Hunter Education changes

[Outdoor Guardian]

To prevent having to repeat this same information in bits and pieces in more than one place, I'm posting it here and on the other Hunter Ed related forum:


There’s been a lot of discussion on this forum about potential changes to the Hunter Education Program and how they may impact students and volunteers.  I thought it was about time to weigh in.

We all understand the importance of Hunter Education, right? As hunters, we want to be sure there are safe, ethical, and responsible hunters out there sharing the woods with us. And we want to make sure there are future generations of hunters to carry on the tradition that is so important to all of us. I hope that at least we can agree that those are the ultimate goals. And, if so, we should also be able to agree on the same common results that we want achieve through Hunter Education. It’s the “how” that has everyone spinning. And honestly, we are all going to have different opinions about how to achieve the results we’re after, based on our own history, perception, and role in the effort.

A critical component of the program is the volunteer instructor. We have around 900 across the state – that’s a lot of volunteers! They are vital to our ability to teach the number of students we do each year.  These instructors are willing to unselfishly commit their personal time toward this effort because they are passionate about hunting and firearm safety. Some of them have many, many years invested. Some have probably invested their own money as well. We recognize this investment, we really do.

That being said, the Hunter Education Program is here first and foremost to serve the students. And to best serve our students, we must constantly re-evaluate the program to ensure we meet the goals we talked about earlier: creating safe, ethical and responsible hunters and continuing the hunting heritage. But this is where things get a bit sideways. Hunter Education is not, and should not, be perceived as the finishing school for hunters and hunting. We provide a very focused training and learning environment to teach students the basics of firearms safety and hunter education in a short period of time, but the majority of learning usually comes from mentoring and additional field experience long after the class has ended and the student has their certificate in hand.

RCW 77.32.155 states “The director may establish a program for training persons in the safe handling of firearms, conservation, and sportsmanship.” This is not something we have to do, but our Department decided long ago that we would make this a self-imposed mandate. Given the authority to create such a training program, it then becomes our responsibility to manage and cultivate it. This is a great responsibility! As if managing the development of a training curriculum and policies, coordinating volunteer instructors, and ensuring students learn what is necessary to become safe and ethical hunters aren’t enough, we also have to manage the liability that comes with a training environment that includes firearms, volunteers, Department staff, and the public co-mingling in public locations.

So let’s focus on the liability piece for a minute. Once WDFW is given statutory authority to implement a program, we are then ultimately held accountable for all aspects of that program. With Hunter Education, this includes the responsibility to protect our students and volunteer instructors, and ensure a safe environment in which to learn (and teach). And if there was an incident in a classroom – whether an accidental discharge with no injuries, or an accidental discharge that resulted in serious injury or death – it would ultimately be our fault for not preventing such a tragedy. If any of you have been involved in litigation before, you know it can take many, many years, and many, many dollars before there is any resolution. Unfortunately if an incident occurred in a Hunter Education class, the students and volunteer instructors would most likely be dragged into the legal system right along with the Department. None of us want to see that happen. And if that wasn’t enough, there would undoubtedly be a media storm with certain groups calling for an end to Hunter Education altogether. But, it’s not about covering our own butts or protecting our volunteer instructors and students from years of litigation. And it’s not about the controversy that would ensue. Personally, I don’t want to be the one to have to visit a child’s parent or loved one and explain what went wrong, or have to apologize for a horrible tragedy that might have been prevented. The largest concern here is keeping our students and volunteers safe from harm in the first place. And if that means using inert firearms in the classroom to provide the proper level of human and program protection, then by comparison, it is a small price to pay.

Since the use of inert firearms seems to be a hot issue for folks, I’ll address that now. It’s true that we have purchased and begun using inert firearms in some Hunter Education classes.  While they lack a firing pin, they represent the five actions types and are otherwise fully functional: you can load/unload them and work the action and safety.  Yes, they are a bit stiff at first, but so is any new firearm. After a couple class’s worth of students handle them, they’ll be broken in. And I agree that they may be ugly, but handling pretty firearms is not the priority. Safe handling of ANY firearm is the priority. So far our instructors who have used them have provided positive feedback, and don’t think the fact that they are bright orange or without a firing pin diminishes their value in the classroom at all.

That being said, we also realize the value of using different types of firearms to highlight specific points, so we’re working on protocols to continue to allow the use of various firearms and archery equipment in the classroom and during field course activities. These could include firearms issued by the Department, those that have been donated or purchased with donated funds or grant monies, firearms that have been loaned to instructors, or privately owned firearms. In all instances, the firearms would have to be approved by the Department and permanently or temporarily disabled. Other requirements may be necessary dependent on the firearm and how it was obtained. There does need to be some uniformity here……. we have seen some interesting things through the years (I will leave it at that).

Let me be clear: We have no intention of doing away with optional live-fire exercises. However, to limit liability, we are currently discussing the use of only WDFW issued/inventoried firearms during live-fire exercises. We are also considering limiting the firearms that are used for live-fire exercises, regardless of ownership, to the following: .22 rifle, .223 rifle, .243 rifle, 20-gauge shotgun, .177 air rifle, or bow.

Many folks are also concerned about some of the policy changes they’ve heard about, which may or may not be true. Here’s what’s happening: It’s been many years since we conducted a thorough review of our Hunter Education policies. And while our program is successful and has an excellent safety record, we also recognize areas we could improve upon. If you don’t anticipate problems, you will likely be faced with them. And yes, some of the policy changes we’re considering are a result of the actions of a few, but that’s not our only motivation. We’ve thoroughly reviewed Hunter Ed policies from 22 other states and two provinces, and in doing so, we’ve found some very valuable information that could help us improve our Hunter Education program. We’ve also brought together a group of instructors (the Instructor Advisory Committee or IAC) to discuss potential changes, their effect on instructors and students, and how we can make the program better. Let me assure you we’re not just unilaterally making decisions, but seeking input from those who bring years of experience to the table. The policies we plan to review and update first are those that deal with the general use of firearms, accountability and liability issues, instructor conduct and corrective action, and donations and fees. If you have ideas or suggestions, please feel free to contact Sgt. Klein, our new Hunter Education Manager. He is more than willing to listen and eager to hear what folks have to say. He can be reached at Carl.Klein@dfw.wa.gov or 360.902.2426. And yes, he will return your call. Our goal is to post the updated policy manual on the Instructor website in the next couple of weeks. Once posted, we hope that you’ll review it and let us know what you think. If you have comments, concerns, or suggestions, please don’t hesitate to contact us. 

With regard to our online Hunter Education classes…. another hot issue: The online course was developed to address changes in society and make it easier for folks to complete Hunter Education with limited time. Let’s face it – folks are busy! We have single parents trying to work two jobs, go to school, and take care of the kids. And we have kids who are involved in school, sports, and other extracurricular activities. But we still want them to succeed at Hunter Education so that they can get out there and hunt with the rest of us. And let’s not forget the people who take Hunter Education with no intentions of hunting – they just want to learn how to handle a firearm safely! We want to be sure EVERYONE with an interest has the ability to complete Hunter Education, despite their busy schedules. So we developed the online curriculum. Now, this new course was not without its problems in the beginning. We saw a failure rate of nearly 90% and received several complaints from instructors.  To address this we looked at our processes to see what we were doing wrong and how we might fix it.  Since then, we have made significant changes to the online curriculum and have received lots of positive feedback from instructors.  The new Online Skills Evaluation Class is not the preferred delivery method for all students, and we still recommend the traditional course for a more enriching and interactive learning experience, but at least it’s an option for folks that just can’t make it to a traditional class. Let me be clear about this: We have no intention to only offer online hunter education classes.  There will always be a need for traditional classes.

One of the other issues we’ve struggled with is ensuring consistency in our classes across the state. When we looked at Hunter Education courses offered throughout the state, we noticed that some instructors’ classes lasted thirty hours or more, while the requirement is ten hours of instruction on safe handling, safety, conservation, and sportsmanship. Some students were even being told they should take a class from a different instructor because they would not pass a particular instructor’s class.  While we feel instructors should have the flexibility to structure the course in a way that works best for them, we also need to remain somewhat consistent. We understand that it’s impossible to teach a student all there is to know about hunting in ten or even twenty hours. But Hunter Education is meant to be a basic course, designed to introduce the student to firearm safety and hunting with the understanding that there is always more to be learned about both. With this in mind, and with strong support from numerous instructors and the IAC, we are looking to limit Hunter Education course length to twenty hours. 

So there you have it. This is not an “Us vs. Them” issue. We all are working toward the same goals here. But as the managers of this program, we have to consider the students, first and foremost, and ensure their safety and their success in learning the basics of Hunter Education and firearm safety. We have to consider our volunteer instructors, and ensure their safety while teaching, protect them from involvement in legal actions, and also allow them some flexibility in how they teach their classes. We have to consider the Department as a whole, maintain the integrity and success of the Hunter Education program, and consider the liabilities that come with managing a program that involves the handling of firearms by students and instructors. And we also have to consider the public, and those who may encounter our former students while recreating. Our top priority will ALWAYS be safety and trying to prevent the potential for tragedy.

If you ever have concerns about something you hear about the Hunter Education program or WDFW Enforcement as a whole, I would ask that you talk to us directly, get the facts and hear our perspective. One more thing – we truly honor and respect those who volunteer to teach others about Washington’s rich hunting heritage and firearms safety. And we thank you for your service to the Hunter Education Program.

[ghosthunter]

Thank you.

[danderson]

Thanks for the clarification, any idea if  the instructor newsletter will be coming back?

[Machias Bowhunter]

Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at  o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.

So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot  require it.  So why have a range day?

I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!

I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!

[HORSEPOWER]

Quote-Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at  o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.

So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot  require it.  So why have a range day?







Quote-I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!

I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!

Hold on....  Live fire hasn't been required for years, although most of us have insisted on it and feel strongly about that.  We all still have to remember that this is a BASIC course and that the safety and handling is done in class BEFORE the live fire.  Also, there are more restrictions imposed for good reason.  But most importantly- It is the parents' responsibilities to go practice.  When you made the commitment to be a parent, you also made a commitment to be up at 0 dark 30 to go out with your kids and teach them how to do it right. 

[Machias Bowhunter]

Quote-I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!

I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!![/color]

Hold on....  Live fire hasn't been required for years, although most of us have insisted on it and feel strongly about that.  We all still have to remember that this is a BASIC course and that the safety and handling is done in class BEFORE the live fire.  Also, there are more restrictions imposed for good reason.  But most importantly- It is the parents' responsibilities to go practice.  When you made the commitment to be a parent, you also made a commitment to be up at 0 dark 30 to go out with your kids and teach them how to do it right. 

I do agree that as a parent you should be out teaching them how to do it, but what about the kids and adults, there are some adults that are new to this, don't have a person to show them how to do it the right way? I feel that if you are not going to do a live fire just because some of the students in your class are not going to show up you are doing a disservice to the ones that will show up. I'm not a hunter ed instructor but do feel that you should provide the best class available, and if you have the means for a live fire you should do it 

[ghosthunter]

Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at  o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.

So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot  require it.  So why have a range day?

I have been getting up at o dark 30 for 18 years. I have gone out of my way to put on a quality class. I bring in dozens of firearm, and trunks of hands on gear. I spend countless hours working one on one with students.
I am not cheating the class. The state is , with needless restrictions and rules. All making my job tougher. I am a volunteer not a employee. If this is the kind of program they want. OK.
But I learned along time ago  that you cannot be everything to everyone.

We already cannot meet the needs for all the folks who want in these classes. It is only going to get worse. I do not have to even put on a class. I can do what 3/4 of the instructors do, help in another class for few hours and go home. Why let the state give me a headache.


I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!

I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!

[JJD]

There are some things that I can't get my head wrapped around.

Please explain how functional firearms in an environment where live ammo is not allowed (class room) is a risk, and having functional firearms with live ammo (live fire) is not a risk? 

Please present the case where any student has been injured by the discharge of a firearm in a WA hunter education class room?

I have seen the non-functional arms.  They are full size arms and will be quite difficult for younger students to handle.  Remember the state will not allow a minimum age.  Smaller frame students will be at a decided disadvantage.  Don't know what your frame size is, but do you have a better chance of controlling the muzzle of a fire arm that fits you or controlling one end of an 8 ft, 2x8?  Setting up students to fail is a liability in and of itself.

There is always potential liability/litigation with anything we do.  If we allow the risk management people to run our lives, you will have your a** planted in your recliner 24/7 and by golly ya better be wearing a helmet and seat belt just in case.

I can't wait for the risk management folks to get involved in Drivers Ed.  No more driving a real cars in the class.  You will have the option as to whether you drive at all during your examination process.  The state will supply all the cars for exam if you choose to dive one.  They will be orange M1 Abrams tanks with the barrels removed.

Yeah, I read all 54 pages of the posted draft.

[Special T]

JJD, have you noticed that drivers ed has been greatly reduced in HS across the state? Much of it has gone private. Maybe that is the direction HE should go? NO liability for the state then... 

[Dave Workman]

There are some things that I can't get my head wrapped around.

Please explain how functional firearms in an environment where live ammo is not allowed (class room) is a risk, and having functional firearms with live ammo (live fire) is not a risk? 

Please present the case where any student has been injured by the discharge of a firearm in a WA hunter education class room?

I have seen the non-functional arms.  They are full size arms and will be quite difficult for younger students to handle.  Remember the state will not allow a minimum age.  Smaller frame students will be at a decided disadvantage.  Don't know what your frame size is, but do you have a better chance of controlling the muzzle of a fire arm that fits you or controlling one end of an 8 ft, 2x8?  Setting up students to fail is a liability in and of itself.

There is always potential liability/litigation with anything we do.  If we allow the risk management people to run our lives, you will have your a** planted in your recliner 24/7 and by golly ya better be wearing a helmet and seat belt just in case.

I can't wait for the risk management folks to get involved in Drivers Ed.  No more driving a real cars in the class.  You will have the option as to whether you drive at all during your examination process.  The state will supply all the cars for exam if you choose to dive one.  They will be orange M1 Abrams tanks with the barrels removed.

Yeah, I read all 54 pages of the posted draft.

You're close to cracking a code, I suspect.
Just for the sake of argument...and I'll be this is going to start one...does it seem like the WDFW is deliberately trying to discourage hunter ed volunteer instructors, and thus reduce opportunities for holding classes...and thus reduce the opportunities for new would-be hunters?

The WDFW has tons of interest in promoting wolf expansion, but they seem to be bending over backwards to reduce the number of hunters and then stick those remaining hunters with higher fees, thus reducing hunting to a pastime of the elite.

[Special T]

Dave, I agree that the WDFW has been doing things that make no sense what so ever! They are definitely not looking out for their own best interest, unless it is to tear down the tradition of hunting...

[pianoman9701]

I wouldn't doubt the Commission is trying to help thwart hunting in WA. I'm not so sure about the DFW. Yes, they support and defend the insane wolf plan. I think a few key officials in the dept. are the most fervent supporters. But, a good deal of these guys and gals are sportsmen. Most of them have advanced degrees. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that eliminating hunting would be self-destructive to their careers.

I think the Governor (and decades of liberal governors before her) has top-loaded the commission with people who detest hunting and will work to end it or at least severely limit it. If a wolf is a convenient vessel to attain that goal, great.  By allowing this predator unprecedented protection and adopting the most aggressive wolf plan in the west and No. Rockies, they'll decimate ungulate populations (to include the extinction of the woodland caribou), and be "forced" to limit our hunting opportunities and reduce the number of tags sold.

[Special T]

P-man you obviously don't work for the gubment... There are some good people in the WDFW but they do not have enough rank to change Chit! What you just describes is the difference between playing Chess and Checkers! Gov employees don't speak up very often on policy unless its some serious whistle blower stuff and even then its rare because it ends their career. I know because i Have a mom and a wife that have seen some stupid stuff in education. 
Come up with some BS rules about wolves and other predators and you will have some Lax enforcement by people that understand and use digression. But the vast majority will tow the line because they are more worried about their paychecks. 

[pianoman9701]

P-man you obviously don't work for the gubment... There are some good people in the WDFW but they do not have enough rank to change Chit! What you just describes is the difference between playing Chess and Checkers! Gov employees don't speak up very often on policy unless its some serious whistle blower stuff and even then its rare because it ends their career. I know because i Have a mom and a wife that have seen some stupid stuff in education. 
Come up with some BS rules about wolves and other predators and you will have some Lax enforcement by people that understand and use digression. But the vast majority will tow the line because they are more worried about their paychecks. 

My comments in no way contradict what you've said, Special T. I don't think all of the DFW employees agree with the severity of the wolf plan, but I don't count on any of them bucking the system to change it, either. Once the commission has spoken, the edict is followed.

[JJD]

It’s bad enough that the governor appoints the commission, BUT it would be worse if were an elected position.  The liberal clowns in King and Pierce county would simply load the commission clueless people, such as themselves.  Remember, these guys are the reason for the end of Trapping, cat & bear baiting & hounds.  This occurred even though the game dept said it was a bad idea. 
I don’t think the “Hunter Ed” leadership or the advisory groups are anti hunting, they are just being led down a path set by liberals where personal responsibility is a non issue.  They still spend their time trying to “level the playing field” as well as making the world a safer place through reduction in personal freedom. 
The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that if a conservative does not like a classes’ format or time frame, they will find a class that does.  A liberal on the other hand, will complain that he (or his kid) had to spend 4 more hours in my class than he would have in a class in a nearby community.  A conservative will research what is available well in advance; a liberal will be mad when they try to sign up the day the class starts and find the class is full.   A conservative gives back to that which has brought them joy over the years and volunteers to keep it going, liberals want us all to pay a tax or fee to keep everything going, so they can have things where, when and how they want it.