Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 08:44:59 AM
To summarize its contents, in the first section it creates a $20 tax on Hunter Education courses.
The second section makes it a misdemeanor for a hunter under the age of 14 to hunt unless accompanied by a licensed hunter, age 18 or older. There are exceptions if the young hunter is an immediate family member of the land owner or land leased by his family. (Read the bill for yourself to see the exceptions).
But, under this bill's current requirements, if you want to take your 13 year old son/nephew hunting, you have to be in sight of each other all the time. You CANNOT allow him to walk a road or trail alone while you walk another road/trail, even if your roads/paths eventually intersect and you only plan to be apart for 10 minutes. It would be illegal. Your son/nephew would be guilty of a misdemeanor and would face up to 30 days in the juvenile justice system (90 days if the judge decided to go above the standard sentencing provisions).
If you have any questions, just post them and I will do my best to answer them.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 08:53:56 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,115996.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,115996.0.html)
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 09:10:26 AM
I mentioned the licensed hunter concern in the other thread but it was ignored by BigTex there.
Post by: JLS on January 24, 2013, 09:16:13 AM
Just guessing, I am assuming the rationale for it is to have the parent be Hunter Safety certified also, which they would have to do in order to buy a license. Otherwise, it's all about the money.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 09:17:16 AM
Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 11:04:16 AM
Gentlemen, focus your efforts on stopping legislation like this, more than how to organize a message board. Take time off of work and go testify at the House of Representatives if/when this bill gets a hearing. Write your representative. Tell your friends to do the same.
Remember this bill would make it a criminal offense for a 13 year old to hunt out of sight of his dad, even if only for a minute.
Feel free to contact me with questions. I am happy to speak with you!
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
This legislation will have a negative affect on youth hunter recruitment.
Post by: grundy53 on January 24, 2013, 11:24:12 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 11:29:05 AM
I originally posted this in the forum entitled "Hunters Rights - LEGISLATION - Activism - 2nd Amendment" because this involves new LEGISLATION. Now it's moved here and one guy's only contribution is to try to get people to only talk about it in the thread HE started. Makes sense... :bash:
Gentlemen, focus your efforts on stopping legislation like this, more than how to organize a message board. Take time off of work and go testify at the House of Representatives if/when this bill gets a hearing. Write your representative. Tell your friends to do the same.
Remember this bill would make it a criminal offense for a 13 year old to hunt out of sight of his dad, even if only for a minute.
Feel free to contact me with questions. I am happy to speak with you!
Well let's see #1 I have been the one contributing most to provide WDFW related legislation on this site
#2 typically moderators only want 1 thread on a subject, which there already is on this subject and lengthy at it.
Also, this legislation as long as it's companion legislation in the Senate is sponsored by the WDFW. This legislation wasn't simply thought up by a couple reps, it was requested it be made into law by WDFW.
Post by: grundy53 on January 24, 2013, 11:31:57 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 11:33:17 AM
So :dunno: just because the WDFW wants it doesn't mean it's right.
And I am not disagreeing with that.
However, just saying that typically agency sponsored legislation has a lot more backing/support/pull then non-agency sponsored legislation.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
Post by: baldopepper on January 24, 2013, 11:53:07 AM
Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 12:27:45 PM
So, I'm curious (hypothetically) I'm a 13 year old gang banger in Tacoma and I'm stopped by a policeman and found to have a gun, can I tell him I'm going hunting and there's nothing he can do about it? (Not trying to cause trouble here, just honestly curious)
In order to lawfully possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040(3)(iii) you have to fit one of the exceptions in 9.41.042, one of which is "(4) Hunting or trapping under a valid license issued to the person under Title 77 RCW." You'd have to convince the cop (and the jury) that you were hunting in downtown Tacoma (with your Glock 9mm). So, it's safe to say that this bill will have no effect on people unlawfully carrying firearms in urban areas.
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2013, 12:33:45 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 12:36:53 PM
I would almost be inclined to think that a 13 year old that completed Hunter's Ed would be less of a safety hazard hunting with a 14 or 15 year old hunting buddy that completed Hunter's Ed than would be hunting with a 50 year old family member that never took/isn't required to take Hunter's Ed.
In my experience this is a fact. I have had more adults accidentally discharge their guns while hunting with us. I cannot remember a single young (under 16) hunter who accidentally discharged their gun. 18 or 19 is about the youngest, and 40 and older has been the majority.
Post by: baldopepper on January 24, 2013, 12:40:46 PM
Post by: bear hunter on January 24, 2013, 12:50:37 PM
Post by: h20hunter on January 24, 2013, 12:52:39 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 01:07:02 PM
Quote
:bash: :bash: I'm starting to HATE ARE STATE :bash: :bash:You could move to Montana but they have a similar law:
"In order to carry or use a firearm in public, a youth under 14 years of age must be accompanied by a person having charge or custody of the child, or be under the supervision of a qualified firearms safety instructor or an adult 18 years of age or older who has been authorized by the youth’s parent or guardian, as per Montana law."
Post by: ppodpearson on January 24, 2013, 01:30:27 PM
I remember that 14 was a minimum age in Washington, also. I'm 62 now.
Post by: csaaphill on January 24, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
sucky law though.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Quote:bash: :bash: I'm starting to HATE ARE STATE :bash: :bash:You could move to Montana but they have a similar law:
"In order to carry or use a firearm in public, a youth under 14 years of age must be accompanied by a person having charge or custody of the child, or be under the supervision of a qualified firearms safety instructor or an adult 18 years of age or older who has been authorized by the youth’s parent or guardian, as per Montana law."
That is true. In fact several states do not allow kids under 12 to hunt at all. I have had parents bring kids to hunt in WA because they couldn't hunt in their home state.
I just had a quick conversation with a legislator about this legislation. I was informed that there isn't broad support at this time, not a single Republican has signed on. It sounds like there are various reasons this was written, including some legislators who are still concerned about the bear hunting accident where the hiker was shot by the young boy that was bear hunting. I suggested that perhaps language could be changed to allow hunters under 14 to be alone as long as they were out with a hunting party that included adult hunters.
I was also informed that there is no requirement to charge a fee for HE but many classes were charging a deposit that is often donated after the class. I suggested keeping HE free and said I would rather pay $1 more in license fees than see HE students charged. I am afraid charging for HE will reduce new hunter recruitment.
Our visit got cut short due to a meeting, I'm not sure what will best solve the problem of no-show students and I didn't get a chance to mention that the HE instructor recruiting process needs to be revamped because there are volunteers who want to help and could help if the recruiting process was better.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 01:51:03 PM
is this a done deal then? or can it be faught?
sucky law though.
It's not a done deal, but now is the time to express your thoughts to legislators about this bill.
Post by: JLS on January 24, 2013, 02:30:11 PM
Currently you may need to be 14 or older to hunt without supervision, but I don't think it's a criminal offense.
Nope, it's legal for a kid to hunt alone.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2013, 02:33:01 PM
Currently you may need to be 14 or older to hunt without supervision, but I don't think it's a criminal offense.
Nope, it's legal for a kid to hunt alone.
I just learned that too, the old law (14 yr minimum) was removed several years ago.
Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 02:56:35 PM
Thanks Wader-Do you know if there is a law that specifically prohibits a 13 year old from openly carrying a firearm? (for those of us who unfortunately live in some of the urban areas, this is honestly a consideration). I've never looked at the RCW's but am being told by some that is is not a crime as long as it is not concealled. I know many of these kids know the laws better than many of us law abiding adults.
RCW 9.41.042
Children — Permissible firearm possession.
RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) [the law that generally prohibits firearm possession by anyone under the age of 18] shall not apply to any person under the age of eighteen years who is:
(1) In attendance at a hunter's safety course or a firearms safety course;
(2) Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or any other area where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited;
(3) Engaging in an organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(4) Hunting or trapping under a valid license issued to the person under Title 77 RCW;
(5) In an area where the discharge of a firearm is permitted, is not trespassing, and the person either: (a) Is at least fourteen years of age, has been issued a hunter safety certificate, and is using a lawful firearm other than a pistol; or (b) is under the supervision of a parent, guardian, or other adult approved for the purpose by the parent or guardian;
(6) Traveling with any unloaded firearm in the person's possession to or from any activity described in subsection (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section;
(7) On real property under the control of his or her parent, other relative, or legal guardian and who has the permission of the parent or legal guardian to possess a firearm;
(8) At his or her residence and who, with the permission of his or her parent or legal guardian, possesses a firearm for the purpose of exercising the rights specified in RCW 9A.16.020(3); or
(9) Is a member of the armed forces of the United States, national guard, or organized reserves, when on duty.
Post by: baldopepper on January 24, 2013, 03:02:41 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 03:08:02 PM
As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses. It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 24, 2013, 03:21:02 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 24, 2013, 03:22:58 PM
This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.
As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses. It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.
I don't see an issue with this. If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2013, 03:23:55 PM
How about a 6 year old?This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.
As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses. It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.
I don't see an issue with this. If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.
Post by: NoBark on January 24, 2013, 03:37:28 PM
Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 03:57:14 PM
Guys, as an instructor I would rather let the testing decide the age. If they pass, they can hunt.
I agree that if a kid can pass Hunter's Education, then he should be allowed to hunt. One twelve year old might pass while his buddy fails--it is what it is. Beyond that, parents have to make a lot of decisions regarding whether their kid is ready for a given activity, whether it's hunting, hiking, fishing, swimming, or lighting a fire. Let each parent decide what's appropriate.
And...let's not lose sight of the fact that we're not just talking about a fine or other slap on the wrist here: We are talking about a kid going to jail for trying to fill his deer tag. Wow.
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 24, 2013, 04:02:38 PM
I've never met a 6 year old that I would leave in the woods alone. I think you could easily find a 12 or 13 year old that would do fine on stand. Most kids under 16 would need someone to take them afield, just to get there.How about a 6 year old?This discussion points out one of the possible drivers of the legislation to establish a minimum age.
As the law in Washington stands today, a licensed hunter in Washington can hunt any legal game, with any legal firearm, at any legal time, and do it alone if he so chooses. It doesn't matter if he is 6 or 90.
I don't see an issue with this. If a 90 year old can drive himself out to the field or mountains, he/she should be allowed to hunt unsupervised.
Parents should decide when they're ready to swim. Every decision in life should not require legislation to guide us.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 04:03:01 PM
Post by: Wader on January 24, 2013, 04:16:07 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2013, 04:35:10 PM
But do you think kids should be subjected to jail if they go hunting alone?
No, of course not.
Post by: arees on January 24, 2013, 04:35:50 PM
If you are going to propose this law, shouldn't you be proposing a law that states that you can't let anyone under 16 be alone outside at all? I took hunter ed a few years ago so I could apply for hunts out of state. I recently sat through it again while my eight year old son took the class. I seem to remember some discussion on whether you were more likely to get shot or die of exposure. Does anyone remember which was more likely?
Would the people proposing the change to the age limit to point out why they don't support a law limiting any solo hiking by kids under 14? Which are there more of, solo hunters under 14 or solo kids hiking under 14?
If you don't think kids under 14 are safe with firearms, perhaps we should have some sort of hunter safety test they could take. :dunno:
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 04:49:28 PM
I would not allow my son to hunt alone at age 10 unless he was on my property, but that is my personal choice. Whatever age is put on this there is NO WAY IN HE... er I mean WA, that this should be a criminal offense.
Arees, hiking is a bit different as this is theoretically a safety issue for others, not the hiker/hunter, since most hikers do not have the capability of injuring others.
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2013, 04:52:37 PM
Post by: xd2005 on January 24, 2013, 04:54:12 PM
Post by: arees on January 24, 2013, 05:01:33 PM
Personally, I do think a minimum age of 12 to hunt alone would be fine, unless the kid is on private land owned by the parents or someone giving the youngster written permission to hunt alone, this would not include paper company properties which are essentially "public" for hunting purposes.
I would not allow my son to hunt alone at age 10 unless he was on my property, but that is my personal choice. Whatever age is put on this there is NO WAY IN HE... er I mean WA, that this should be a criminal offense.
Arees, hiking is a bit different as this is theoretically a safety issue for others, not the hiker/hunter, since most hikers do not have the capability of injuring others.
I don't let my kid hunt alone either, but this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Did we have a rash of youth hunters shooting people that I didn't hear about. Next you are going to tell me that I would be safer if we banned assault weapons. Lets see...
It is for the safety of the children...check
I don't do it so no one else needs to do it...check
It might make some people safer, but not from the highest risk items...check
It is just a little restriction now, you don't have to worry about increasing the restrictions later...check
It sure sounds like the AWB logic to me only without the headlines from repeated youth related hunting accidents.
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 05:21:22 PM
There was indeed an incident of an unsupervised young person shooting someone, not a rash of them however. I pretty much agree with you, just indicating why bringing hikers into it is apples and oranges.
Post by: arees on January 24, 2013, 05:54:19 PM
That is one of my issues with the AWB. People propose it as a way to protect children even though it is an insignificant source of danger to children. There are far more effective things that could be done to protect children, but actually protecting children is not the goal.
I see this as a parallel issue. This part of the proposed legislation did not come from an analysis of risks to children and the most effective way to reduce those risks. It either comes from either muddy thinking, or a desire to be seen to be doing something for children. Its not effective, but it looks like they care.
If your concern is whether we should trust these kids to safely handle guns, we are discussing a problem with the hunter ed testing program. The point of the program is to teach and test for understanding of safety issues. I agree that some people are passing without really understanding hunting safety. I know some ex military (non-infantry) people with deplorable gun handling skills. This legislation does not address that. Instead is applies a broad brush based on an arbitrarily chosen age limit.
When my son took the test, I sat on the far side of the room from him. There was another adult near him to answer any question he might have, but he only asked about two words in the test. My concern was whether he could read fast enough to complete the test in time. In the end, he only missed two questions and was not among the last to finish.
He was eight when he took the test and is nine now. He is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to hunt (or hike) alone now. Maybe he will be ready and able when he is twelve or thirteen. I don't know. With luck, that will be a decision between me, his father, and him. I don't want to see that option taken away because somebody thought that some kids might be safer from an already extremely rare risk.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 07:09:42 PM
And...let's not lose sight of the fact that we're not just talking about a fine or other slap on the wrist here: We are talking about a kid going to jail for trying to fill his deer tag. Wow.
You and I know jail time is rarely handed down in fish/wildlife offenses, its even common for big game poachers to not get jail time.
Besides as you know Wader bail forfeitures are not allowed anymore, no more "fines" on tickets.
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
And...let's not lose sight of the fact that we're not just talking about a fine or other slap on the wrist here: We are talking about a kid going to jail for trying to fill his deer tag. Wow.
You and I know jail time is rarely handed down in fish/wildlife offenses, its even common for big game poachers to not get jail time.
Besides as you know Wader bail forfeitures are not allowed anymore, no more "fines" on tickets.
Kind of confusing with replies inside quotes?
But, even if it is "rarely handed down", what is the point of making underage hunting a criminal offense that even has the POTENTIAL to result in a kid being sent to juvy? We all know there are liberal judges out there that would do it just to make an anti-hunting point. :bdid:
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2013, 08:11:21 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2013, 08:13:27 PM
Would it be better if it was an infraction? Which are non-criminal, only fines.
YES!
I still think there are issues with it regarding the set age and who can accompany the young person.
Post by: Wader on January 25, 2013, 08:50:21 AM
I'll go first:
Wade Samuelson
Attorney
114 W. Magnolia St.
Centralia, WA 98531
360-736-1301
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 28, 2013, 04:25:18 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 10:12:03 AM
I just sent this email to my legislators including one who is a sponsor of this bill:
In principal, who could argue with "Ensuring Hunter Safety" as the name of this bill implies? The reality of this bill, as written, is that it limits hunting participation. While I agree with parts of this bill as written, a minimum age of 8 to hunt in WA, and a minimum age to hunt alone, the implementation and details as written will only cause a decrease in participation and a subsequent LOSS OF REVENUE for the WDFW.
The making of hunting alone a criminal offense is absurd. Studies have shown that children that hunt get better grades in school and are, all around, more responsible individuals than those that do not. Making this an offense that simply accrues a fine would be sufficient.
The minimum age of 14 should also be lowered to 12. If you look at the statistics of hunting firearm related injuries, other age groups are much more likely to be the "shooter" than these youngsters.
And,finally, the person that accompanies the hunter should not have to, themselves, be a licensed hunter. Adults can accompany minors in performing all kinds of activities and should not be restricted because they don't have a hunting license. As an example, a grandfather who no longer wishes to kill a deer or elk would not be allowed to accompany his grandaughter on a deer hunt unless he paid for a hunting license of his own (this is simply extortion to put more money in the State coffers). A single mother would not be able to accompany her son, etc.
While no sane person could argue against increased safety, let's make sure that what is proposed will actually do that, increase safety, rather than make criminals out of youngsters and even preventing them from accessing a valuable past time.
Please consider these changes before passing this bill, which will as written, simply decrease participation in our sport.
Ed Fisher
Former WI and WA Hunter Safety Instructor
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2013, 10:16:05 AM
BigTex works, in some capacity (I can't remember), for WDFW.
I have never said which agency I work for. I will also not publicy divulge that information. Several other LEOs on this site have confirmed with me the agencies they work for, only those people know where I work. For my safety, and family's safety I will not divulge my duty location or agency.
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 10:22:48 AM
Post by: christopheri on January 28, 2013, 10:53:35 AM
Just curious here, bigtex, who are you and where do you work?
I'll go first:
Wade Samuelson
Attorney
114 W. Magnolia St.
Centralia, WA 98531
360-736-1301
Bigtex if I remember works for the WDFW. Possably an enforcement officer but I am not sure. What I am sure of is that he is very helpful with many topics and issues that face us as sportsmen today.
It sounds like with your knowledge of the law that you will be another person that is a great asset to this forum. Welcome Wade :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2013, 12:51:22 PM
Your safety and your family's safety? How would letting people know which agency you work for compromise either of those? No one is asking for your name and address. I think people just would like to know if your knowledge comes from first hand experience or a lot of research. Or maybe your qualifications. Outdoor Guardian has no problem letting us know he is from WDFW. I doubt he's any less safe then you are...BigTex works, in some capacity (I can't remember), for WDFW.
I have never said which agency I work for. I will also not publicy divulge that information. Several other LEOs on this site have confirmed with me the agencies they work for, only those people know where I work. For my safety, and family's safety I will not divulge my duty location or agency.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 28, 2013, 12:56:11 PM
Bigtex if I remember works for the WDFW. Possably an enforcement officer but I am not sure.
I think he's a drone controller for the CIA.
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 12:58:35 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2013, 01:00:47 PM
I respect his privacy and ask that others do as well. :twocents:
Post by: gaddy on January 28, 2013, 01:02:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2013, 01:07:06 PM
Bigtex has not disclosed who he works for, and that's his right just as it is for everyone on this forum to disclose what they do and do not wish to.
I respect his privacy and ask that others do as well. :twocents:
I think it is wise for him to remain completely anonymous, any disclosure would be foolish. His contributions to this site and to everyone's knowledge are highly valued and I would not like to see that input jeopordized. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2013, 01:57:51 PM
It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2013, 02:05:07 PM
Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:There are several efforts under way intended to identify ways to increase participation from hunter education graduates. Currently only about half of the graduates purchase a hunting license. Reduced license prices are one idea that has merit.
It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?
The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 02:12:08 PM
Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:There are several efforts under way intended to identify ways to increase participation from hunter education graduates. Currently only about half of the graduates purchase a hunting license. Reduced license prices are one idea that has merit.
It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?
The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.
And this accompanied by a LICENSED adult will just further reduce the numbers of new hunters.
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2013, 02:20:18 PM
Of course, any shooting by a hunter like the Sauk Mountain bear hunter who shot and killed a hiker doesn't help either.
I'm very concerned that hunters may lose their "critical mass" stature in the future. In 2012 there were fewer than 200,000 Washington licensed hunters, and the number dropped by about 6,000 per year in 2011 and 2012. That puts hunters at about 3 percent of our state's population and declining.
Post by: bigtex on January 28, 2013, 02:42:11 PM
Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.
It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?
:yeah:
I think sometimes it is dad pressure on the child to hunt, and they end up not wanting to. It may be at the end of the class there is a fear of firearms. Think of it another way, why as kids get older are they less and less likely to play in sports?
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 02:43:34 PM
Part of the problem I see is that the HS requirements by the state include a minimum 10 hours, but most instructors stretch that out to at least 20. Having been an instructor, I realize that there is a lot of info that we would like to pass on to the students, however I think many students have a hard time scheduling three to sometimes five days for a class. I think rather than spending a bunch of time basically reading the book in class, the bulk of the 10 hours should actually be spent learning to and handling firearms safely along with reviews of regulations and wildlife ecology/management. But, this last paragraph probably belongs in its own thread.
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
Of all of the people hunting each season and over say, the last 20 years, how many shootings are caused by kids in the 8-14 age group versus the others? I am sure it is lower. Plus, I bet that in the bulk of incidents that actually do involve someone under 14, an adult was already nearby. But I guess "just saving one life" makes putting more restrictions on everyone else worthwhile? :twocents:
Part of the problem I see is that the HS requirements by the state include a minimum 10 hours, but most instructors stretch that out to at least 20. Having been an instructor, I realize that there is a lot of info that we would like to pass on to the students, however I think many students have a hard time scheduling three to sometimes five days for a class. I think rather than spending a bunch of time basically reading the book in class, the bulk of the 10 hours should actually be spent learning to and handling firearms safely along with reviews of regulations and wildlife ecology/management. But, this last paragraph probably belongs in its own thread.
I like the idea of doing a lot of this bookwork online and showing up for a range day like they do for the online course, I think the online program will expand over time if it is allowed to. But we still need instructors for the range day and there really seems to be little interest by WDFW to recruit instructors. No matter what they do, there is a bottle neck due to the number of instructors. In addition to recruiting young hunters we need to also recruit instructors.
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2013, 02:57:23 PM
Indeed, that is a real issue.
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2013, 03:00:22 PM
Of all of the people hunting each season and over say, the last 20 years, how many shootings are caused by kids in the 8-14 age group versus the others? I am sure it is lower. Plus, I bet that in the bulk of incidents that actually do involve someone under 14, an adult was already nearby. But I guess "just saving one life" makes putting more restrictions on everyone else worthwhile? :twocents:Very few, but unfortunately the 14 year old who shot the Sauk Mountain hiker is still fresh in everyone's mind.
The "if it just saves one life" argument is such a slippery slope. We could save lives by outlawing swimming pools, trampolines, bicycles, roller blades, 5 gallon buckets, and a whole slew of other items if that were the real objective.
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
" No matter what they do, there is a bottle neck due to the number of instructors. In addition to recruiting young hunters we need to also recruit instructors."
Indeed, that is a real issue.
I agree completely. I am no longer an instructor because I felt the hoops needed for me to jump through were not worth my time. I now also do not live in a location conducive to putting on classes or boating/driving hundreds of miles to do training classes. If I did not have to teach a class every year and did not have to do the "teaching" training (I have a Masters in Teaching and think I know the concept), I would probably sign up again and do the occasional class on Lopez Island or Anacortes, but until they make it more reasonable to stay as an instructor, I will have to pass.
And, yes Bob, the slippery slope was what I am referring to which parallels the whole gun ban thing going on elsewhere with our politicians, and yes, I also believe those in WDFW are politicians more than wildlife managers.
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2013, 03:27:22 PM
Bigtex has not disclosed who he works for, and that's his right just as it is for everyone on this forum to disclose what they do and do not wish to.
I respect his privacy and ask that others do as well. :twocents:
I think it is wise for him to remain completely anonymous, any disclosure would be foolish. His contributions to this site and to everyone's knowledge are highly valued and I would not like to see that input jeopordized. :twocents:
I'm sorry... maybe I'm too thick skulled to see it but how would telling us which agency he works for jeopardize anything? Assuming he is not the only person that works for that agency he would still remain completely anonymous. If anything it would bolster his contributions to this site since it would add credence. I know personally I would trust his information a lot more if I knew he actually worked for an agency that is in this field as opposed to some guy with a lot of time on his hands who likes to read law. There are folks on this site who can show you the RCW for just about anything and are not in law enforcement. There are also Leo's on here who have no problem stating they are Leo's. I just don't see how it could hurt. Like I said before no one is asking for his name or address....
Post by: KFhunter on January 28, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
Post by: grundy53 on January 28, 2013, 03:44:31 PM
Post by: SevenD on January 28, 2013, 06:31:55 PM
Post by: Wader on January 28, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 29, 2013, 05:44:44 AM
Another idea that has been brought up as a possible solution that I wanted run it past this group for input:The obvious question is why are so few graduates hunting? It is clear that some students come to class to learn about firearms, not to prepare for hunting. Parents may think that sending their children to a class that costs $5 is a great way to learn about firearm safety, and to some extent they're correct. Other students that plan to hunt don't for a variety of reasons.
It has been suggested that if they put a fee on the HE classes maybe that fee could be credited toward the first hunting license purchase. I thought that was a pretty good idea, any thoughts on that?
:yeah:
I think sometimes it is dad pressure on the child to hunt, and they end up not wanting to. It may be at the end of the class there is a fear of firearms. Think of it another way, why as kids get older are they less and less likely to play in sports?
In a word...GIRLS
I've known people that start hunting later in life and I've known kids that started hunting early. At 16 I wasn't very interested in spending my weekends in the woods.
Set the hook early.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 29, 2013, 05:47:35 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2013, 01:00:02 PM
Quote
Attorney, NRA Life Member, Certified Handgun Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Personal Protection In The Home Instructor.
Reduced to its basic elements, Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb, contesting the vote.
love your signature wader.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Wader on January 29, 2013, 01:21:20 PM
QuoteAttorney, NRA Life Member, Certified Handgun Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Personal Protection In The Home Instructor.
Reduced to its basic elements, Democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb, contesting the vote.
love your signature wader.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Thanks! I would love to take credit it for it, but I cannot. I saw it on the internet. Some attribute it all the way back to Ben Franklin, but that is disputed. It doesn't matter to me who said it first though, because its stark truth really drives home the point!
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2013, 05:18:53 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 11, 2013, 05:24:42 PM
I'm sending another round of emails.