Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 09:42:11 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,107610.msg1405461/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,107610.msg1405461/topicseen.html#new)
I want to discuss the idea of suggesting that people who are busted for safety infractions would need to re-take the Hunter Education class. These infractions would be something like using the scope to glass, especially at a person. Loaded rifle in the vehicle. Shooting the wrong animal. Shooting a person. Accidental, careless discharge of a firearm, either while hunting or not.
I know many of you distrust the DFW for a variety of reasons and are hesitant to "ask for" new regulations. However, at first glance, this seems to make sense to me and by us pursuing it, would be an indication to the general public that most hunters are safety-minded and ethical. I know I'm a boy scout. Let me know how you feel about this.
PMan
Post by: Bob33 on October 16, 2012, 09:56:20 AM
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
Post by: lokidog on October 16, 2012, 10:02:05 AM
One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
Make them go to Olympia and pay for a class put on by the administrators of the program. Problem solved, funded and puts the big wigs back into the classroom. :chuckle:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
How would you propose that it be handled? As a result of a conviction, guility plea or finding of guilt based on an infraction/citation having been issued or as an adminstrative action not requiring an infraction/citation or court action?
I can see violations like the loaded firearm in a vehicle being easist to detect and probably rarely being let go without an infraction/citation being issued, but, like was mentioned in the other thread, scoping someone would rarely, if ever be witnessed by a Game officer.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 10:07:34 AM
One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
Limit it to a space avalible basis with priority given to new hunters. If they can't get in and have to miss a season or two because of their stupidity....so what? No "BOO HOOO" sympathy here for idiots like that.
Post by: Bob33 on October 16, 2012, 10:07:50 AM
Some form of stiff penalty might be more effective. Make them watch political ads for 8 hours a day for one week. That should cure just about anything. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 10:11:25 AM
Shooting a person or livestock is already addressed in the regs, but as for the "lesser" violations, I think a regulation like that would great and would support it.
How would you propose that it be handled? As a result of a conviction, guility plea or finding of guilt based on an infraction/citation having been issued or as an adminstrative action not requiring an infraction/citation or court action?
I can see violations like the loaded firearm in a vehicle being easist to detect and probably rarely being let go without an infraction/citation being issued, but, like was mentioned in the other thread, scoping someone would rarely, if ever be witnessed by a Game officer.
Did you mean to say that you already have to re-take Hunter Education if you're cited for shooting another person or livestock? I didn't know that. If so, they should add more infractions to keep people sharp.
Gamies write tickets for rule violations. You can always contest in court when you feel you have a case against the ticket and get a hearing. Obviously, these infractions would usually have to be witnessed by a gamie unless the person reported themselves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 10:13:12 AM
Honestly, I suspect that most violators already know what they are doing is not safe or ethical, and thus additional training doesn't address the real issue which is a lack of self discipline or concern for others.
Some form of stiff penalty might be more effective. Make them watch political ads for 8 hours a day for one week. That should cure just about anything. :chuckle:
It's not really a question of whether they know they're doing it or not. It's a question of making it hurt so that when they have the option in the future, they take the safer route. It would also act as a deterrent to others when considering an unsafe action, especially if it's been spelled out for them previously in the class.
Making someone watch political ads would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 10:13:30 AM
Honestly, I suspect that most violators already know what they are doing is not safe or ethical, and thus additional training doesn't address the real issue which is a lack of self discipline or concern for others.
Some form of stiff penalty might be more effective. Make them watch political ads for 8 hours a day for one week. That should cure just about anything. :chuckle:
True enough, people who don't care, just don't care.
Have the requirement that they pay a reinstatement fee after completing the class and before getting their license back. Has been that way for years when someone losses their driver's license.
Post by: bobcat on October 16, 2012, 10:15:12 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 10:19:39 AM
One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
I agree with the poster who wrote that preference goes to first time students. This would make the penalty even stiffer.
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2012, 10:23:40 AM
I vote no - this would be about as effective as DUI classes many states put on, sure it costs the driver a lot of pain and $ but in the end the class itself has little training value.
If you're coming at this from a training standpoint, I think it is a fail as *they* won't learn a damn thing.
If you are coming at this from a punishment standpoint, then yes taking hunters ED all over again will be painful :chuckle:
A very stiff fine would make more money for WDFW than contracted out pay-per-class hunters safety, the only winner there is the 3rd party contractor.
Post by: Bob33 on October 16, 2012, 10:24:11 AM
How does that work? Instructors post their class schedules online for the following year in December. Many classes fill up quickly. Are you suggesting that violators cannot register, but must wait until the day of class to see if a spot is available? If they register, and the class fills, then first time potential hunters cannot register.One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
I agree with the poster who wrote that preference goes to first time students. This would make the penalty even stiffer.
I admire the intent but I think this will create some real headaches for scheduling students.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 10:25:56 AM
I want game wardens out catching poachers, not being safety police.
This would be during the course of their regular job. This wouldn't require any additional effort. As it is now, if they observed this activity, they'd stop the person and correct them. The only change would be a citation.
Post by: KFhunter on October 16, 2012, 10:27:07 AM
How does that work? Instructors post their class schedules online for the following year in December. Many classes fill up quickly. Are you suggesting that violators cannot register, but must wait until the day of class to see if a spot is available? If they register, and the class fills, then first time potential hunters cannot register.One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
I agree with the poster who wrote that preference goes to first time students. This would make the penalty even stiffer.
I admire the intent but I think this will create some real headaches for scheduling students.
A punitive hunters education class would be by necessity be a contract 3rd party pay-per-class, like the guilty DUI driver taking "safety" classes, costs them a helluva lot of money and time, but do they learn anything?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 10:27:31 AM
you got too much time on your hands piano :chuckle:
I vote no - this would be about as effective as DUI classes many states put on, sure it costs the driver a lot of pain and $ but in the end the class itself has little training value.
If you're coming at this from a training standpoint, I think it is a fail as *they* won't learn a damn thing.
If you are coming at this from a punishment standpoint, then yes taking hunters ED all over again will be painful :chuckle:
A very stiff fine would make more money for WDFW than contracted out pay-per-class hunters safety, the only winner there is the 3rd party contractor.
Have you seen the # of posts I've made? Of course I have too much time!
OK, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea. :dunno:
Post by: Atroxus on October 16, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
I think it's a great idea in theory. But in reality is there are very few wardens out there. And the odds that they are in the right place at the right time to see one of these infractions has to be less than one in tens of thousands if your talking about something like guys using their scopes to glass with and pointing it in the direction of a person. I just don't see any new laws actually changing anything :dunno: Probably do more good if every time somebody witnessed something like this they calmly walked over to the guy doing it and explained to him why this is a bad deal. Ask they guy how he would feel about a loaded weapon pointed at him. I know this is could behard to do when your pissed off, but would be the best way to get people to be a little more conscious of what they are doing.
:yeah: Plus the issues others mentioned that it could cause with too few classes to go around.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 10:40:20 AM
I want game wardens out catching poachers, not being safety police.
So, in the admittedly rare instance where a Game warden was to walk up to do a check on someone and observe that they were watching you through their scope, because that person is a legally licensed hunter, not in any way a poacher at that time, and since it is just a safety issue, you are okay with him not enforcing a safety issue?
Not trying to attack you, just wondering what your thoughts are as far as limits to what they should take action against and what they should ignore. Your thoughts on loaded firearms in a vehicle for example? Should this remain a violation or be dropped and/or just not enforced?
How about hunting while intoxicated? Again, not poaching, just a safety violation.
Yes, it clearly would be the rare time this was done and witnessed by a Game officer, but is it reasonable to not have something that would be available to them just in case?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 16, 2012, 10:52:01 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 12:33:31 PM
How does that work? Instructors post their class schedules online for the following year in December. Many classes fill up quickly. Are you suggesting that violators cannot register, but must wait until the day of class to see if a spot is available? If they register, and the class fills, then first time potential hunters cannot register.One issue you will run into is the lack of available classroom slots. Most classes fill up well in advance. The argument will be that requiring someone to take a class for an infraction will rob a first time hunter from participating.
As you've probably read on here, there are several instructors across the state who are not pleased with some recent changes in the program, and as a result are stepping down. This could aggrevate the problem with lack of available classroom slots.
I agree with the poster who wrote that preference goes to first time students. This would make the penalty even stiffer.
I admire the intent but I think this will create some real headaches for scheduling students.
A punitive hunters education class would be by necessity be a contract 3rd party pay-per-class, like the guilty DUI driver taking "safety" classes, costs them a helluva lot of money and time, but do they learn anything?
Some will & some won't, true enough. But I don't think that should be the basis that determines whether it should be something that can be required for doing some of these idiotic things people do. Can say that for every law, rule and regulation on the books now, look at the number of repeat offenders, even when facing prison terms.
As for the classes, require that when signing-up, they disclose the reason for taking the class and that if there are openings left they can participate, if not they are bumped out and can try again at another date or location.
Again, no sympathy for the poor victims...errr, I mean violators for putting themselves in that spot in the first place.
Post by: Curly on October 16, 2012, 12:41:49 PM
I want game wardens out catching poachers, not being safety police.
:yeah:
And another thing...........don't you think these people, who have done something that isn't safe, already know how to be safe but for whatever reason chose not to be? What good is another class going to do for them? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 12:46:46 PM
I want game wardens out catching poachers, not being safety police.
:yeah:
And another thing...........don't you think these people, who have done something that isn't safe, already know how to be safe but for whatever reason chose not to be? What good is another class going to do for them? :dunno:
Some but not all. Some, especially older folks who haven't taken Hunter Ed are unsafe from being uneducated.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 16, 2012, 12:56:00 PM
Post by: HORSEPOWER on October 16, 2012, 01:17:20 PM
Post by: Mudman on October 16, 2012, 03:21:22 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on October 16, 2012, 04:00:22 PM
Hey I have an idea!!! Lets give away more of our freedom!!! More laws on top of laws, thats the answer!!! Cmon! Sounds great until one of us safe guys get nailed for some stupid violation we dont agree with but was enacted with this new idea.
I really don't see any freedoms being given up in this case. Yes, I do agree that there can be and is too much regulation over things that should be personal choice.
For example, the seatbelt law. I am not against wearing one, but I don't think it should be a primary reason to stop someone. Been pulled over twice because the troopers (1 WSP & 1 OSP) "thought" it looked like I wasn't wearing my seatbelt.
I feel that is reaching too far to be a reasonable reason to allow someone to be pulled over.
This would be something that may help keep people a little safer, or a bite on the butt for those that just don't care.
As far as the "safe guys get nailed for some stupid violation they don't agree with," is not a valid arguement. Ask any repeat drunk driver if they think DUI laws and consquences are stupid, or any repeat offender for that matter. You will hear an ear-full of how "its stupid," "I didn't do anything wrong," "I wasn't hurting anybody," and so on.
They are out there drinking & driving still, yes that true. But it is nice to know that something can be done when it happens and they are caught. And although its probably a small number, I am sure the there are those that take that into consideration and don't take the risk.
Would you want those laws removed from the books? Dangerous enough on the roads at times now, imagine what it would like if a person could drink as much as they wanted and drive with no worries of being caught or punished.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 06:12:38 AM
Hey I have an idea!!! Lets give away more of our freedom!!! More laws on top of laws, thats the answer!!! Cmon! Sounds great until one of us safe guys get nailed for some stupid violation we dont agree with but was enacted with this new idea.
Look, if my freedom is to look at people through my scope instead of through a pair of binoculars, then I deserve to have it taken away. Mudman, you seem to think we should be free to harm other people. That's not freedom, it's anarchy. I was only suggesting that flagrant ignorance of the most basic safety rules might come with a price.
I also stated a few posts back that maybe my idea wasn't a great one. This is just a discussion. I get that you don't see a reason to fine or penalize someone breaking common sense gun safety rules. Thanks for sharing.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 06:14:16 AM
How about the violators have to volunteer their time and be a guest speaker in a class on that particular topic with certain criteria that must be satisfactorily covered in order to be signed off by the lead instructor. I know that leaves a lot to the instructors discretion and it posses a possible liability threat to the WDFW, but still an idea...
This is an interesting idea.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 06:23:39 AM
Post by: Mudman on October 17, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 17, 2012, 08:59:45 AM
A law that makes looking through a rifle scope in the direction of another person could not be enforced.
Post by: winshooter88 on October 18, 2012, 06:41:03 AM