Hunter Education changes

[Rob]

Well, I'll say this...

It is going to be an interesting meeting in Yakima next month!

BTW, in my classes we teach in the classroom with non-live firearms and ammo, and we have a live fire session with "real" guns - the students are not told the classroom guns are disabled.  They seem to learn just as well as if they were "live". 

I agree that it is a foolish rule, but In my mind, walking away becuse they want you to use disabled guns in the classroom is cutting your nose off to spite your face...  It would be a shame to punish the future generation of hunters to make a point to WDFW regarding a policy change.  But that is just my opinion.

[ghosthunter]

Well, I'll say this...

It is going to be an interesting meeting in Yakima next month!

BTW, in my classes we teach in the classroom with non-live firearms and ammo, and we have a live fire session with "real" guns - the students are not told the classroom guns are disabled.  They seem to learn just as well as if they were "live". 

I agree that it is a foolish rule, but In my mind, walking away becuse they want you to use disabled guns in the classroom is cutting your nose off to spite your face...  It would be a shame to punish the future generation of hunters to make a point to WDFW regarding a policy change.  But that is just my opinion.

I here the argument what about the kids all the time. It is just not about kids. A instructor has to be interested in what he is doing. I have no intrest in fake guns. many instructors do skills with rifles and shotguns. We do not, we teach at a shotgun range we need more tha two shotguns to do skills with and to get students ready for live fire. And classes are not made up entirely of kids over half are adults. It is not just foolish its up side down. The real liability is on the range not in the classrrom. Get rid of the range and leave the classroom alone.

[ghosthunter]

It just seems the whole Dept. of FIsh & Wildlife is doing everything they can to distance themselves from hunting and hunters. Its the politics that will hurt the future generations.

[Brownarola]

If you have not figured it out by now, it's all about the insurance. What do you think would happen if someone get's injured in a hunter ed class? They are going to go after the state. The problem really isn't the state. It's our government not stepping in stopping frivolous law suits and putting a cap on judgement amounts. With that said, as insurance rates continue to explode, and with the budget shortfalls, the wdfw has to make cuts somewhere and if eliminating live fire exercises and replacing functioning firearms with clones than that's what they are going to do. They have to keep the costs down. Of course anyone who has ever taught hunter education knows you only have x number of hours to introduce safe firearm handling practices to students. After that it's on the student to continue to learn and practice safe firearm handling techniques. Looking at this fact, should a hunter education instructor truly be responsible for teaching students how to safely handle firearms or should this responsibility fall back on the people who should have been instilling these practices long before the student ever attends a firearm safety class; the parents? In today's society we seem to want the government to do more and more for us. We want them to deliver the mail, take care of us when we retire and now we want them to handle our medical needs. In addition we want them to give our children an education and teach them how to handle firearms safely. Then if they screw up we go on a witch hunt and we want to make the government pay. Sadly enough we only have ourselves to blame and in my opinion if things don't change I think you are going to see a switch to 100% online certification and the elimination of traditional hunter education all together.

Why? It costs a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.

We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.

[bearpaw]

If you have not figured it out by now, it's all about the insurance. What do you think would happen if someone get's injured in a hunter ed class? They are going to go after the state. The problem really isn't the state. It's our government not stepping in stopping frivolous law suits and putting a cap on judgement amounts. With that said, as insurance rates continue to explode, and with the budget shortfalls, the wdfw has to make cuts somewhere and if eliminating live fire exercises and replacing functioning firearms with clones than that's what they are going to do. They have to keep the costs down. Of course anyone who has ever taught hunter education knows you only have x number of hours to introduce safe firearm handling practices to students. After that it's on the student to continue to learn and practice safe firearm handling techniques. Looking at this fact, should a hunter education instructor truly be responsible for teaching students how to safely handle firearms or should this responsibility fall back on the people who should have been instilling these practices long before the student ever attends a firearm safety class; the parents? In today's society we seem to want the government to do more and more for us. We want them to deliver the mail, take care of us when we retire and now we want them to handle our medical needs. In addition we want them to give our children an education and teach them how to handle firearms safely. Then if they screw up we go on a witch hunt and we want to make the government pay. Sadly enough we only have ourselves to blame and in my opinion if things don't change I think you are going to see a switch to 100% online certification and the elimination of traditional hunter education all together.

Why? It cost's a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.
We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.

This is the direction that certifications and licensing is headed in every state. I now renew my professional licenses online and even renew my first aid training online. Not only is it more cost effective, it is more convenient for everyone. With that said, I think the state should continue some sort of live fire excersize for certification.

Another item I would mention, I am an NRA certified rangemaster. I called the Olympia HE office and volunteered to help with the live fire excersizes for online HE students in Stevens County, but have never recieved a call back from Olympia. Is there a surplus of HE help or am I not qualified? A call back would have been nice. 

[Brownarola]

This is interesting.. This is how Delaware is addressing Hunter Education. They require a signed insurance release. Funny. I recommended this a year ago and was basically ignored.  http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/11/hunter-education-program-requires-live-gun-fire/

Here is a link to the waiver.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/HunterEd/Documents/Waiver.pdf

[ghosthunter]

This is interesting.. This is how Delaware is addressing Hunter Education. They require a signed insurance release. Funny. I recommended this a year ago and was basically ignored.  http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/11/hunter-education-program-requires-live-gun-fire/

Here is a link to the waiver.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/HunterEd/Documents/Waiver.pdf

There is no reason we could not do that here. They already get several signed forms. I myself have one students sign for the Trap Club i teach at.
I understand liability. But where is thegreater risk in the classroom or on the range? In my mind they should banning Range day,leave the shooting to the families. Not working guns from the classroom.

[ghosthunter]

If you have not figured it out by now, it's all about the insurance. What do you think would happen if someone get's injured in a hunter ed class? They are going to go after the state. The problem really isn't the state. It's our government not stepping in stopping frivolous law suits and putting a cap on judgement amounts. With that said, as insurance rates continue to explode, and with the budget shortfalls, the wdfw has to make cuts somewhere and if eliminating live fire exercises and replacing functioning firearms with clones than that's what they are going to do. They have to keep the costs down. Of course anyone who has ever taught hunter education knows you only have x number of hours to introduce safe firearm handling practices to students. After that it's on the student to continue to learn and practice safe firearm handling techniques. Looking at this fact, should a hunter education instructor truly be responsible for teaching students how to safely handle firearms or should this responsibility fall back on the people who should have been instilling these practices long before the student ever attends a firearm safety class; the parents? In today's society we seem to want the government to do more and more for us. We want them to deliver the mail, take care of us when we retire and now we want them to handle our medical needs. In addition we want them to give our children an education and teach them how to handle firearms safely. Then if they screw up we go on a witch hunt and we want to make the government pay. Sadly enough we only have ourselves to blame and in my opinion if things don't change I think you are going to see a switch to 100% online certification and the elimination of traditional hunter education all together.

Why? It cost's a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.
We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.

This is the direction that certifications and licensing is headed in every state. I now renew my professional licenses online and even renew my first aid training online. Not only is it more cost effective, it is more convenient for everyone. With that said, I think the state should continue some sort of live fire excersize for certification.

Another item I would mention, I am an NRA certified rangemaster. I called the Olympia HE office and volunteered to help with the live fire excersizes for online HE students in Stevens County, but have never recieved a call back from Olympia. Is there a surplus of HE help or am I not qualified? A call back would have been nice. 

Denny I would not take the no call to heart. I called down there every day for a week to get them to post my class on line and never got a live person.
New instructors who apply never here anything for weeks, if at all.  Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.

[ghosthunter]

If you take everything together,wolves,seasons,hunter ed,access, it does not bode well for hunting in this state.

[Brownarola]

Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.

Actually they do a mentoring program and when instructors meet the requirement they put on a hunter ed course with Chuck or Dan doing the evaluations. If they fail to meet the expectations they are sent back to their mentor for more training, but you are correct; this is too much for Dan and Chuck who also have to put on online-student evaluations. My hat goes off to both of them.

My point is that life does have it's risks. I still hold that safety is the point of the class for a reason. That to properly teach safety, there is no better way than to hand a real gun to a child, and let the instructor do their job, not to pretend that they are teaching about it.

Iceman, the question isn't about safety; It's about liability. The state wants you the volunteer to go out on a field course and evaluate Johnny on his handling skills with live firearms but  if anything happens to Johnny and his dad files a lawsuit, don't be surprised if you are the one left holding the bag. The state needs to decide what they want? Do they want to protect the volunteer instructor or themselves. If they want to protect both we volunteers and themselves from this threat they need stop playing around and implement a liability waiver releasing the state and we volunteer instructions from the possibility of litigation. IMHO it's the least they can do for the amount of free labor we provide.

[ghosthunter]

Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.

Actually they do a mentoring program and when instructors meet the requirement they put on a hunter ed course with Chuck or Dan doing the evaluations. If they fail to meet the expectations they are sent back to their mentor for more training, but you are correct; this is too much for Dan and Chuck who also have to put on online-student evaluations. My hat goes off to both of them.

My point is that life does have it's risks. I still hold that safety is the point of the class for a reason. That to properly teach safety, there is no better way than to hand a real gun to a child, and let the instructor do their job, not to pretend that they are teaching about it.

Iceman, the question isn't about safety; It's about liability. The state wants you the volunteer to go out on a field course and evaluate Johnny on his handling skills with live firearms but  if anything happens to Johnny and his dad files a lawsuit, don't be surprised if you are the one left holding the bag. The state needs to decide what they want? Do they want to protect the volunteer instructor or themselves. If they want to protect both we volunteers and themselves from this threat they need stop playing around and implement a liability waiver releasing the state and we volunteer instructions from the possibility of litigation. IMHO it's the least they can do for the amount of free labor we provide.

There are lots of ways to reduce risk. Dan & Chuck do a great job. But they are only two. Have you ever had your class evaluated? Or your range day? I have been teaching 17 years and never had a range day with staff there. If they want to reduce risk the waiver is a good start. If the want to enforce uniformity they need more people.

[Brownarola]

You know what the true issue is? The director of hunter education should be a trained educator who holds at least a Masters or Doctorate Degree in Education. Someone who is a non biased outdoors man who not only understands how to effectively teach but also understands learning styles and how to implement those changes into the classroom. When I started teaching hunter education I could not help but notice the constant battle going on between the state and the instructors. This negative bickering has only gotten worse over the past few years with the exit of Mik. Even an outsider can see a house divided cannot stand and what is the point of putting together an advisory commission to propose ideas when you have no intention on listening to their ideas. It's a waste of tax payer money and a waste of their time. Unfortunately until the state realizes that there is a serious problem with firearm safety program and decides to fix it things are only going to get worse. Personally I think it's time hunter education was moved to a different department such as the Department of Natural resources so law enforcement can get back to doing what they excel at which is enforcing the laws, and the hunter education / firearm safety team can get back to doing what we do best which is teaching firearm safety and educating people about conservation.

[ghosthunter]

 

Well said Sean

[bearpaw]

Denny I would not take the no call to heart. I called down there every day for a week to get them to post my class on line and never got a live person.
New instructors who apply never here anything for weeks, if at all.  Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.

I got a call this morning from Sgt Cline, I offered to help if I am qualified, he said he would check with the team in my area. The future of HE worries me, I hear a lot of folks complaining that they couldn't get their kids or an adult family member in a class. Someone took the time for me when I was a kid, I figure it's my turn to try and return the favor.

Helping out with a range day for online students would actually work best for my schedule, so that's what I volunteered for.

[ghosthunter]

It is true that some areas suffer from not enough classes. It is also true that a lot of folks wait till the last minute to try and get a class. I have been going out the door in October and had folks call me wanting a class.
They want you to conform to their schedule.