Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2013, 09:30:51 AM
What the bill changes/does:
-Minimum age of 8 to take a class
-Military members are exempt from firearms skills portion
-WDFW may charge a registration fee of not more then $20 for the class. The fee will go towards hunter ed
-WDFW may charge a fee of not more then $10 for a duplicate hunter ed certificate
-Hunters under the age of 14 must be accompanied by a WA licensed hunter that is 18 or older
-Hunters under 14 is not required to be accompanied if they are the immediate family member of a private property owner or lessee and is hunting on that property.
Like I said, this bill is requested by WDFW. Typically agency requested bills get more “pull” in the legislature, however that is not always the case.
http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=1199&year=2013 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=1199&year=2013)
Post by: lokidog on January 18, 2013, 09:39:28 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 18, 2013, 09:41:02 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2013, 09:42:38 AM
Some of these, I agree with but I would like to hear what their reasoning is for this, especially the $20 fee.
The reasoning for the fee is there has been a problem of people signing up for multiple classes and not showing up, thus taking someone's spot. The reasoning is if someone pays they are more likely to show up. Also, the hunter ed program is getting more expensive to maintain, do you want additional funds coming out of WDFW Enforcement field staffing (less officers) or from those attending classes?
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2013, 09:42:53 AM
Looks like good up grades to the program!
:yeah:
I agree
Post by: cmiller85 on January 18, 2013, 10:16:34 AM
They should expand that to include law inforcement.
Post by: lokidog on January 18, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Some of these, I agree with but I would like to hear what their reasoning is for this, especially the $20 fee.
The reasoning for the fee is there has been a problem of people signing up for multiple classes and not showing up, thus taking someone's spot. The reasoning is if someone pays they are more likely to show up. Also, the hunter ed program is getting more expensive to maintain, do you want additional funds coming out of WDFW Enforcement field staffing (less officers) or from those attending classes?
OK, understand the double booking thing. A refundable, or partly deposit would work to cover that. I'd like to see what the actual budget is for HS versus the monies provided by the Feds. Twenty bucks seems like a lot, especially for families with multiple kids going into the program. The investment by the state into the HS program is an investment in WDFW's financial future since they are essentially recruiting new members.
I would also ADAMANTLY OPPOSE this based on the "licensed hunter" requirement for someone accompanying a shooter less than 14. If it said accompanied by someone over 18 that had passed a HS class, I might go with it.
I think the 14 yo age requirement is a good one, unless the person with them has to be sitting right next to them. Within voice/visual contact being the requirement, then maybe. Under age 10 or 12, then possibly OK with them being under direct control.
Post by: JJD on January 20, 2013, 06:11:15 AM
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2013, 07:14:13 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2013, 07:35:34 AM
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2013, 08:27:11 AM
I understand how the system works, the way we do things in the future depends on being able to adopt to new challenges, funding state programs like hunter education is and should always be a priority to anyone that has a steak in the future of hunting. With all the shootings that have taken place in the last few months public education should be at the front lines of our argument for more safe gun handling classes, and I'm afraid the 20.00 fee for registering will have a negative effect on enrollment, poor families wont enroll there kids and thus history repeats itself.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2013, 08:38:16 AM
"Up to" $20 covers future inflation for years to come. That is a small fee for a 15 to 20 hour class.
:yeah:
And a class that once you take it you are now set for life
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2013, 08:53:55 AM
As far as I know, most of the classes statewide are usually full. The problem is not a lack of students; it is a lack of instructors and facilities to teach at.
Since fees are mandated by law, the fee can never be more than $20 until a new law is passed. The program could easily have to live with an "up to $20" fee for ten years or more. There is no guarantee what Pittman Robertson funds the state will receive.
Finally, if someone cannot afford an "up to" $20 fee for a class that is once in a lifetime, how will this person ever afford to hunt?
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2013, 09:05:32 AM
Finally, if someone cannot afford an "up to" $20 fee for a class that is once in a lifetime, how will this person ever afford to hunt?
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2013, 09:16:00 AM
it's not about hunting, IT'S ABOUT SAFTY
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2013, 09:18:11 AM
That's the problem with the current mentality of our leadership in in the department, they don't get it,
it's not about hunting, IT'S ABOUT SAFTY
Then why is it called "Hunter Education"? http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/) As it is in most states
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2013, 09:33:39 AM
I never wanted to mess with money collection. If the state wanted fee collected I have always said they should do it themselves.
My class starting Feb. filled with 20 people in less than a week. And there are at least 12 on a waiting list.
Also instructors have wanted a age limit for years. Many students are not ready for what is evolved At even 9 or 10. Under 8 has a low chane of passing they just don't have the reading skills yet. I know some do but most don't .
I think this is important t because in my option the state weakend the program with the new policies last July especially on range day. So people in my opinion will get through that should not. Because they are no longer required to shoot a youth model firearm.
In all I support the new law.
Post by: PolarBear on January 20, 2013, 09:46:57 AM
Post by: Branden on January 20, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
It sounds reasonable to me. I do, however thing that the minimum age should be 10. I attended my daughter's classes and you would be surprised the number of really young kids that their parents are forcing them to take the class because they just want another set of tags. I watched 2 kids in my daughter's class that were both under age 9 where the parents sat next to them and did all the work for them. At least those kids miserably failed the shooting and written tests when the parents had to leave them alone. Those kids were a waste of space in the class when others were waiting to get in. A friend of mine is an instructor and he said that it is very common to have really young kids being pushed through the class who have zero business being there.
I disagree about the age thing. I passed when I was 7, my brother 8, and my niece just passed at the age of 9. My brother and I both killed our first doe at age 9.
Post by: brew on January 20, 2013, 10:28:35 AM
Aren't military personnel already exempt from taking the firearms skills portion?military personnel are exempt from the firearms skills portion-they just have to file the correct paperwork with the state
They should expand that to include law inforcement.
Post by: PolarBear on January 20, 2013, 10:47:07 AM
There are exceptions but I think the majority of kids under 10 are not mature enough to grasp the whole safety thing. Hell, most of my kid's friends who are 9-13, I don't want to be in the same county as them with a gun in their hand! By the way, I was hunting alone at age 6 and shot my first buck but I also had to prove myself over and over again before I was even allowed to touch a gun.It sounds reasonable to me. I do, however thing that the minimum age should be 10. I attended my daughter's classes and you would be surprised the number of really young kids that their parents are forcing them to take the class because they just want another set of tags. I watched 2 kids in my daughter's class that were both under age 9 where the parents sat next to them and did all the work for them. At least those kids miserably failed the shooting and written tests when the parents had to leave them alone. Those kids were a waste of space in the class when others were waiting to get in. A friend of mine is an instructor and he said that it is very common to have really young kids being pushed through the class who have zero business being there.
I disagree about the age thing. I passed when I was 7, my brother 8, and my niece just passed at the age of 9. My brother and I both killed our first doe at age 9.
Post by: Bluemoon on January 20, 2013, 11:13:55 AM
IMO they should not be exempt. I train for many from Ft. Lewis. From E-8 & E-9's
to many O-5's and up. These people might be good with their M-4's, But the majority I see out here have no clue to handling their shotguns and sporting rifles in a safe manner.
No offense to any of them, but I see this on a daily basis. I do not hesitate to tell them so either when I see it.
Just my .02
Post by: jrebel on January 20, 2013, 11:29:00 AM
I like the fee. For those who appose the fee; how are you gonna get this youth a tag and license? That is far more expensive.
Jrebel
Post by: SevenD on January 20, 2013, 12:09:55 PM
"military personnel are exempt from the firearms skills portion-they just have to file the correct paperwork with the state"
IMO they should not be exempt. I train for many from Ft. Lewis. From E-8 & E-9's
to many O-5's and up. These people might be good with their M-4's, But the majority I see out here are have no clue to handling their shotguns and sporting rifles in a safe manner.
No offense to any of them, but I see this on a daily basis. I do not hesitate to tell them so either when I see it.
Just my .02
I would agree that, but many military move often and are gone so much that the individuals that want to hunt may only be available for a portion of a season, so waiting around for a class to start would most likely ruin the season for him/her.
The issue of knowing how to operate your weapon and hunting safely is the responsibility of the individual. Otherwise we wouldn't have the "good for life hunter education." :twocents:
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2013, 02:29:00 PM
Post by: Hunterman on January 20, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: lokidog on January 20, 2013, 02:53:40 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2013, 03:00:31 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
That is what is being proposed...
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2013, 03:19:22 PM
It sounds reasonable to me. I do, however thing that the minimum age should be 10. I attended my daughter's classes and you would be surprised the number of really young kids that their parents are forcing them to take the class because they just want another set of tags. I watched 2 kids in my daughter's class that were both under age 9 where the parents sat next to them and did all the work for them. At least those kids miserably failed the shooting and written tests when the parents had to leave them alone. Those kids were a waste of space in the class when others were waiting to get in. A friend of mine is an instructor and he said that it is very common to have really young kids being pushed through the class who have zero business being there.
I agree with this. I think the state had to choose an age. It is easier to get people on boardodor 8 years old limit. 10 would be a battle and maybe nix any age limit for sometime. It's a step.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2013, 03:21:32 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
No disrespect to the military, but I think this would be a bad move. Talk to any of the game wardens around a military installment, and they'll tell you that military personnel can keep them very busy.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2013, 03:33:03 PM
I like it..... I am not sure there should be an age limit to take the class. If you can pass it and handle firearms in a safe manner then have at it. If you are not you fail. Parents should know when there kids are ready. My daughter will be ready at 7. My some.....probably not til 8 or 9????only time will tell.
I like the fee. For those who appose the fee; how are you gonna get this youth a tag and license? That is far more expensive.
Jrebel
I can tell you from experience that leaving it to the parents in most cases is a mistake.
And here is why. Two brothers one 7 one 11. The little guy wants to take the class because big brother is taking it. The 7 year old is not ready, but dad works late so mom enrolls them both.
Your 12 year old wants in the class but there's no room because little Johnny who will not pass is taking up the seat. Most the time the 7 year old will not even get to the test the parents see their error and leave him with someone. But it's too late class is half over and a seat was wasted.
Post by: danderson on January 21, 2013, 05:39:34 AM
Bob, Pittman Robertson money collected from the sale of sporting goods from across the nation amounts to millions of dollars back each state for among other items education, we get a fraction of the money collected back to education, its mismanagement from our lawmakers to expect sportsmen and woman to cough up another user fee when we have already paid our FAIR share. Politicians need to do there job and stop creating new fees every time they need to fund a program that has been successful in its operation since its inception.
I understand how the system works, the way we do things in the future depends on being able to adopt to new challenges, funding state programs like hunter education is and should always be a priority to anyone that has a steak in the future of hunting. With all the shootings that have taken place in the last few months public education should be at the front lines of our argument for more safe gun handling classes, and I'm afraid the 20.00 fee for registering will have a negative effect on enrollment, poor families wont enroll there kids and thus history repeats itself.
Pittman Robertson Act money is used to fund Hunter Education, we receive a fraction of the tax dollars collected, we have already paid our fair share
Post by: JoeE on January 21, 2013, 05:53:56 AM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I disagree with this. MILITARY does not mean that you are familiar with weapons. I was in the Marine Corps infantry, we handled weapons everyday, worked on patrolling through various terrain with these weapons, trained how to safely handle and shoot these weapons in close proximity to other Marines. Army infantry is the same way. Now, when I would come across non-combat arms Marines (POGS) in the field or during range training I could not believe what I was seeing. Like they had no idea what they were doing. Totally unsafe and acting life the rifle and its safe handling was completely foreign. And these are Marines I'm talking about. Lets not even get started on Navy or Air Force personel who have never even handled a weapon. So no, exempting the military is a bad idea.
Post by: ckr on January 21, 2013, 05:59:08 AM
But I would not mind paying a small fee to help cover the time of the instructors or to reserve a spot in class
Also the problem is with the parents and not these young kids who take the classes but don't pass. The state has made it very easy now with the online program but the parents need to be extremely involved. It took months of drilling gun safety into my 7 yr olds head before I would even sign him up for a field day test. He was able to read and take the written test on his own. It seems to me that SOME parents either don't put enough time to set there child up for success or don't fully understand how tough the class can be. Either way if the kid is young, parents have to be more involved
Post by: JoeE on January 21, 2013, 06:01:55 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 09:09:49 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 09:13:06 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 09:16:47 AM
Why does the person accompanying a young hunter have to be a licensed hunter?? This is BS! I can understand the adult accompanying, but I would also say they should be able to be accompanied by a family member 16 or older, if under 18, I would have no problem with the family member haqving to be licensed and therefore having passed HS.
I am not ignoring your question. But in the dept's view it is a safety issue.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 09:22:04 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 09:25:51 AM
Again, a bunch of BS!! This seems like another way for the state to force people to give them more money, ie. anyone that wants to hunt with a youth has to buy a license whether or not they plan on shooting anything themselves.
A big ole pile of cow pies!
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 24, 2013, 09:33:23 AM
I don't think the adult should be required to have a hunting license. It should be a Hunter Education card OR a hunting license.
what if grandpa retired from hunting but wants to take the grand kid out and show him a thing or two? I don't see why he would need to be licensed. they weren't required to take hunter safety back then either. Seems like a money grab pure and simple.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 24, 2013, 09:35:34 AM
So, it's not safe to have a kid, who has passed hunter safety hunting with grandpa, who may not have taken a HS course but has been hunting for 60 years but doesn't have a license?
Again, a bunch of BS!! This seems like another way for the state to force people to give them more money, ie. anyone that wants to hunt with a youth has to buy a license whether or not they plan on shooting anything themselves.
A big ole pile of cow pies!
Glad I'm not the only one who thought that.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 09:36:07 AM
I don't like a minimum age for taking the class or for hunting alone. I know 6 year olds who are far safer with guns than many older hunters I have taken hunting. I hunted by myself all the time when I was 12 to 14, I do think there needs to be discretion. I would agree with a rule that said anyone under age 14 must either be accompanied by an adult or be carrying a signed note from their parent or guardian saying they may be hunting in that area that day. I think of all the times my family and I hunted doing drives and stands and I was alone during the hunt. I also think of going out the door at night after school or on weekends and hunting on my own on timber company and state land behind our house.
Hunter ED Fee
I don't agree with this either. There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Hunter Ed Instructors
I volunteered last year to do range days for online students. Even though I am a NRA certified rangemaster, the state wanted me to attend classes in another part of the state. This state would have more instructors if they really wanted to have them. They wanted me as a volunteer to go to another part of the state to take classes, no thanks. I think the WDFW should send someone to teach potential instructors in different areas of the state. More instructors means more hunter recruitment, that is a real bottleneck that is costing our sport. That is the problem with government, poor customer service.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 09:38:24 AM
I don't think the adult should be required to have a hunting license. It should be a Hunter Education card OR a hunting license.
what if grandpa retired from hunting but wants to take the grand kid out and show him a thing or two? I don't see why he would need to be licensed. they weren't required to take hunter safety back then either. Seems like a money grab pure and simple.
I agree. I guess there would need to be some sort of additional exception in there for that scenario.
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 09:43:09 AM
Minimum Age
I don't like a minimum age for taking the class or for hunting alone. I know 6 year olds who are far safer with guns than many older hunters I have taken hunting. I hunted by myself all the time when I was 12 to 14, I do think there needs to be discretion. I would agree with a rule that said anyone under age 14 must either be accompanied by an adult or be carrying a signed note from their parent or guardian saying they may be hunting in that area that day. I think of all the times my family and I hunted doing drives and stands and I was alone during the hunt. I also think of going out the door at night after school or on weekends and hunting on my own on timber company and state land behind our house.
Hunter ED Fee
I don't agree with this either. There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Hunter Ed Instructors
I volunteered last year to do range days for online students. Even though I am a NRA certified rangemaster, the state wanted me to attend classes in another part of the state. This state would have more instructors if they really wanted to have them. They wanted me as a volunteer to go to another part of the state to take classes, no thanks. I think the WDFW should send someone to teach potential instructors in different areas of the state. More instructors means more hunter recruitment, that is a real bottleneck that is costing our sport. That is the problem with government, poor customer service.
I agree with all but the minimum alone hunting age. I would be fine with 12 and it should be voice or visual contact which would cover your drive situations.
I also think that if the accompanying person is a family member, the minimum age should be 16 as long as that person had also passed HS. 18 or over accompanying, should not need HS or a license.
And I also agree that the state seems to go out of its way to discourage peope from staying in the HS instructor cadre or even start it. I have a Masters in Teaching and was told that I had to go to the teaching how to teach classes which were not nearby. Also, the requirement to teach a class every year is ridiculous as the curriculum doesn't change that rapidly.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 10:13:20 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 10:24:59 AM
Hunter ED FeeThe issue is not so much recruitment of students to hunter education, as it is to retention.
There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Right now most of the hunter education classes in the state are full. Many fill up within days of registration opening. There is a shortage of classes, not students. As you've probably noticed, some of the recent changes to the program have resulted in a loss of instructors, making the situation worse.
What is more troubling than recruitment is that a significant percentage (close to 50%) of students that pass hunter education do not purchase a hunting license the year they pass. Worse yet, within three years a majority of graduates have dropped out of hunting permanently.
If there is no fee, there will be an even larger number of individuals who sign up for classes, but don't show. We already have a problem with that; making the class free will make it worse. :twocents:
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 24, 2013, 10:34:44 AM
I'm over 40 now but this line would have prevented me from getting into hunting. Either that or I would have had to find "WA licensed hunter" to accompany me that my parents approved of.
MY parents took me to hunter safety class and took me deer hunting. Neither of them had any interest in hunting or ever bought a license. If they hadn't of done that for me before I got interested in girls, I probably wouldn't have been buying licenses for the last 30 years.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 10:45:58 AM
Hunter ED FeeThe issue is not so much recruitment of students to hunter education, as it is to retention.
There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Right now most of the hunter education classes in the state are full. Many fill up within days of registration opening. There is a shortage of classes, not students. As you've probably noticed, some of the recent changes to the program have resulted in a loss of instructors, making the situation worse.
What is more troubling than recruitment is that a significant percentage (close to 50%) of students that pass hunter education do not purchase a hunting license the year they pass. Worse yet, within three years a majority of graduates have dropped out of hunting permanently.
If there is no fee, there will be an even larger number of individuals who sign up for classes, but don't show. We already have a problem with that; making the class free will make it worse. :twocents:
I believe you are thinking in reverse. The goal should be to put as many kids through gun safety as possible. The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one. Make hunting more accessible and easy for people to participate and you will also have more hunters.
I think HE should actually be taught in the schools as part of the curriculum.
Post by: huntrights on January 24, 2013, 10:54:53 AM
That said; I would like to share some input and concerns brought to my attention related to HB1199 as written and introduced.
Concerns have been raised regarding the age restrictions and course fees that would be placed on our youth, as well as the fee for the one license year deferral of hunter education from the department. Kids mature at different ages; some 12 year olds are less mature than an 8 year old. It is the parent who should be making the decision on when to bring their child into hunter safety. We should be encouraging new hunters to enter into the hunting community, rather than proposing restrictions that could result in discouraging them.
I would recommend that the sponsors and co-sponsors of the legislation, along with the WDFW, pursue and encourage an open dialog with state organizations that regularly and judiciously review such proposed legislation and that represent our hunting community. While seeking individual input from the public is necessary and encouraged, individuals may not always have the insight into some of the legislation to fully understand the implications, good or bad. Sometimes we, as individuals, need to seek the guidance from the organizations that represent us because they tend to be more ‘seasoned’ in the workings of our political landscape. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 11:08:49 AM
Myself and another local friend went to a day long class to become NRA certified rangemasters. The class was offered only 30 minutes from my town. There were about a half dozen of us that did it. I mistakenly assumed it would allow me to help with HE.
There is even a shortage of HE instructors in my area, yet there were 6 of us there to get Rangemaster training for a full day. I bet the state would have similar success at recruiting HE instuctors if they were more customer friendly like the NRA. :twocents:
Post by: 300rum on January 24, 2013, 11:14:31 AM
If one kid doesn't take HE for $20 then that is a shame. Yeah, $20 isn't a big deal to me but add $20 to the first year license, a new gun maybe that fits right and it just all adds up. There are other places to cut and or open up opportunities for people to volunteer before we need to start charging kids $20 to take the class.
To elaborate on my comments about making HE instructor training more available.
Myself and another local friend went to a day long class to become NRA certified rangemasters. The class was offered only 30 minutes from my town. There were about a half dozen of us that did it. I mistakenly assumed it would allow me to help with HE.
There is even a shortage of HE instructors in my area, yet there were 6 of us there to get Rangemaster training for a full day. I bet the state would have similar success at recruiting HE instuctors if they were more customer friendly like the NRA. :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on January 24, 2013, 11:26:54 AM
To elaborate on my comments about making HE instructor training more available.
Myself and another local friend went to a day long class to become NRA certified rangemasters. The class was offered only 30 minutes from my town. There were about a half dozen of us that did it. I mistakenly assumed it would allow me to help with HE.
There is even a shortage of HE instructors in my area, yet there were 6 of us there to get Rangemaster training for a full day. I bet the state would have similar success at recruiting HE instuctors if they were more customer friendly like the NRA. :twocents:
Hunter education and gun safety go hand-in-hand. In light of recent events and the opportunistic attacks on the 2nd Amendment, I believe the WDFW and our state should be encouraging increased participation in the Hunter Education course with a parallel effort to recruit new Hunter Education instructors. The Hunter Education course would also be good for people who do not hunt; it would teach them about gun safety and help them to understand hunting and hunters.
I would like to point out to the readers and participants in this forum. Many of the comments can be thought provoking and also provide you with talking/writing points when you communicate with your representatives. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 11:42:45 AM
"The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one".Hunter ED FeeThe issue is not so much recruitment of students to hunter education, as it is to retention.
There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Right now most of the hunter education classes in the state are full. Many fill up within days of registration opening. There is a shortage of classes, not students. As you've probably noticed, some of the recent changes to the program have resulted in a loss of instructors, making the situation worse.
What is more troubling than recruitment is that a significant percentage (close to 50%) of students that pass hunter education do not purchase a hunting license the year they pass. Worse yet, within three years a majority of graduates have dropped out of hunting permanently.
If there is no fee, there will be an even larger number of individuals who sign up for classes, but don't show. We already have a problem with that; making the class free will make it worse. :twocents:
I believe you are thinking in reverse. The goal should be to put as many kids through gun safety as possible. The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one. Make hunting more accessible and easy for people to participate and you will also have more hunters.
I think HE should actually be taught in the schools as part of the curriculum.
I completely agree. As you pointed out, right now there are not enough instructors and classes. Making the classes free now, without first addressing the lack of instructors/classes doesn't make sense to me. If there comes a time when there are empty spots in classes then I would be more inclined to support making them free. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
"The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one".Hunter ED FeeThe issue is not so much recruitment of students to hunter education, as it is to retention.
There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Right now most of the hunter education classes in the state are full. Many fill up within days of registration opening. There is a shortage of classes, not students. As you've probably noticed, some of the recent changes to the program have resulted in a loss of instructors, making the situation worse.
What is more troubling than recruitment is that a significant percentage (close to 50%) of students that pass hunter education do not purchase a hunting license the year they pass. Worse yet, within three years a majority of graduates have dropped out of hunting permanently.
If there is no fee, there will be an even larger number of individuals who sign up for classes, but don't show. We already have a problem with that; making the class free will make it worse. :twocents:
I believe you are thinking in reverse. The goal should be to put as many kids through gun safety as possible. The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one. Make hunting more accessible and easy for people to participate and you will also have more hunters.
I think HE should actually be taught in the schools as part of the curriculum.
I completely agree. As you pointed out, right now there are not enough instructors and classes. Making the classes free now, without first addressing the lack of instructors/classes doesn't make sense to me. If there comes a time when there are empty spots in classes then I would be more inclined to support making them free. :twocents:
Maybe I am misunderstanding, are you saying there is currently a charge for HE? It was free for me and for all my kids when they went, as far as I know they are still free.
Post by: Oldguy on January 24, 2013, 12:18:02 PM
There is even a shortage of HE instructors in my area, yet there were 6 of us there to get Rangemaster training for a full day. I bet the state would have similar success at recruiting instructorsors if they were more customer friendly like the NRA. :twocents:
The WDFW doesn't do anything to recruit new instructors. I have suggested to higher ups in the program that booths at sports shows, info tables at outlets like Cabelas and so on and was told that they preferred that new instructors come from recruiting by active teaching instructors.meaninganting that the effort is too much for them to consider. They also do zilch in finding teaching facilities.
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 12:23:19 PM
It is not currently free in any class that I'm aware of. The maximum a class can charge is $5. Most classes charge a bit more ($20, for example) and then refund the $15 to the student at the end of class. This works to minimize the no shows. We give our students the option to donate the $15 back to the program or keep it. I would estimate that 90%+ donate the $15 back to the program.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 12:31:25 PM
"Maybe I am misunderstanding, are you saying there is currently a charge for HE? It was free for me and for all my kids when they went, as far as I know they are still free."
It is not currently free in any class that I'm aware of. The maximum a class can charge is $5. Most classes charge a bit more ($20, for example) and then refund the $15 to the student at the end of class. This works to minimize the no shows. We give our students the option to donate the $15 back to the program or keep it. I would estimate that 90%+ donate the $15 back to the program.
Wow, news to me, I never heard of any charges in my area, guess I am behind on this. If this is fact that all classes are charging, then I guess I would support a $1 increase of license fees to have free HE for all. I would also support legislation forcing WDFW to revamp it's failing HE program, specifically it's failure to recruit HE Instructors when I know for a fact there are people who want to help teach HE.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 12:46:01 PM
So really, the class is free. They just hold onto your money for a while, and then give it back.
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 12:53:10 PM
The initial intent in Washington was to make 12 the minimum age. This was fought. There are numerous studies that conclude the younger a hunter starts, the more likely he is to continue. The minimum age discussion ended up at 8 as the proposed minimum age. As an instructor and a parent, I can accept this. My son passed hunter education at age 7 with a perfect score, and is an exemplary and safe hunter. Some students are too young even at 12. In my experience there are very few (but some) children under age 8 that can safely handle a firearm, and are mature enough to understand safety and regulation considerations.
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
My wife took the class 7 or 8 years ago, and I remember there being a small fee. I think it was $15 or $20, and was fully refundable if you showed up for class.That may be true for your wife's class, but not all classes are free. Some are, but most of the ones I'm aware of charge $5 which is the maximum currently allowed. As stated earlier, it's a common practice in many classes to charge $20 or $25 to register, and then refund the difference at the end of class.
So really, the class is free. They just hold onto your money for a while, and then give it back.
"No shows" are a real problem. In 2012, in Washington there were almost 2,500 individuals that registered for a class and then did not show up. That's 2,500 empty seats that could have been filled by someone else that wanted to enroll but couldn't.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 01:10:18 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on January 24, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Quote
If one kid doesn't take HE for $20 then that is a shame. Yeah, $20 isn't a big deal to me but add $20 to the first year license, a new gun maybe that fits right and it just all adds up. There are other places to cut and or open up opportunities for people to volunteer before we need to start charging kids $20 to take the class.
300rum, you hit the nail on the head. The goal should be to get as many kids in the field as possible. Putting up unnecessary barriers is foolishness. These kids are the future of our sport.
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 05:14:58 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 05:18:42 PM
The cost of classes is not the weak link currently. Classes across the state, for the most part, are filled up within days of registration opening.QuoteIf one kid doesn't take HE for $20 then that is a shame. Yeah, $20 isn't a big deal to me but add $20 to the first year license, a new gun maybe that fits right and it just all adds up. There are other places to cut and or open up opportunities for people to volunteer before we need to start charging kids $20 to take the class.
300rum, you hit the nail on the head. The goal should be to get as many kids in the field as possible. Putting up unnecessary barriers is foolishness. These kids are the future of our sport.
A more significant issue is "no shows". In 2012, there were nearly 2,500 individuals that signed up for Hunter Education classes and never showed up. When that happens (if the class does not have a waiting list), there is an empty seat that could have been taken by a potential new hunter who couldn't get a spot.
In my years to being an instructor, I have never once had a student come to class and ask it the fee could be waived. If one did, we would waive it in a heartbeat, or take money out of our own pockets if it came to that. :twocents:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 24, 2013, 05:34:42 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2013, 07:52:20 PM
House Bill 1199 recently had it's first committee hearing. To watch it:
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010133 (http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010133)
The discussion starts around minute 12
Post by: xd2005 on January 31, 2013, 08:31:52 PM
I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 10:37:28 PM
Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.
I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).
That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add. :bash:
Post by: KFhunter on January 31, 2013, 11:04:38 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
That is what is being proposed...
I didn't see an LE exemption in there?
When I was in HE with my son a couple years ago there was an armed deputy taking the class with all the kiddies in there :chuckle:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 31, 2013, 11:12:33 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic (myself included). I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.
Post by: lokidog on January 31, 2013, 11:48:35 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic (myself included). I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.
That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force? How about crossing a fence? ;)
Post by: scotty1969 on February 01, 2013, 01:13:58 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 01, 2013, 06:01:46 AM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic (myself included). I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.
That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force? How about crossing a fence? ;)
Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2013, 08:20:14 AM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic (myself included). I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.
That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force? How about crossing a fence? ;)
Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.
So, I guess I am confused, does this proposal mean they don't have to do the range portion but still have to pass the written test? If so, no problem. But, I think I've read on here, previously, that no student has to do the live shooting, so what's the point of this besides adding more words to whatever government code this is part of? Anyone taking an NRA or other firearm safety class should then also qualify for the same exemption as the military if that is the reasoning, wouldn't it?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on February 01, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.
Hunterman(Tony)
I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such. Maybe they could do a test on-line or something. I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.
Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic (myself included). I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.
That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force? How about crossing a fence? ;)
Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.
So, I guess I am confused, does this proposal mean they don't have to do the range portion but still have to pass the written test? If so, no problem. But, I think I've read on here, previously, that no student has to do the live shooting, so what's the point of this besides adding more words to whatever government code this is part of? Anyone taking an NRA or other firearm safety class should then also qualify for the same exemption as the military if that is the reasoning, wouldn't it?
From my understanding we are only exempted from the firearms portion. Not sure what that is made up of but I am assuming it's some kind of exercise where you walk around with a gun and and faced with various hunting situation (fences..etc.) and in some cases shooting....not sure...I went through hunters ed years ago and we didn't do any of that stuff.
Post by: Tman on February 01, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 02:56:43 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but arent they already allowed to charge a fee of up to 20. besides, some of the hunter ed groups give the money back to thr student after they show up. 20 bucks a person doesnt go very far providing the optional ammunition and real firearms for field events. . Its mostly for getting people to only book a class if they plan on attending.Yes; we charge $20 and refund $15.
To re-emphasize: the biggest problem facing new hunters today is a LACK OF CLASSES, which is due to a LACK OF INSTRUCTORS.
We opened registration today for an April class. By 5:00 a.m. the class was FULL. I've been getting emails all day asking "can you add one more?"
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:46:07 PM
Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.
I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).
That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add. :bash:
Hate to say "told you so", but I did :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2013, 06:10:37 PM
Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.
I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).
That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add. :bash:
Hate to say "told you so", but I did :chuckle: :dunno:
Hmmm, I guess it's hilarious that our representatives, who, I would assume, are supposed to actually represent us, don't give a crap about our input? We all know that any comments ever made on something coming out of WDFWs
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 10:17:42 AM
The bill now goes before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government on 2/20.
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 11:09:24 AM
"Trust us, we're from the government and know what's best for you...." :bash:
Post by: arees on February 14, 2013, 11:18:34 AM
Meanwhile the real issues facing our state (perhaps like funding education) go unaddressed.
My child is far more likely to drown in a private swimming pool than to die in any of the circumstances (hunting, getting into a shoot out with a mad gunman, choking to death on a high capacity magazine, tripping over a rifle leaning in a corner of the room) that are being addressed in the legislature. If any of these people were really concerned about child safety they would be addressing the real (higher likelyhood) risks to children. They aren't, they are just passing feel good legislation to grab headlines.
I don't need a nanny and neither does my son. He has a mother and a father.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 11:27:10 AM
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 11:31:39 AM
I will say this, this legislation has been pushed around WDFW for several years, this is not in reaction to the recent school shootings.
No, they are simply taking advantage just like all the other bottom-feeding liberals, so they are just as bad. They figured they couldn't get this passed, that's why it has been "pushed around" for years. Why put it out now? See my first sentence. This is a big stinking pile of diarhea.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 11:34:56 AM
I will say this, this legislation has been pushed around WDFW for several years, this is not in reaction to the recent school shootings.
No, they are simply taking advantage just like all the other bottom-feeding liberals, so they are just as bad. They figured they couldn't get this passed, that's why it has been "pushed around" for years. Why put it out now? See my first sentence. This is a big stinking pile of diarhea.
You can look on the WDFW website. This proposal was made to the WDFW commission in the Summer of 2012. This is the first year it was actually sent to the legislature.
WDFW has to stagger their bills they submit through the legislature. It is a lot easier to get 2-4 agency supported bills passed in a year then it is to get 10 or 20. WDFW is already looking at bills for the 2014 legislature.
The 2012 legislature had the biggest Fish and Wildlife Enforcement bill in state history. It would have been difficult to get another hunter ed bill passed when the enforcement bill was going through.
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 11:59:44 AM
DUH!!
Loki,
Bigtex is here as a service to us, representing the WDFW and bringing to light legislation and rules changes which affect our hunting and fishing privileges, and our Constitutional rights. He has made several posts in the last two days which have brought to light proposed legislation which would negatively affect our rights.
Please treat him with respect or we'll lose this resource which has been extremely valuable. You don't have to agree with everything he has to say. But you do need to treat him with respect and appreciate the perspective he adds to our site. This goes for Outdoor Guardian, as well. Thanks in advance for toning it down.
PMan
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 12:04:32 PM
YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?
I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.
You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.
Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 12:15:11 PM
YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?
I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.
You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.
Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.
Trust me, I have, several times. My beef is not the $20 deposit or even the minimum age so much, although there are plenty of 9 year olds that can read and understand better than a lot of high school kids. And, if someone at WDFW actually filled in the paperwork for a 6 month old, then shame on them fro wasting the taxpayer's money on it. My beef is with the minimum age to hunt "alone" and the requirements that that person has to meet in order to be the one accompanying.
"Hate to say "told you so", but I did" Facts? This is a stick it up yours comment by you.
And the "facts" are that WDFW felt that now, with the stuff that has been happening, they can get their "safety" agenda passed even though it will have zero effect on safety and a potentially large effect on hunter recruitment.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 12:26:43 PM
YOU JUST DON'T GET THE POINT DO YOU?
I am trying to provide facts, you can't argue with facts. This bill was pre-Sandy Hook.
You think people don't waste spaces by signing up and not going to classes? Ask Hunter Ed instructors on here, they say it happens. Last year a 6 month old was signed up to take hunter ed.
Lokidog,
If you are so against it, then contact your rep.
And the "facts" are that WDFW felt that now, with the stuff that has been happening, they can get their "safety" agenda passed even though it will have zero effect on safety and a potentially large effect on hunter recruitment.
How can you say WDFW felt they can get this pushed through now because of what has happened (school shootings, gun legislation, etc) when the WDFW Commission approved this legislation last summer, BEFORE everything started to occur?
Post by: buckfvr on February 14, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
Don't shoot the messenger. Bigtex provides us with the DFW perspective. Let's not lose that by showing him a lack of respect. Thanks!
Post by: buckfvr on February 14, 2013, 01:07:36 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2013, 01:14:06 PM
DFW perspective is that of which reflects the direction they are told to take the program based on decissions made by the state. DFW could be different and better, but so long as they are lead by the likes of our governors and politicos like kevin ranker, we are going to see the downward spiral continue. I can say, no one I know is fooled........ :twocents:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've gone round and round with them on several issues. They wish I'd never become a MH! However, we still benefit from having Bigtex and need to be stewards of that resource. His information is quite valuable here. :tup:
Post by: buckfvr on February 14, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
DFW perspective is that of which reflects the direction they are told to take the program based on decissions made by the state. DFW could be different and better, but so long as they are lead by the likes of our governors and politicos like kevin ranker, we are going to see the downward spiral continue. I can say, no one I know is fooled........ :twocents:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've gone round and round with them on several issues. They wish I'd never become a MH! However, we still benefit from having Bigtex and need to be stewards of that resource. His information is quite valuable here. :tup:
I agree....Bigtex does us a valuable service here, but at times I get to thinking hes beating a dead dog trying to get us to see things as he does regarding some of the issues we are faced with today.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
DFW perspective is that of which reflects the direction they are told to take the program based on decissions made by the state. DFW could be different and better, but so long as they are lead by the likes of our governors and politicos like kevin ranker, we are going to see the downward spiral continue. I can say, no one I know is fooled........ :twocents:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I've gone round and round with them on several issues. They wish I'd never become a MH! However, we still benefit from having Bigtex and need to be stewards of that resource. His information is quite valuable here. :tup:
I agree....Bigtex does us a valuable service here, but at times I get to thinking hes beating a dead dog trying to get us to see things as he does regarding some of the issues we are faced with today.
Understood.
Post by: huntrights on February 14, 2013, 01:44:20 PM
Post by: arees on February 14, 2013, 02:29:21 PM
I do appreciate your willingness to provide information and I don't mean disrespect to you. I just disagree with most of this bill. I would support charging a fee for classes, a non-refundable fee for not showing up or anything reasonable addressing people who sign up for the class and don't show up.
I disagree with arbitrary limits on youth hunters. If this is for the safety of our children, there should be examples of situations that this would have helped on. There was one incident from 2008 that was widely discussed involving bear hunters. That hunter was 14 and therefor would not be affected by this legislation.
Can you provide a list of incidents involving youth hunters hunting alone that this legislation would address? If this is to solve a real problem, there should be evidence of that problem.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 02:37:34 PM
Can you provide a list of incidents involving youth hunters hunting alone that this legislation would address? If this is to solve a real problem, there should be evidence of that problem.
WDFW does review all hunting accidents. In the past 30 years about 155 accidents have involved hunters 10-19 years old, about 160 involved those 20-29. Once you get older then 30 the numbers drop drastically. In 2011 (the last year with a full public report) the youngest involved hunter was 16.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html)
Post by: arees on February 14, 2013, 05:13:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 05:21:17 PM
So the report lists no incidents that regulating hunters under 14 would address.
No incident occured in 2011 for someone under 15.
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
Why does the person accompanying a young hunter have to be a licensed hunter?? This is BS! I can understand the adult accompanying, but I would also say they should be able to be accompanied by a family member 16 or older, if under 18, I would have no problem with the family member haqving to be licensed and therefore having passed HS.
I am not ignoring your question. But in the dept's view it is a safety issue.
So the report lists no incidents that regulating hunters under 14 would address.
No incident occured in 2011 for someone under 15.
Bigtex, I regret getting a bit fiesty with you earlier and apologize.
However, how can this be justified as a safety issue when there were no incidents in 2011, and I would bet, very few incidents of an unaccompanied juvenile under 14 in previous years. And yes, we are all aware of the bear hunter incident, but it seems to me there is a pretty good, documented safety non-issue with these young hunters.
This reminds me very much of the "if we save one life, taking away your rights is fine" attitude of the anti-gun establishment.
Again, if the licensed hunter requirement were removed, then I would support this, begrudgingly, since there is still no documented safety issue. The accompanying hunter should be either an adult (any adult) or a family member 16 or older that has also completed a HS course.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 05:57:54 PM
Hunter ED FeeThe issue is not so much recruitment of students to hunter education, as it is to retention.
There are already a million reasons that young hunters are not getting recruited. I see this as another reason that fewer hunters will be recruited. Hunter Education should remain free for anyone. Raise the price of my license but keep hunter ed free for anyone. Everytime you add another rule or cost to involving new hunters in hunting you are going to reduce recruitment. :twocents:
Right now most of the hunter education classes in the state are full. Many fill up within days of registration opening. There is a shortage of classes, not students. As you've probably noticed, some of the recent changes to the program have resulted in a loss of instructors, making the situation worse.
What is more troubling than recruitment is that a significant percentage (close to 50%) of students that pass hunter education do not purchase a hunting license the year they pass. Worse yet, within three years a majority of graduates have dropped out of hunting permanently.
If there is no fee, there will be an even larger number of individuals who sign up for classes, but don't show. We already have a problem with that; making the class free will make it worse. :twocents:
I believe you are thinking in reverse. The goal should be to put as many kids through gun safety as possible. The reason classes are overfull is due to a lack of classes, a lack of instructors, a lack of WDFW to recruit instructors and make it easy to become one. Make hunting more accessible and easy for people to participate and you will also have more hunters.
I think HE should actually be taught in the schools as part of the curriculum.
I am still opposed and stand by my previous statements. There should be no charge for HE, if there is a charge it should be refundable at the end of the class or possibly valid toward purchase of a hunting license.
Any charge for students to take the class could result in fewer students. I would rather pay $1 more for my license than see students charged.
The bottle neck is in the state acquiring instructors. I contacted Olympia and volunteered to help with range day for online students, the response was more or less that I wasn't really needed and could go help some other instructors if I wanted. They did not even seem interested in acquiring another instructor, I was disgusted to say the least.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 06:05:03 PM
-Alabama 16 and under require licensed adult
-Arizona 14 and under with 18 yr old licensed adult
-California no big game hunting under 12
-Colorado under 16 requires 18 yr old licensed adult
-Connecticut 12-16 with a licensed adult. No more then 2 minors per adult
-Georgia under 12 requires adult supervision
-Hawaii under 15 must be accompanied by a non-hunting licensed adult
-Idaho 10-17 accompanied by licensed adult
-Iowa under 12 accompanied by licensed adult
-Louisiana under 16 with adult supervision
-Massachusetts 15-17 accompanied by person 18 or older
-Minnesota 11 or younger accompanied by parent
-Mississippi under 12 be under the direct supervision of a licensed hunter at least 21 years old
-Missouri 6-15 with immediate presence of qualified adult
-Nebraska 12 and under accompanied my licensed person over 19
-Nevada no big game hunting under 12. Under 18 wild bird or mammal hunting must be accompanied by parent
-New Hampshire under 16 accompanied by licensed adult
-New York 12-14 requires a licensed individual 21 or older. 14-16 requires individual 18 or older
-Ohio under 16 requires adult
-Oregon no hunting big game under 11
-Rhode Island 12-14 licensed adult
-South Dakota minimum hunting age of 12
-Utah under 14 accompanied by adult 21 or over
-Virginia under 12 accompanied by licensed adult
-West Virginia under 15 requires licensed adult when hunting on public land or on land of another
-Wisconsin under 10 requires licensed hunter
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx)
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 06:08:35 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 14, 2013, 06:14:10 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on February 14, 2013, 06:49:01 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2013, 07:42:51 PM
As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.
That's fine, but what, other than $$$ is the reason that the adult needs to be licensed? And does the license have to be the same as the kid's? Can I bow hunt for elk and then take my kid rifle elk hunting? What if I just bought a small game license, can I take my kid deer hunting. Here's where the details hit the fan and they can set it up however they want to in order to maximize revenue. It does not make any sense from a legal or safety perspective to require this. As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.
Post by: bigtex on February 14, 2013, 08:01:07 PM
As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.
As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.
Actually more then half of the states I listed require a licensed adult to accompany them, the others do not require them to have a license.
And in WA you would just need a hunting license to accompany them, doesn't need to be the same lincese.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 14, 2013, 08:23:09 PM
There is an assumption here that the kid wouldn't be in the field if Mom and Dad don't hunt.
AND IF MOM AND DAD DON'T HUNT, GOOD LUCK GETTING THEM TO TAKE A CLASS AND BUY A LICENSE TO TAKE LITTLE JOHNNY AFIELD.
Post by: xd2005 on February 14, 2013, 08:57:25 PM
As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.
As noted in Bigtex's last post, many states do not require the adult to have a license.
Actually more then half of the states I listed require a licensed adult to accompany them, the others do not require them to have a license.
And in WA you would just need a hunting license to accompany them, doesn't need to be the same lincese.
That could still be quite expensive if dad lives in Oregon and wants to take his son, that lives in WA with his mom, hunting.
Post by: csaaphill on February 14, 2013, 10:09:12 PM
Post by: arees on February 15, 2013, 07:56:51 AM
As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.
Please allow me to respectfully say....no no no no no no. etc.
You are not required to hunt with a high powered rifle. Small game hunting is still allowed in this state. If you believe that a hunter should not be licensed until they can shoot the most powerful rifle that can be used in this state, I have some interesting guns to shoot. What should be covered in hunter ed, is how and why to select an appropriate rifle and cartridge for you and your game (if you are rifle hunting at all).
If you want to bring up the bear hunting accident, get the facts straight:
http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html (http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html)
The youth in question was 14 and this bill would have had no effect on that incident. Do you have an actual case of an unsupervised youth hunting accident that this bill would address? People have been hunting in Washington for a long time. One such accident must have happened, but we don't need legislation to address all rare occurrences.
This is why I earlier compared this bill to an assault weapon ban. It doesn't address a significant problem that is really being seen and it wouldn't have changed the most prominent case that people seem to be concerned about.
PS, as far as charging for the courses to deter people from signing up and then not showing up, here is a quote from the class starting on February 24th in Eatonville:
Special Instructions for All Students
There is a $20.00 deposit for the class upon completion you will be refunded $15.00. Deposit can be payed at the clud between 10 AM and Noon on the 16th of February and also pickup your book for the class or mailed to Kevin Watson P.O Box 6048 Spanaway, WA 98387.
So charging people for not showing up is already allowed. The only question is who the money goes to. Either this legislation was poorly thought out or it isn't really for addressing the topics it claims to address.
Post by: lokidog on February 15, 2013, 08:32:43 AM
Ding Ding! The team I taught with did something similar. The $5 went to cover ammo and other expenses related to the class. How will the instructors cover that with this bill since the State won't be giving any to the instructors? Hey, I guess it doesn't matter, they are a dedicated bunch that will just donate their money as well as time right? Can you say BYE BYE to more instructors?
I will repeat, this is simply another State money grab and has nothing to do with safety. :bash:
Write your reps people. This is a bad plan as written!! Write your Senators as well, they seem to not all have their lips up to the State drinking fountain.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 15, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
As for hunter education instructors training, my guess is that you have to go through their training for the state's liability insurance to cover you when teaching hunter ed. The minimum age to take hunter ed is because in my opinion, very few younger kids have the physical ability to handle a high powered rifle or 12 or 20 gauge shotgun in an actual hunting situation. The minimum age to hunt alone is because of the backlash of a young hunter who killed a woman when bear hunting, yes it was one incident, but the WDFW got a whole lot of flak about it. these are simply my opinions and I am sure several of you will not like them or disagree and that's ok, you have a right to your opinion just like I have aright to mine.
Please allow me to respectfully say....no no no no no no. etc.
You are not required to hunt with a high powered rifle. Small game hunting is still allowed in this state. If you believe that a hunter should not be licensed until they can shoot the most powerful rifle that can be used in this state, I have some interesting guns to shoot. What should be covered in hunter ed, is how and why to select an appropriate rifle and cartridge for you and your game (if you are rifle hunting at all).
If you want to bring up the bear hunting accident, get the facts straight:
http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html (http://outdoorswithothmarvohringer.blogspot.com/2008/08/tragic-hunting-accident-affects-youth.html)
The youth in question was 14 and this bill would have had no effect on that incident. Do you have an actual case of an unsupervised youth hunting accident that this bill would address? People have been hunting in Washington for a long time. One such accident must have happened, but we don't need legislation to address all rare occurrences.
This is why I earlier compared this bill to an assault weapon ban. It doesn't address a significant problem that is really being seen and it wouldn't have changed the most prominent case that people seem to be concerned about.
PS, as far as charging for the courses to deter people from signing up and then not showing up, here is a quote from the class starting on February 24th in Eatonville:
Special Instructions for All Students
There is a $20.00 deposit for the class upon completion you will be refunded $15.00. Deposit can be payed at the clud between 10 AM and Noon on the 16th of February and also pickup your book for the class or mailed to Kevin Watson P.O Box 6048 Spanaway, WA 98387.
So charging people for not showing up is already allowed. The only question is who the money goes to. Either this legislation was poorly thought out or it isn't really for addressing the topics it claims to address.
It was not a requirement to shoot a centerfire rifle or a shotgun to pass when I went through HS 30 years ago. There was an option for that on range day.
Most of us start out hunting critters that don't require centerfire rifles or shotguns.
This is my concern and issue with WDFW. Legislation to make it harder for youth to get a license and become part of the hunting comunity. If they don't start when they're young, they are not going to be buying licenses and getting afield when they're older.
There is NO good reason to have LICENSED adult supervision.
There is NO good reason to require a 12 year old to shoot a shotgun to get a safety certificate.
WDFW should actively be recruiting hunter safety instructors and working to have enough classes for the students that want to attend.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 15, 2013, 03:56:40 PM
Rep. Dawn Morrell
Rep. Hans Zeiger
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
RE: House Bill 1199 relating to hunter safety (education). The bill was written at the request of WDFW and is sponsored by Reps Blake, Chandler, Takko, Buys, Kirby, Orcutt, Lytton, Van De Wege, Nealey, Hudgins, Stanford, Wilcox, and Warnick
Part of this bill requires that hunters under the age of 14 must be accompanied by a WA licensed hunter that is 18 or older. There is no justifiable reason that a parent or adult should have to be licensed in order to supervise a young hunter.
This bill does not address an actual problem. There does not appear to have been any hunting accidents in this state that this bill would have prevented. Instead, it “hopes” to increase safety by putting additional restrictions on young hunters and their families.
This particular bill would have prevented me from going through hunter safety 30 some years ago as my parents did not hunt.
Further, it would be in the states interest to have more youth participation in firearm safety. We all should be doing our part to ensure that any and all youth that are interested in hunting or shooting in this state, have the resources to be trained in safe firearm handling practices.
The WDFW should be putting their efforts into recruiting new hunter safety instructors and providing enough hunter safety classes for all that would like to be certified. Backing legislation that reduces participation and training does not add to the safety of our kids.
Thanks and best regards,
James Halvorson
(253) 777-7233
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 15, 2013, 07:43:18 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 20, 2013, 08:10:44 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 21, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 22, 2013, 07:28:27 AM
The House bill had a hearing in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government. Nobody in opposition testified or was at the hearing.
I guess that makes it OK then.... >:(
While other states are making it easier for young hunters to get started, our illustrious Washington Department of no fishing or hunting decides it would be a good idea to go the other way and make it harder and more expensive for youngsters to get started. There has been plenty of opposition sent from me, I just don't have the luxury of being able to pop over to Olympia every 20 minutes when these meatheads decide they need to make or change a law that doesn't address any actual problem in the real world that the rest of us non-politician/government drones live in. :bash:
Everyone opposed to this, start writing the Senators, we still have half a chance that they will shoot it down since many of them are not part of the liberal, gun-hating, grocery store meat buying, Anthony's seafood loving, elite......
Post by: buckfvr on February 22, 2013, 07:50:45 AM
Post by: arees on February 22, 2013, 08:37:53 AM
HB 1199 claims to be a bill promoting hunting safety among our young hunters. In reality, it is a solution looking for a problem. It is another case of changing the rules so that someone can feel like they are doing something for safety while there is no evidence of any real problem.
I have been discussing this at length with representatives of WDFW and they have claimed two main reasons for proposing this legislation:
1) Increased safety for young hunters (i.e. hunters under 14 who may be hunting alone).
2) Increased access to hunters education classes by charging a fee to dissuade people from signing up from classes and then not showing up.
Neither of these are real issues.
For the first issue, WDFW has not been able to present any evidence of an actual incident that would have been prevented by this incident. For most people, they remember the 2008 incident of a young bear hunter shooting a hiker. It must be remembered that however tragic that incident may be, the hunter in question was 14 and this bill would have had no impact on that incident.
From WDFW's own statistic, they youngest hunter involved in an accident in 2011 (the latest results available) was 16. Outside of the range of this bill.
Please take an analytical look at WDFW's accident statistics shown here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html)
These statistics show that for 10 to 19 year olds, there have been 150 accidents over the last 30 years. That averages to 5 per year, but remember that this bill only addresses those incidents where the hunter was under 14. We must also view the chart showing that the accident rate now has fallen to one quarter of what it was 30 years ago. This means that we are averaging less than one accident per year for hunters in the 10 to 19 year age range.
In the mean time it adds costs to introducing our children to our traditional activities. This bill would require the adult accompanying the youth to be licensed for hunting. This would mean that for me to take my child out for a youth only hunt I would need to have my own license as well. While I do purchase a hunting license annually, I oppose any unnecessary barriers being put in the way of our hunting activities.
The bill also sets an arbitrary minimum age to take the hunters education class. This is unnecessary because successful completion of the class depends on passing a test at the end. Rather than picking an arbitrary age, let the test perform its function. If the test does not weed out people who do not understand the material, the test should be fixed. Why let a 9 year old pass who does not grasp the material pass under a bad test and block a younger child who does because of an arbitrary age restriction. If there is a problem, and the falling hunting accident rates indicates there is no problem, address the test.
Clearly, the youth hunter safety aspect is a solution looking for a problem. Perhaps you have heard the term "nannying" before. Here we have another fine example. There is no evidence of a problem, but the state is proposing layering on "safety" rules none the less.
For the second issue, this problem has already been solved. If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end. The mechanism for deterring people for signing up for a class, blocking someone else from taking the class, and then not showing up is already in place.
The only thing this addresses is funneling more money to WDFW.
This is a poorly thought out and unjustified bill. It is a solution looking for a problem. Please oppose it and take a stand against nannying.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 22, 2013, 09:09:08 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 22, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Arees- Very well written. Thanks for sharing.
I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:
Quote
If you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.
Is it just me or is that a little confusing?
Post by: lokidog on February 22, 2013, 01:01:22 PM
Arees- Very well written. Thanks for sharing.
I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:QuoteIf you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.
Is it just me or is that a little confusing?
Noticed that too. :chuckle:
Post by: arees on February 22, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2013, 01:44:56 PM
So as of right now:
House Bill: Fee for attending course
Senate Bill: No fee
Both bills are still active, however the Senate bill is further a long.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 22, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Damn, I should get a secretary. The fees are only refunded if you do show up for the test.I caught that later, while rewriting and using your work as a template. Still nicely done and gave me a head start.
Post by: bigtex on March 01, 2013, 03:16:28 PM
Post by: JJD on March 03, 2013, 08:27:54 AM
Arees- Very well written. Thanks for sharing.
I agree. Very well written letter. However I was confused by one sentence:QuoteIf you review the hunter education classes currently being offered you will find that several of them already charge fees that are only refundable if you do not show up for the test at the end.
Is it just me or is that a little confusing?
I believe what he meant was that some classes charge an intiial fee, but refund the fee if you complete the class. If you don't complete the class, no refund.
We tried that with a $5 fee (All we are allowed to ask for without special permission) and it had no effect. Maybe if you charged and refunded $100 it might have an impact. I mean, $5 to $20 is nothing anymore.
Post by: Bob33 on March 03, 2013, 08:50:49 AM
Post by: danderson on March 03, 2013, 09:09:11 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
I can tell you that if the bill passes most every hunter education instructor that I know, me included will quit teaching, the bottom line is the state wants to do away with the traditional hunter education class all together, make it a online class with instructors only doing the field course evaluations, some people think this is the way of the future, not me.
Why would charging a fee make intructors quit?
Post by: danderson on March 03, 2013, 01:10:22 PM
Post by: arees on March 03, 2013, 01:50:39 PM
If this bill passes, the intent is to have class registration fees collected at the time of online registration. That would mean that an individual registering for five concurrent classes (as some do now) would pay $100.
What is preventing this from happening without the bill passing? Doesn't this just redirect the money from the instructors (paying for supplies) to the department? Is the department going to use the money to open more classes?
Post by: Bob33 on March 03, 2013, 02:55:00 PM
The money would be collected by the systems provider (Kalkomey). They would keep a small portion for a processing fee; the remainder would be given to WDFW.
I don't believe money has anything to do with the number of classes currently offered. All instructors are volunteers, and I'm not aware of any plans to hire instructors.
Post by: huntrights on March 03, 2013, 04:49:10 PM
I just heard a comment today saying thre aren't enough hunter education classes in the Olympia area. Taking the class online appears to be the only option and then hope to hook up with a group for the range part of course. There are a lot of kids that want to go hunting this year, but it appears the system is making it difficult for that to happen.
Post by: lokidog on March 03, 2013, 07:33:34 PM
I just heard a comment today saying thre aren't enough hunter education classes in the Olympia area. Taking the class online appears to be the only option and then hope to hook up with a group for the range part of course. There are a lot of kids that want to go hunting this year, but it appears the system is making it difficult for that to happen.
Sounds like SOP to me, the state doesn't want to make it easy to be an instructor... the less hunters the more they can cater to the enviro wackos with less complaints from us that help fund the system.
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2013, 07:44:21 PM
I just heard a comment today saying thre aren't enough hunter education classes in the Olympia area. Taking the class online appears to be the only option and then hope to hook up with a group for the range part of course. There are a lot of kids that want to go hunting this year, but it appears the system is making it difficult for that to happen.
There is a class that is in Rochester in a little over a week. Only about half filled....
Post by: arees on March 03, 2013, 07:51:35 PM
As I understand it the primary limitation is the legal authority to charge all students a fixed amount of up to $20. As has been noted here, the fees charged by different classes vary from $0 to $20.
The money would be collected by the systems provider (Kalkomey). They would keep a small portion for a processing fee; the remainder would be given to WDFW.
I don't believe money has anything to do with the number of classes currently offered. All instructors are volunteers, and I'm not aware of any plans to hire instructors.
So, this is simply a money grab by the department.
Did they attach the "safety" issue on it to hope it will be passed with no criticism? This is a youth "safety" issue that does not address any real issue and a money grab that does not help hunters education. This is the poster child for bad legislation.
Post by: huntrights on March 03, 2013, 09:07:48 PM
I just heard a comment today saying thre aren't enough hunter education classes in the Olympia area. Taking the class online appears to be the only option and then hope to hook up with a group for the range part of course. There are a lot of kids that want to go hunting this year, but it appears the system is making it difficult for that to happen.
There is a class that is in Rochester in a little over a week. Only about half filled....
Thanks. I found the class you referred to and passed the information on.
Post by: bigtex on March 08, 2013, 04:25:41 PM
The Senate version (no fees) is still held up in the Senate.
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2013, 08:02:27 PM
The House version is the bill that would most likely become law, as it is further along. The minimum age of 8 to enroll in classes has been removed. The fees for the course is still in tact.
Post by: xd2005 on March 11, 2013, 08:46:16 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 11, 2013, 08:55:48 PM
But still maintains the requirement that the accompanying adult be licensed in WA, correct?
That's the buggering going on, I actually have no problem with an 8 yo minimum, or hunting while accompanied (although 12 would be better than 14), but the "licensed" part is BS.
Post by: bigtex on March 11, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
But still maintains the requirement that the accompanying adult be licensed in WA, correct?
Yes. There was a proposal to drop the age from 14 to 12, but that fell through.
Post by: bigtex on April 15, 2013, 03:42:10 PM
The House Bill has been passed through the Senate committee it will now go before a full Senate vote then to Governor Inslee.
Post by: lokidog on April 15, 2013, 08:46:25 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 16, 2013, 08:33:35 AM
But still maintains the requirement that the accompanying adult be licensed in WA, correct?
That's the buggering going on, I actually have no problem with an 8 yo minimum, or hunting while accompanied (although 12 would be better than 14), but the "licensed" part is BS.
SURE IS!!!
Post by: huntingfool7 on May 05, 2013, 07:10:51 AM
Post by: lokidog on May 05, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
This bill is dead in the senate.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: and a big Woohoo!!
Post by: 300rum on May 05, 2013, 02:38:50 PM