No Budget, No Hunter Ed AGAIN

[ghosthunter]

I currently teach with a group that won't do any online classes. I think not doing them is a mistake. Although I feel that younger hunters get more from the traditional classes, I also feel that older students, especially single moms and dads who want to accompany their children, will be more likely to sign up for something that more easily fits their busy schedule. I have confidence in the course unless a parent allows a child to be coached through it just to get them certified. That's the one drawback I see with room for mistakes going forward.

I wont do on line classes and here is why.

I got into Hunter ed over 25 years ago after my hunting partner got shot. I got into Hunter ed to teach safe gun handling. I teach other stuff because the program requires it. But safe gun handling is the heart and soul of why I do it.
For the same reason I have refused to use State fake guns (Orange) Yeah ,yeah they work like a regular gun. But they ate only one manufacture . I bring in about 20 different guns and let my students gun handle every night. Different safeties ,triggers , special buttons to make that shotgun work.

At the end they shoot youth 20 ga state owed shotgun, that it. There is no reason students should be required to shoot every gun on the planet.
Heck some instructors use pellet guns.

Any instructor who is putting too big of a firearm in a students hands and requiring them to fire it should not be teaching Hunter ed. 
There are ways to satisfy the range requirement at any instructors disposal if they aren't to suborn to use it. 

[ghosthunter]

One more comment.


I think there is a lot of Hunter ed classes out there that are just too elaborate.
Fancy field courses and all kinds of unnecessary fluff . Which really doesn't make the student any safer of a hunter.
Just extra hoops that a student has to jump through.

In the end we don't want them to shoot themselves or any one else. And we want them to be ethical.

[JDHasty]

One more comment.


I think there is a lot of Hunter ed classes out there that are just too elaborate.
Fancy field courses and all kinds of unnecessary fluff . Which really doesn't make the student any safer of a hunter.
Just extra hoops that a student has to jump through.

In the end we don't want them to shoot themselves or any one else. And we want them to be ethical.

Ya' don't say? 

[olyguy79]

If your an HE instructor because of the incentives then you shouldn't be an HE instructor.

-- From a HE instructor.

[ghosthunter]

If your an HE instructor because of the incentives then you shouldn't be an HE instructor.

-- From a HE instructor.

 

[jay.sharkbait]

I think they should eliminate the hunters ed requirement altogether.

[brew]

i'm a hunter ed insructor and the only reason WDFW has it is to cover their a$$.  when i took the class originally in the late 70's  it was an 6 hour class in the local scout cabin and as long as you passed the written test you got your license.  there was no firearms handling aspect to it at all.  40 years later i still haven't shot anyone (or come anywhere close to it) so i guess all you need is some classroom instruction...as far as i'm concerened all the elaborate HE now-a-days is just a CYA for the WDFW.  why not charge licenses an extra dollar or two and put that into an insurance fund so when claims are made against the WDFW they can pay that out rather than try to enlist additional HE instructors ?  i'm sure my "logic" is completely flawed but why not have a parent or guardian sign a waiver saying their son/daughter/student is completely versed on safe hunting practices (if over 18 they can sign off on it themselves) and they are ultimately responsible for their own actions ?

[Bob33]

CYA for what?

[KFhunter]

Can we go back to 1956 when gun safety was taught in a lot of schools across the country?

[wheels]

i have helped with a few  seems like recruitment is way down 

[ghosthunter]

i'm a hunter ed insructor and the only reason WDFW has it is to cover their a$$.  when i took the class originally in the late 70's  it was an 6 hour class in the local scout cabin and as long as you passed the written test you got your license.  there was no firearms handling aspect to it at all.  40 years later i still haven't shot anyone (or come anywhere close to it) so i guess all you need is some classroom instruction...as far as i'm concerened all the elaborate HE now-a-days is just a CYA for the WDFW.  why not charge licenses an extra dollar or two and put that into an insurance fund so when claims are made against the WDFW they can pay that out rather than try to enlist additional HE instructors ?  i'm sure my "logic" is completely flawed but why not have a parent or guardian sign a waiver saying their son/daughter/student is completely versed on safe hunting practices (if over 18 they can sign off on it themselves) and they are ultimately responsible for their own actions ?

I went trough Hunter Ed in 1966. And you are right,a written test and that was it.
The difference being back then every kid in the class had already shot a gun many times. When they came home there was rifle or shotgun leaning up in the corner loaded.
As kids we hunted rats with .22 in our back yards after school and already had been on many hunting trips before we ever took a class.
At 16 we walked into the local gun shop and gave the owner 20.00 a month to pay off our hunting rifle on law away. $110.00 total.

Now days a Hunter Ed instructor has adults coming through the door who have never touched a firearm. Many who couldn't tell you the difference between a rifle or shotgun.

Some kind of training is nessary

[JJD]

The wheels started to come off Hunter Ed when the state's "Risk Management" dept got involved.
If it were up to them, we would have no firearms, real or otherwise in the classes. They might even want to end hunting as by issuing a lic to take part in a dangerous past time, the state could be implicated in a wrongful death suit.     Even though they can not site a single firearms related incident, since the inception of the hunter ed program, they claim that the potential exists. It's what happens when those who know nothing about arms or hunting are calling the shots.
Not saying change is always a bad thing, besides, it's gonna happen whether we want it or not.  At the least, we can attempt to be reasonably intelligent about it, but thats not possible if Risk Management is calling the shots.

[cem3434]

I think they should eliminate the hunters ed requirement altogether.

I'll bite because this seems like an ignorant statement. What would you propose instead?  Many people get into hunting that didn't grow up in hunting families or they have very limited firearm experience. I don't thing that the hunters education requirement is the greatest training, but it's better than nothing IMHO.

[Bob33]

A significant number of students (over 10,000 per year) are exposed to a pro firearm and hunting perspective in the classes. For many it is their first exposure. The courses are taught by volunteers who do it because they want to promote and preserve our hunting heritage.

[jay.sharkbait]

I think they should eliminate the hunters ed requirement altogether.

I'll bite because this seems like an ignorant statement. What would you propose instead?  Many people get into hunting that didn't grow up in hunting families or they have very limited firearm experience. I don't thing that the hunters education requirement is the greatest training, but it's better than nothing IMHO.

I would propose nothing.

It isn't up to the state to provide/mandate firearms training to anyone.

Washington is a shall issue state for CCW. Why should hunting licenses be any different?