HB 1119 Hunter Education (Fees, Minimum Age)

[JimmyHoffa]

I wonder if they could allow a ghost-point exemption if a min age was set.  Right now guys can only buy points for their kids with out HE in the OIL categories, because a license isn't required.  Some of them run the kid through early on to allow for building permit app points, gives them that 2-3 point advantage.  Maybe if a min age was set, they could allow parents to buy kids points each year like they do with the OIL system? 
***This is not something I do, but I can see an argument for those that do.

[Stein]

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. 

That's a pretty well thought out opinion and something I hadn't thought about.  My daughter passed with flying colors at 8 and she is very mature and bright for her age.  I think she maybe could have handled it at 7, but not before.  At 8, she did have some challenges with working the rifle during the live fire exercise.

Essentially, I put her through early to start collecting points.  This year (11) was the first time she actually hunted.  I second the notion that I would prefer the state not tell me when she is ready to hunt, but I can see either a higher fee (partially refunded upon completion) or an age limit on the class if space is a concern.  I would also support a $1 fee on each license to fund more classes.

[Bob33]

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.

If this bill fails do you expect instructors to stop transferring firearms to students because of that extremely rare possibility?

It would be far better to address all transfers.

[Stein]

Better, but not likely.  I think 594 will either need to be taken down by the court, or piece by piece.

[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.

If this bill fails do you expect instructors to stop transferring firearms to students because of that extremely rare possibility?

It would be far better to address all transfers.

Of course not.

I am just saying right now instructors are basically in limbo. WDFW says it's their interpretation that an instructor-student transfer is legal. That interpretation can be the complete opposite of a mayor who can basically use their PD as their own little agenda squad and can force the chief to go get the instructor. If something is in law then that changes everything.

[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. 

That's a pretty well thought out opinion and something I hadn't thought about.  My daughter passed with flying colors at 8 and she is very mature and bright for her age.  I think she maybe could have handled it at 7, but not before.  At 8, she did have some challenges with working the rifle during the live fire exercise.

Essentially, I put her through early to start collecting points.  This year (11) was the first time she actually hunted.  I second the notion that I would prefer the state not tell me when she is ready to hunt, but I can see either a higher fee (partially refunded upon completion) or an age limit on the class if space is a concern.  I would also support a $1 fee on each license to fund more classes.

It really is not a funding issue . It is a time ,space, man power issue.
90% of the new instructors coming on board do not put on classes. They join teaching groups who are already doing classes. Which may not increase the number of students handled.

Why? Because most new instructors will not contribute the time and effort needed to conduct a 16 hour class. With all the hoops that the state requires you to jump through. So they join someone doing classes help out where they can and call it good.
Money will not equate to more volume of classes.

[Stein]

$1 per license would be about $270k.  If they offered $500 to every instructor that started a new class and put at least 15 people through it, I bet there would be more classes.

If we had a goal of graduating more, it wouldn't be that hard to do.

[Bob33]

I am just saying right now instructors are basically in limbo. WDFW says it's their interpretation that an instructor-student transfer is legal. That interpretation can be the complete opposite of a mayor who can basically use their PD as their own little agenda squad and can force the chief to go get the instructor. If something is in law then that changes everything.

I understand the point. I don't know if you're an instructor or not, but all the instructors I know accept WDFW's advisory as being sufficient justification for instructor-student transfers.

The point is that the bill doesn't change everything; it essentially changes very little or nothing because courses will be allowing instructor-student transfers regardless of whether this bill passes or not.

[timberfaller]

"I am just saying right now instructors are basically in limbo."  bigtex!

AND BY Whom are we in that state!??

I've yet to see, where we can pass a firearm to a student who is over 18.  It is getting to be more and more over that age in class in the last ten years.   They are considered "adults" after that.

[pianoman9701]

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.

I don't care if it's the law of the new NRA-controlled 51st state called GUNSYLVANIA. We're not any of those states. I want you to show me the safety problem we're having which warrants changing the law to further restrict our citizens. Otherwise, I can't back it. It's really pretty simple. Don't fix something that's unbroken. Cite anything you want, but without a problem, I'm unmoved.

[pianoman9701]

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.

I agree with you that there's ambiguity regarding 594. My opinion is that 594 should be changed to fix that ambiguity. Because, if a new law is passed which conflicts with 594, the new law will be struck down by the courts, at least the parts which conflict. My understanding is that because it's a referendum, a bill doesn't have the power to supersede it's components. I may be wrong. I know I was once.

[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.

I agree with you that there's ambiguity regarding 594. My opinion is that 594 should be changed to fix that ambiguity. Because, if a new law is passed which conflicts with 594, the new law will be struck down by the courts, at least the parts which conflict. My understanding is that because it's a referendum, a bill doesn't have the power to supersede it's components. I may be wrong. I know I was once.

If this bill were to pass the 594 component is written in a way that it should stand legal challenges. There are many other laws that are written very similar. You have one RCW stating something is illegal, but another RCW exempting an activity from that other RCW.

The problem with 594 is if a legislator wanted to go in and change the 594 impacted RCWs to include student-instructor/student transfers it would require a two-thirds majority vote. Whereas this bill, since it doesn't actually change the 594 RCWs would just need a simple majority.

[pianoman9701]

Yeah, I get it. I just think if it were challenged, it'd be stricken. But, I get it.

[Bob33]

If the only issue the bill addressed was instructor-student transfers during a hunter education course, I might be inclined to support it: "a small step for mankind."

Because it changes so little of value, and because the bill is burdened with issues of greater consequence and little justification like age limits, it will not be supported by the hunter education community and the hunting community at large. I expect it will not pass.

[bigtex]

As I and many others have stated, something similar to this bill has been bouncing around for the past couple years. In 2013 and 2014 WDFW requested/sponsored the legislation. This year they are not, but I assume they will support it.

To recap:
2013: The bill passed the House 97-0. It passed out of the Senate committees but didn't get to a full vote.
2014: House bill passed out of committees but didn't go for a full vote. Senate Natural Resource committee gave a unanimous vote, referred it to the Ways and Means Committee (money committee) but this committee didn't take it up.

So bills similar to this one have made progress in the legislature, in fact it almost became law in 2013.