Hunter Education changes

[lokidog]

Ghosthunter, I think you are right on. 

Special T - great graph, seems to explain the problem pretty well.

[ghosthunter]

uccessfully Sent



The following message was sent to Senator Kevin Ranker (D), Representative Kristine Lytton (D) and Representative Jeff Morris (D) of the 40th district.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TO:

Senator Kevin Ranker








CC:

Representative Kristine Lytton
Representative Jeff Morris








FROM:

Mr. Bobby  Beddome








STREET ADDRESS:

1427 Walter St





Mount Vernon, WA 98273-4852








EMAIL:

ghost.hunter.1@hotmail.com








PHONE:

(360) 661 - 6704 Ext: 00








SUBJECT:

Fake gun Policy








MESSAGE:

Sir


My name is Bobby A. Beddome. I am a volunteer Hunter Education Instructor for the Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.
I teach Hunter Education classes in Skagit County and have done so for 17 years. I have a teaching team of 8-12 instructors.

I a writing to voice my concern about a new DFW policy which I think will in the long run endanger the public and increase firearm accidents in this state.

As part of the classroom instruction, instructors have instructed students with a large selection working firearms in hunter ed classes across this state since the begining. Instructors have a excellent safety record and have trained thousands of washington residents without incident.

The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is on the threshod of banning all working firearms from Hunter ed classes state wide. Instead instructors are to use five non working firearms from one arms company. Currently in my classes we bring in 20 or more working firearms of differnt ,sizes ,shapes,and makes. This allows students to learn the safe handling of many types of firearms. Because of this wide range of firearms students get a broader training session.

Why would we want less training? You don't teach a person to drive with a fake car.

Instructors throughout the state are upset over this change.Not because it is change but because provides a lower standard of training.

I for one cannot live under this policy and will stop teaching classes as soon as I am restricted from using working firearms in classes. My conscious and dedication to safe gun handling will not allow me to dumb down my classes. In 1985 my best friend and hunting partner was shot. I know first hand about safe gun handling. This policy if allowed will forever cheapen the instruction students currently get in this state.

Regardless where you stand on firearms, More training is better than less training.

I ask that you ask questions about this policy not only with the Dept. but with instructors on the ground.

Thank you


Bobby A. Beddome








RESPONSE:

No response required by the sender.

 

[ghosthunter]

Use of nonfunctional firearms for classroom instruction (not live fire) is being considered.

ok

If liability is the issue, Than  tell me where is the most danger , in the classroom WITH NO LIVE AMMO or on the range with live ammo.
Yes live fire is not required. But it is encouraged. In fact I was asked by a staff  member "If you had to cut your class hours where would you cut them"
My answer was I would cut Range day. The staff member said "that bothers me."

As the policy stands today a chief instructor can require his students to attend and shoot at a range day. It is at his or her discreation.

If liability is the issue it would make sense to say No more range days.

The less variety in firearms the students are exposed to lessens the training they receive. And cheapens the program.

[JLS]

I understand and appreciate the passion with which the instructors teach these classes.  The good far outweigh the bad.

Think about this for a minute though.  As a parent, I'm enrolling my kids in a class to learn about hunter safety.  Obviously, the hunter safety class is only a small component of the training and instruction my kids will receive about firearms safety, shooting, and hunting. 

Is it absolutely necessary to have live firearms in a classroom, which opens up the possibility of a child, parent, or instructor being hurt or killed?  Sure, the safety record has been excellent.  However, an instructor in ID discharged a firearm in a classroom.  What if someone was killed?  What if your kid was killed?

I am a little mixed on this.  If my child is required to take a class, I expect it to be in the safest environment possible.  Is it the state's responsibility to teach my kids about firearms and live fire?  No, it's mine.  It is the state's responsibility to fairly evaluate my kids' firearm handling practices and determine if they meet a safety standard to be allowed in the field.

I have taught plenty of courses that did not involve live fire.  Yes, it is nice, but it is not a necessity.  If inert firearms are available, and they have working actions like a live firearm, what is the harm in using them instead of a live gun?  I don't see this as dumbing down, I see it as looking at options to prevent an accident in the classroom.  They've already happened, and will happen again at some point.

I am not worried that my child will have the opportunity to look at a break action shotgun in Hunter Ed.  I want them taught and evaluated on the basics of firearm safety, which they have already been drilled on and will continue to be drilled on. 

I don't see this as a slap at instructors at all.  I see this as making the class as safe as one can and reducing liability.  Ammo has mysterious ways of finding itself into places it shouldn't be.  We all know that.

[ghosthunter]

What decision?

 To change

First off, no changes have been made.  The state is evaluating many issues: consistency of instruction, finding ways to reach more potential hunters, liability risks, and so forth.

If you mean there is no change till you tell instructors maybe.

If you mean the Dept. has not already commit ed to the changes than I have to disagree. The Dept. has decided on the changes and will implement them without any discussion from the majority of instructors.

Let me be clear I am not against changes. Uniform class hours, uniform range days,uniform testing no problem. I am against the changes that effect hands on classroom training. And the discretion of the instructor to teach the very best class he can. Limiting the types of firearms in the classroom, limits my ability provide varied gun handling experience.

[ghosthunter]

I understand and appreciate the passion with which the instructors teach these classes.  The good far outweigh the bad.

Think about this for a minute though.  As a parent, I'm enrolling my kids in a class to learn about hunter safety.  Obviously, the hunter safety class is only a small component of the training and instruction my kids will receive about firearms safety, shooting, and hunting. 

Is it absolutely necessary to have live firearms in a classroom, which opens up the possibility of a child, parent, or instructor being hurt or killed?  Sure, the safety record has been excellent.  However, an instructor in ID discharged a firearm in a classroom.  What if someone was killed?  What if your kid was killed?

I am a little mixed on this.  If my child is required to take a class, I expect it to be in the safest environment possible.  Is it the state's responsibility to teach my kids about firearms and live fire?  No, it's mine.  It is the state's responsibility to fairly evaluate my kids' firearm handling practices and determine if they meet a safety standard to be allowed in the field.

I have taught plenty of courses that did not involve live fire.  Yes, it is nice, but it is not a necessity.  If inert firearms are available, and they have working actions like a live firearm, what is the harm in using them instead of a live gun?  I don't see this as dumbing down, I see it as looking at options to prevent an accident in the classroom.  They've already happened, and will happen again at some point.

I am not worried that my child will have the opportunity to look at a break action shotgun in Hunter Ed.  I want them taught and evaluated on the basics of firearm safety, which they have already been drilled on and will continue to be drilled on. 

I don't see this as a slap at instructors at all.  I see this as making the class as safe as one can and reducing liability.  Ammo has mysterious ways of finding itself into places it shouldn't be.  We all know that.

I want to be clear. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT LIVE FIRE. Live fire range day can go away right now and I would not complain one bit.

The vast majority of students coming through my classes do not fit your neat little mold. Kids with one parent, kids with no parents, back in the day when I was growing up there was a loaded firearm behind every door and parents moms and dads knew how to handle them. That is not the case now.
Classes are filled with folks who have never hunted and never handled a firearm in their life.

The whole issue for ammo in a classroom could be addressed with a mandatory check list. Two instructors required to sign the list every class. Your kid could get killed on the school bus, in drivers ed,on the football field, riding a skate board, living life. all more likely than in a Hunter ed class.

The real problem is the state is to willy nilly with its instructors. They want to take the touch feel approach. An instructor introduces live ammo into the classroom should not be teaching Hunter Ed. If I did it I would quit.
But there is still an instructor teaching that did just that.

And this is not Idaho

A variety of firarms with different features for the student to experience is far better training than only seeing five guns by the same manufacturer.
And a far better use of Pitman Robinson funds than spending $1500.00 per set of five for every teaching team in the state. For fake guns.

[JLS]

I'll just agree to disagree with you.

[Cascade_fisher]

Well Ghosthunter if you quit after the changes go into effect, which will probably be at the IST (in service training in March) WDFW will feel the impact immediately as classes will probably get cancelled.  I am not sure that this is the best resolution as it really hurts the sport of hunting by decreasing an already declining client base.  Limited class offerings is one of the biggest complaints potential students have and losing more instructors is not going to help.  I think if all the instructors object to this change at the IST then it would not be adopted.
Showing non-working firearms is no big deal but 5 is ridiculous.  I totally agree with you.  I also believe that showing the variety of firearms is key and 5 doesn't cut it.  The group I help with does not have any desire to show an AR-15/ AK and I think this is a disservice to the students as many homes have one of these tacti-tools around.  I feel that the muzzle loader section could be decreased substantially to show a wider array of more common firearms.
I hope you don't leave after 17 years for the good of the students that would feel the result.  The changes could just be the new minimum which may allow your group (and hopefully others) to add more time requirements and use that for gun handling/ exposure. I feel that this is the area that gives the most useful safety education.  It may come to your group requiring a NRA gun handling class, to be offered at the same day/ time as week 2 and delay Hunter Ed by a week for students to take this.  It is problematic but I think a collaborative effort at the IST is our best chance.
Regards,

[Oldguy]

I support you 100% Ghosthunter and I hope that all the individuals who line up with the WDFW on the Hunter Education changes decide to become volunteers to fill the gap that departing instructors will leave.

[Bob33]

"Showing non-working firearms is no big deal but 5 is ridiculous."

Because some class firearms already are, or will be made "inert" those classes may not need any of the five-firearm sets.  This will allow other classes to be provided with more than one set.  In the vast majority of instances there will be more than five firearms available for classes that require them.   

One issue is how "inert" will be defined if this goes forward.

[Special T]

CF In understand where you are coming from... The WDFW seems to not pay attention to the slow demise of the sport due to recruitment. Do you think they would pay more attention to a large scale walk off?

I don't think that is necessarily the best course of action, however how do we get OUR WDFW to recognise our needs as hunters?  I feel a strange disconnect between me the hunter, and the organisation WDFW that is managing and "promoting" our sport.  I am often at a loss how we can send them a loud clear message that they will listen to for more than just one second, on one issue...

[ghosthunter]

"Showing nonworking firearms is no big deal but 5 is ridiculous."

Because some class firearms already are, or will be made "inert" those classes may not need any of the five-firearm sets.  This will allow other classes to be provided with more than one set.  In the vast majority of instances there will be more than five firearms available for classes that require them.   

One issue is how "inert" will be defined if this goes forward.

Non working is a big deal. 10 guns the same in the classroom is still dumming down the class. I am not in to ARs or any of that. But I should be able to bring any fire am in that I feel pertains to the class. I am not saying range days or skills I am saying show tell and touch if you want.

As far as IST there will be no discussion there. Instructors will stand up and voice on the issues but that will change nothing. The issue has been decided
it is finshed. They have already made the decision.

I have to go with my heart . I love teaching Hunter ed and I pride myself on teaching a safe informative class. i pride myself on being able to teach very young folks how to safely handle firearm. And hope it sticks with them.
But to me real guns are the key. they have the mystry to them that attracts the students intrest. I am not lowering myself to teach with fake guns.
Save the money and the instructors who are left can use broom handles.

[Bob33]

The WDFW seems to not pay attention to the slow demise of the sport due to recruitment.

Please don't misunderstand this, because I am also quite critical of certain actions, but "the WDFW" is a rather broad brush.  There are certainly many, many fine people within the organization that care about hunting now, and in the future.  Unfortunately, there are also some that consider their jobs as nothing more than a paycheck, and worse yet there are some that are most likely anti-hunting.  I think the issues we're discussing with hunter education are driven by risk-averse attorneys.  Of course, they're paid to reduce risk and to a point that is a good and necessary function. When the bad outdoes the good, we all lose.

Don't give up on this fight, or any other that preserves hunting for us and future generations.

[Special T]

May be WDFW is too broad of a brush, however the decision makers don't seem to listen to hunters or their foot soldiers field employees, volunteers and such...  The most successful businesses have had CEO's that walked out onto the line and asked floor workers how their job was and what could be done to make it better for the company... Lee Iaccoca was one of those kind... The military breeds the kind of thinking that "I won't ask someone to do what i wouldn't be willing to my self."
Most of WA state gov is top heavy. I believe the WDFW isn't much different. 

[NoBark]

"I feel a strange disconnect between me the hunter, and the organisation WDFW that is managing and "promoting" our sport."

Get that idea out of your head.  They are NOT here to 'promote' hunting.  That is not their mandate.  They are mandated to administer hunting and fishing and ALL outdoor flora and fauna stuff in the state.  Like Bob33 said. Some good ones but also some 'who-cares' ones.

The Commission is not made up of hunters, and they are not looking to 'promote' hunting.

So, don't waste your time trying to figure out why they don't.