( who we know will not pass most the time) you look at it a little different.

The bottom line is the best thing for pumping out more hunters is to restrict the class age. So the folks who are ready can find a seat. 

[bigtex]

As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.

Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.

But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.

[ghosthunter]

As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.

Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.

But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.

 
You know the only way this is going to get fixed is a test case.
Student to student should be allowed. When we are doing fence crossings , under 594 the student would have to hand to the instructor than the instructor to another student. Stupid. I am not doing it.
We are going to handle in class unloaded guns as we have always done. Wait for the fireworks when a instructor (and the state ) and a 12 year old or two get charged with illegal transfer.
It will the bang heard around the US.