Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 12:47:25 PM
- Minimum age of 8 for hunter ed students
- Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by another licensed hunter or by someone who is at least 18 and has taken hunter's ed, UNLESS they are hunting on family property, or leased family property.. Any hunter in violation would receive a natural resource infraction (the initial bill last year said a violator would face a misdemeanor charge)
- Establish fees of up to $20 per student for hunter ed classes, and $10 for hunter ed certificate duplicates. WDFW anticipates this to generate $262,000. This fee would cover administrative costs of internet-based training, Stipends for instructors, and instructional costs.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 01:12:26 PM
Other than that it sounds okay.
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 01:16:27 PM
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
The requested law would use the definition of "accompanied" as it is used in RCW 77.32.155: "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 01:27:07 PM
No,not what I was told by the director.Once you have a wild Id number that number fallows you the rest of your life in every state.
Completely wrong. I hunted in a rocky mountain state this year and needed my actual card. Some states allow you to show a different state's license, but some do require the physical card.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 13, 2014, 01:29:37 PM
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
Post by: JLS on January 13, 2014, 01:33:09 PM
Just for the record before I continue with this were you born before 1972 or after?No,not what I was told by the director.Once you have a wild Id number that number fallows you the rest of your life in every state.
Completely wrong. I hunted in a rocky mountain state this year and needed my actual card. Some states allow you to show a different state's license, but some do require the physical card.
I was born after 1972 and I had to send a copy of my hunter ed card to Nevada before I could submit my applications.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 01:34:22 PM
The state I hunted in requires hunter ed for everyone born after 1949 (I'm not that old :chuckle: ). So even if your from WA, born in 1960, you would still need hunter ed in that state.Just for the record before I continue with this were you born before 1972 or after?No,not what I was told by the director.Once you have a wild Id number that number fallows you the rest of your life in every state.Completely wrong. I hunted in a rocky mountain state this year and needed my actual card. Some states allow you to show a different state's license, but some do require the physical card.
Post by: snowpack on January 13, 2014, 01:35:30 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the under age 14 hunters being exempted from the requirement of being accompanied by a licensed hunter, if they are on their family's land.Can I ask why against letting younger kids hunt without adults even on their own land? I don't see much issue, from a couple of 10 year olds with a .410s and/or .22s out shooting grouse and rabbits to a 12 year old hunting deer from a family treestand or even an elk in the back 40 when dad is at work.
Other than that it sounds okay.
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 13, 2014, 01:39:17 PM
:
Voted no. What's the issue that this law would be fixing? Are there a bunch of pre-teen hooligans out causing trouble while hunting?:yeah:
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
I'm not sure I agree with the under age 14 hunters being exempted from the requirement of being accompanied by a licensed hunter, if they are on their family's land.Can I ask why against letting younger kids hunt without adults even on their own land? I don't see much issue, from a couple of 10 year olds with a .410s and/or .22s out shooting grouse and rabbits to a 12 year old hunting deer from a family treestand or even an elk in the back 40 when dad is at work.
Other than that it sounds okay.
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
x2
Good old Washington....Lets fix what isn't broke ........While wasting valuable time and money!
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 13, 2014, 01:44:44 PM
- Establish fees of up to $20 per student for hunter ed classes, and $10 for hunter ed certificate duplicates. WDFW anticipates this to generate $262,000. This fee would cover administrative costs of internet-based training, Stipends for instructors, and instructional costs.
There is what they really want. more money for more bureaucrats. If I thought for 1 second that this would be better then whats already in play and the money would actually go to some good use I would be for it and I would even pay $50. unfortunately this is just adding more rules for more money and wont make anyone any safer.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 01:49:47 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the under age 14 hunters being exempted from the requirement of being accompanied by a licensed hunter, if they are on their family's land.Can I ask why against letting younger kids hunt without adults even on their own land? I don't see much issue, from a couple of 10 year olds with a .410s and/or .22s out shooting grouse and rabbits to a 12 year old hunting deer from a family treestand or even an elk in the back 40 when dad is at work.
Other than that it sounds okay.
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
I have no problem with those things you mention. The issue I have, is why those kids would be allowed to hunt unsupervised, but other kids could not. It's unfair. (And that's why I voted no in the poll)
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 01:51:06 PM
Voted no. What's the issue that this law would be fixing? Are there a bunch of pre-teen hooligans out causing trouble while hunting?
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
As a hunter Ed instructor I can tell you that the $20 fee would address the large number of no-shows for the classes. As much as 40-50% sometimes don't show and that's with a ton of people being turned away.
I also don't have a problem with any of the age requirements. I have yet to teach a child under 8 who's passed and kids under 14 don't have a lot of experience. If something unexpected happens, they'll be able to glean off the experience of the adult. I like it.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 13, 2014, 01:51:11 PM
The workers are volunteers,the ranges are donated for the cause,But the ammo cost,and the paperwork cost,so I can see a fee of some kind,and as I stated before its forever,one time deal.
Hunters ED was $6 when I took it as well as my wife. they did pretty good for only $6 a person. and how are we supposed to catch all these 14 year olds supposedly running around by themselves hunting? we cant enforce the rules we already have!
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 13, 2014, 01:51:51 PM
The workers are volunteers,the ranges are donated for the cause,But the ammo cost,and the paperwork cost,so I can see a fee of some kind,and as I stated before its forever,one time deal.
The first time someone buys a hunting license, the state makes their 20 bucks.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 01:52:52 PM
Also just to clear the air on this a little,I can buy license and tags on the internet for any state,and they will use my wild id number to do it.because its in theyre system that I have done hunters safety in WA.
Other states do not have access to your hunter education records. You would have to provide that information when applying for a hunting license in another state.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 13, 2014, 01:53:20 PM
Voted no. What's the issue that this law would be fixing? Are there a bunch of pre-teen hooligans out causing trouble while hunting?
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
As a hunter Ed instructor I can tell you that the $20 fee would address the large number of no-shows for the classes. As much as 40-50% sometimes don't show and that's with a ton of people being turned away.
I also don't have a problem with any of the age requirements. I have yet to teach a child under 8 who's passed and kids under 14 don't have a lot of experience. If something unexpected happens, they'll be able to glean off the experience of the adult. I like it.
Those are parenting issues, not wdfw issues :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 01:53:29 PM
:yeah:Also just to clear the air on this a little,I can buy license and tags on the internet for any state,and they will use my wild id number to do it.because its in theyre system that I have done hunters safety in WA.
Other states do not have access to your hunter education records. You would have to provide that information when applying for a hunting license in another state.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 01:56:02 PM
Voted no. What's the issue that this law would be fixing? Are there a bunch of pre-teen hooligans out causing trouble while hunting?
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
As a hunter Ed instructor I can tell you that the $20 fee would address the large number of no-shows for the classes. As much as 40-50% sometimes don't show and that's with a ton of people being turned away.
I also don't have a problem with any of the age requirements. I have yet to teach a child under 8 who's passed and kids under 14 don't have a lot of experience. If something unexpected happens, they'll be able to glean off the experience of the adult. I like it.
Those are parenting issues, not wdfw issues :twocents:
Regardless of what kind of issues they are, people who want to take the course can't because too many are signed up, and then a lot of those don't show. $20 would go a long way to making sure they get there and don't waste the spot.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 01:57:06 PM
Thats true,and then forever more Iguess.pianoman who pays for the ammo as it is?and what could you add to what I said I was told by the director about once having the hunters ed and a wild Id number never needing the card again?In any state?because its in the system.The workers are volunteers,the ranges are donated for the cause,But the ammo cost,and the paperwork cost,so I can see a fee of some kind,and as I stated before its forever,one time deal.
The first time someone buys a hunting license, the state makes their 20 bucks.
The ammo currently comes out of the donations and must be accounted for at the end of the year. I don't know the rules of every state and can't answer the question accurately about the Wild ID thing.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 13, 2014, 01:58:49 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the under age 14 hunters being exempted from the requirement of being accompanied by a licensed hunter, if they are on their family's land.Can I ask why against letting younger kids hunt without adults even on their own land? I don't see much issue, from a couple of 10 year olds with a .410s and/or .22s out shooting grouse and rabbits to a 12 year old hunting deer from a family treestand or even an elk in the back 40 when dad is at work.
Other than that it sounds okay.
However, I'd like to know what the definition of accompanied is.
I have no problem with those things you mention. The issue I have, is why those kids would be allowed to hunt unsupervised, but other kids could not. It's unfair.
So NONE of the 3 points of the proposed legislation have ANY redeeming qualities? If the Younger ones cannot pass they will get another chance, but If they can. this bill would not let them So some think that under the age of 8 children don't need to be trained or made aware of firearm safety?
Post by: fair-chase on January 13, 2014, 01:59:19 PM
Now the rest of the proposal is garbage IMHO. I have no problem with a 10 year old (or a kid of any age, who passed hunters safety already) being allowed to hunt alone. This should be at the parents discretion, not the states. I also don't agree with minimum age requirements on hunting and hunters education. Some kids are ready at 6, some at 12, and some people are never ready even as adults. Enough with the nany state dictating this crap already. Leave it up to the parents and the hunters education instructors to determine if a child is fit to hunt. If the students (at any age) aren't ready to pass hunters education. FAIL THEM. Alot of good lessons in life come through failing.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 02:00:32 PM
and what could you add to what I said I was told by the director about once having the hunters ed and a wild Id number never needing the card again?In any state?because its in the system.
Its wrong. The WILD system is just WA, go to Montana it's different. Some states require you to actually carry your card with you. In Colorado for example all hunters must carry their hunter ed card while hunting, the only exemption is if you buy a license from an actual Colorado Parks and Wildlife office which then verifies the card and you are good for life. But if you just buy a Colorado license at Wal-Mart you must have your card in possession just like having a license in possession.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 02:05:19 PM
So NONE of the 3 points of the proposed legislation have ANY redeeming qualities? If the Younger ones cannot pass they will get another chance, but If they can. this bill would not let them So some think that under the age of 8 children don't need to be trained or made aware of firearm safety?
Number 1 and number 3 I like. Number 2 is the one I disagree with.
Post by: runningboard on January 13, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
and what could you add to what I said I was told by the director about once having the hunters ed and a wild Id number never needing the card again?In any state?because its in the system.
Its wrong. The WILD system is just WA, go to Montana it's different. Some states require you to actually carry your card with you. In Colorado for example all hunters must carry their hunter ed card while hunting, the only exemption is if you buy a license from an actual Colorado Parks and Wildlife office which then verifies the card and you are good for life. But if you just buy a Colorado license at Wal-Mart you must have your card in possession just like having a license in possession.
:yeah:
I've hunted in other states that are the same, you can buy a license online without a hunter education certification # but would have to carry the card with you and produce it upon demand from a conservation officer.
your certification # is once in a lifetime barring any court ordered repeats for certain infractions. your wild ID means nothing in other states.
Post by: Bigshooter on January 13, 2014, 02:14:12 PM
Also just to clear the air on this a little,I can buy license and tags on the internet for any state,and they will use my wild id number to do it.because its in theyre system that I have done hunters safety in WA.
No other state will use your WA wild id number. In Nevada you have to give them a copy of your hunter ed card before you can even apply. In Colorado if your born after 1949 you have to have completed a hunter ed class and while hunting you have to have the card on you. Don't believe what some idiot from the WDFW thinks they know about other states.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 02:16:02 PM
Ok I got it,Now the wa. state hunters safety card does work in all states right?If you have the physical card its good all states?
Its up to each state to make their own laws. If WA wanted to they could say the only hunter ed card valid in WA is Washington's. I don't know if there is a state that says their state's card is the only valid one, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 13, 2014, 02:17:24 PM
So NONE of the 3 points of the proposed legislation have ANY redeeming qualities? If the Younger ones cannot pass they will get another chance, but If they can. this bill would not let them So some think that under the age of 8 children don't need to be trained or made aware of firearm safety?
Number 1 and number 3 I like. Number 2 is the one I disagree with.
Deleted my previous post because I thought it was bad judgment to ask the question on an open forum.......
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:28:34 PM
I know plenty of 30+ year olds that should have never got their hunting license. some kids will be ready at 6, some at 15 some aren't ready at 50+ years of age. this shouldn't be up to the state but up to the parents to decide at what age their child will try to go through hunters safety. if you don't pass,... then you're not ready.
as far as the $20 fee, all the places around here that do hunters safety require a $5-$15 donation to cover costs for ammo and other costs for the volunteers. I don't see why the money has to go through the state, why not let the local organization that is providing the class handle the money the way they are right now?
I would agree if they put as maximum of $20 for the class. why make it expensive to teach hunting safety to new hunters? isn't the safety part the important thing here?
also, there is a $8 fee to replace your cert. card. I don't understand the reason for the increase. :dunno:
I say HELL NO!!
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 02:29:17 PM
Its up to each state to make their own laws. If WA wanted to they could say the only hunter ed card valid in WA is Washington's. I don't know if there is a state that says their state's card is the only valid one, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one."All Hunter Education training certification issued by any of the other 49 states fish and wildlife agencies are accepted here in Washington State. The certificate must be presented at time of license purchase."
I assume reciprocity but can't confirm.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:41:09 PM
Anyways back on track,why should it go from as little as $o cost in most places in wa. to $20 just like that?
a lot of places require a small donation of $5-$15
Post by: stevemiller on January 13, 2014, 02:41:57 PM
Its not required,its nice,but not required.Anyways back on track,why should it go from as little as $o cost in most places in wa. to $20 just like that?
a lot of places require a small donation of $5-$15
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 02:42:59 PM
so did you look it up bob33?I would assume reciprocity would also mean its in a computer system everywhere also.and that would tend to meen that the director was right in a way?here in wa. once the card is used to buy the first liscense its in the system,and you never need the card here in wa. again.So why wouldnt it be in the system everywhere like it says it is in colorado?
There is no nationwide computer system
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 02:44:14 PM
so did you look it up bob33?I would assume reciprocity would also mean its in a computer system everywhere also.and that would tend to meen that the director was right in a way?here in wa. once the card is used to buy the first liscense its in the system,and you never need the card here in wa. again.So why wouldnt it be in the system everywhere like it says it is in colorado?This means that Washington accepts hunter education certificates from other states for anyone born after 1/1/1972 that wishes to purchase a Washington hunting license. Nothing more.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 02:47:13 PM
Anyways back on track,why should it go from as little as $o cost in most places in wa. to $20 just like that?If the donations are covering it already.
Read up - As an incentive to attend the class you've reserved so others don't get screwed by overbooking when they really could've attended. No shows are quite high right now with no required fee. I assume that would change with a $20 fee. More people would be able to get certified in the same number of classes.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:48:12 PM
I think they should leave it up to the local organizations that are providing the hunters safety class to set up weather they want to require a small charge to cover ammo and volunteer expenses, with a maximum of $15 or $20. I just don't see why the money has to go through the state.Its not required,its nice,but not required.Anyways back on track,why should it go from as little as $o cost in most places in wa. to $20 just like that?
a lot of places require a small donation of $5-$15
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
Anyways back on track,why should it go from as little as $o cost in most places in wa. to $20 just like that?If the donations are covering it already.
Read up - As an incentive to attend the class you've reserved so others don't get screwed by overbooking when they really could've attended. No shows are quite high right now with no required fee. I assume that would change with a $20 fee. More people would be able to get certified in the same number of classes.
a fee is fine to stop no shows, but it should be up to the local organization or group of volunteers to set up the required "donation" with a maximum of $15 or $20 based on how bad the "no-show" problem is
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 13, 2014, 02:52:20 PM
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 02:52:53 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 02:55:49 PM
The fee will help more people get certified, less people no-show. I don't see the big deal here. It's a one-time $20 expense to get a certification that allows you to hunt for life. Regardless of whether it goes through the state or not, the hunter ed teachers will have that money to use. AND, it'll mean that there's no accounting at the end of the year for monies taken in and spent out, which eliminates the opportunity for abuse.+1 to all points. If someone can't afford a one time fee of $20 for 16 hours of volunteer instruction that certifies them for life, I really don't see how they will be able to do much hunting.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:56:11 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
Point number two is probably coming to light because of hunting accidents, and deaths. I believe it's hard to regulate across the board an age for youth hunters, but 14 seems young for some kids, but others would do fine. Remember we had a hunting death not to long ago during bear season two youths older than 14 hunting together and a hiker was killed.
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
I might be wrong, but I think those guys were in their 20's
plus I believe there are ALOT more hunting accidents caused by adults than kids
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2014, 02:59:25 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 02:59:54 PM
The fee will help more people get certified, less people no-show. I don't see the big deal here. It's a one-time $20 expense to get a certification that allows you to hunt for life. Regardless of whether it goes through the state or not, the hunter ed teachers will have that money to use. AND, it'll mean that there's no accounting at the end of the year for monies taken in and spent out, which eliminates the opportunity for abuse.+1 to all points. If someone can't afford a one time fee of $20 for 16 hours of volunteer instruction that certifies them for life, I really don't see how they will be able to do much hunting.
also if you can't afford $30 for a discover pass, and a forest pass, and a chipmunk pass,...... get my drift.....
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 03:00:55 PM
Point number two is probably coming to light because of hunting accidents, and deaths. I believe it's hard to regulate across the board an age for youth hunters, but 14 seems young for some kids, but others would do fine. Remember we had a hunting death not to long ago during bear season two youths older than 14 hunting together and a hiker was killed.
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
I might be wrong, but I think those guys were in their 20's
plus I believe there are ALOT more hunting accidents caused by adults than kids
I guess that's possible but I'd like to see stats on that. Plus, it's not just about hunting accidents involving firearms. It's about getting used to the woods and Mother Nature, animal interactions, dealing with mechanical injuries. There's a lot of stuff that can happen which is beyond most under-14s. My :twocents:
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
Yes, but the other passes are annual. $20 for a lifetime certification is reasonable. Most programs are already charging at least $5. I can guarantee two things: (1) 95%+ of the students in classes regularly spend far more than $20 on things of far less value, and (2) if there is someone who legitimately can't afford $20, most every instructor in the state would accommodate him.The fee will help more people get certified, less people no-show. I don't see the big deal here. It's a one-time $20 expense to get a certification that allows you to hunt for life. Regardless of whether it goes through the state or not, the hunter ed teachers will have that money to use. AND, it'll mean that there's no accounting at the end of the year for monies taken in and spent out, which eliminates the opportunity for abuse.+1 to all points. If someone can't afford a one time fee of $20 for 16 hours of volunteer instruction that certifies them for life, I really don't see how they will be able to do much hunting.
also if you can't afford $30 for a discover pass, and a forest pass, and a F^^&ing chipmunk pass,...... get my drift.....
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 13, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
Point number two is probably coming to light because of hunting accidents, and deaths. I believe it's hard to regulate across the board an age for youth hunters, but 14 seems young for some kids, but others would do fine. Remember we had a hunting death not to long ago during bear season two youths older than 14 hunting together and a hiker was killed.
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
I might be wrong, but I think those guys were in their 20's
plus I believe there are ALOT more hunting accidents caused by adults than kids
Nope happened in my town, was over 18 the other was under.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 03:05:17 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
You've heard the reasoning and a lot of it, from hunter ed instructors. You don't have to agree, but it's not pointless. There is a point being made and that point ISN'T let's screw the new guys.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Point number two is probably coming to light because of hunting accidents, and deaths. I believe it's hard to regulate across the board an age for youth hunters, but 14 seems young for some kids, but others would do fine. Remember we had a hunting death not to long ago during bear season two youths older than 14 hunting together and a hiker was killed.
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
I might be wrong, but I think those guys were in their 20's
plus I believe there are ALOT more hunting accidents caused by adults than kids
I guess that's possible but I'd like to see stats on that. Plus, it's not just about hunting accidents involving firearms. It's about getting used to the woods and Mother Nature, animal interactions, dealing with mechanical injuries. There's a lot of stuff that can happen which is beyond most under-14s. My :twocents:
you're not gonna see a stat on that, that's why I said I "believe". just from my memory from the past 5 or so years, I only remember maybe 1 hunting accident that involved a kid, other than that,... its all older hunters. maybe we should put a maximum age limit on hunters as well?
I personally wouldn't let my kid go hunting without adult supervision, but it should be the parents call, not the states call.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 13, 2014, 03:06:33 PM
The fee will help more people get certified, less people no-show. I don't see the big deal here. It's a one-time $20 expense to get a certification that allows you to hunt for life. Regardless of whether it goes through the state or not, the hunter ed teachers will have that money to use. AND, it'll mean that there's no accounting at the end of the year for monies taken in and spent out, which eliminates the opportunity for abuse.
Money through the government NEVER goes where its supposed to. this bill is supposed to raise about $250,000? so $150,000 for the administrators, $90,000 for their secretary's and $10,000 for pens...yep sounds like a good bill :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:07:19 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
You've heard the reasoning and a lot of it, from hunter ed instructors. You don't have to agree, but it's not pointless. There is a point being made and that point ISN'T let's screw the new guys.
from 1 instructor,....?
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 03:07:34 PM
A 14 year old is another story.
Post by: fair-chase on January 13, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
Nope happened in my town, was over 18 the other was under.
So admittedly, this law would have done absolutely NOTHING to stop that. As they were already hunting with a partner and one of those partners was over 18. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 03:09:10 PM
Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.
No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
You've heard the reasoning and a lot of it, from hunter ed instructors. You don't have to agree, but it's not pointless. There is a point being made and that point ISN'T let's screw the new guys.
nope,.... its loud and clear,.. LETS SCREW THE NEW GUY!! :chuckle: :chuckle: seriously, I've gotten a ton of parents to get their kids through hunter's safety just because it was a measly $5 for the class. they wouldn't have taken the class if it was $20.
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 03:11:34 PM
But I still can't agree with the way this bill is written. First, there shouldn't be any exemptions. Second, the adult accompanying the child should not be required to have a license.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
You've heard the reasoning and a lot of it, from hunter ed instructors. You don't have to agree, but it's not pointless. There is a point being made and that point ISN'T let's screw the new guys.
nope,.... its loud and clear,.. LETS SCREW THE NEW GUY!! :chuckle: :chuckle: seriously, I've gotten a ton of parents to get their kids through hunter's safety just because it was a measly $5 for the class. they wouldn't have taken the class if it was $20.
Then they need to be better parents. Just sayin', Biginner.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:13:21 PM
Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.
No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.
Quote
enterprising young kidwhats that? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Mongo Hunter on January 13, 2014, 03:13:34 PM
Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.
No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.
For me its not the amount its the fact that the government is requiring it and it will go through them. its $20 this time and next time its $40 then $60 then $80 because they will have the exact same problems and no solutions just more people to pay for that do NOTHING!
If a private hunters ed school needs to raise the cost then fine do it without the government.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2014, 03:14:11 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 13, 2014, 03:14:58 PM
:yeah:Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.
No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.
For me its not the amount its the fact that the government is requiring it and it will go through them. its $20 this time and next time its $40 then $60 then $80 because they will have the exact same problems and no solutions just more people to pay for that do NOTHING!
If a private hunters ed school needs to raise the cost then fine do it without the government.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2014, 03:17:54 PM
People have "new law fatigue", so even good bill with good intentions is going to face heavy scrutiny and nay saying.
how is this a good bill? its absolutely pointless,... (ok, the fee might have a small point only In certain areas,... but still too high),
but this bill is obviously targeting new hunters
I didn't say it was, there's valid points on both sides of the "issue" and I'm not convinced there is even an issue.
Personally I didn't see any kids under 8 when I was taking all my kids through, the instructor flat told parents the odds of an 8 year old passing were nil and they could use the space for older kids.
I don't know about the financial aspect, but most parents donated including myself, which oddly enough was $20.00 at the time.
Why force youth to be with a licensed hunter over 18? Why can't unlicensed grandpa take his grandson out????
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2014, 03:18:33 PM
$20 is more than fair. I just don't see how anyone can argue against it. If it was $100 I could understand. But 20? Come on! That's nothing.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2014, 03:21:34 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 03:23:22 PM
$20 isn't a sticking point for me, but if I'm reading this correctly then unlicensed grandpa cannot take his grandson out hunting.
Correct. Unless its family owned, or leased land in which he doesn't need to be accompanied anyways.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2014, 03:28:06 PM
$20 isn't a sticking point for me, but if I'm reading this correctly then unlicensed grandpa cannot take his grandson out hunting.
Correct. Unless its family owned, or leased land in which he doesn't need to be accompanied anyways.
This is the killer for me, less kids are going to be exposed because of this. Working parent/s single moms whatever aren't able to take their kids out often times it's a grandparent/uncle that takes them out, but if they are now required to purchase a license or jump through hoops of some kind it's going to take the wind from their sails.
I'll click the nay button now
Post by: h2ofowlr on January 13, 2014, 03:32:23 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 13, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
Yep and explain to the class what they did wrong, with a sincere apology to go with it!
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 03:35:07 PM
I believe the requirement to have a licensed hunter accompany a youth will be the most controversial point, and will most likely cause the bill to fail. I'm surprised they attached that poison pill to it. A minimum age of eight and a $20 fee would probably pass.$20 isn't a sticking point for me, but if I'm reading this correctly then unlicensed grandpa cannot take his grandson out hunting.
Correct. Unless its family owned, or leased land in which he doesn't need to be accompanied anyways.
This is the killer for me, less kids are going to be exposed because of this. Working parent/s single moms whatever aren't able to take their kids out often times it's a grandparent/uncle that takes them out, but if they are now required to purchase a license or jump through hoops of some kind it's going to take the wind from their sails.
I'll click the nay button now
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 03:40:19 PM
I believe the requirement to have a licensed hunter accompany a youth will be the most controversial point, and will most likely cause the bill to fail. I'm surprised they attached that poison pill to it. A minimum age of eight and a $20 fee would probably pass.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they would consider an amendment to the bill removing that section. Last year this bill started off making it a crime for a "minor" to hunt unaccompanied, enough people complained so they made it a natural resource infraction through an amendment last year.
Post by: snowpack on January 13, 2014, 03:40:42 PM
My thoughts too. Seems the state wants kids to just sit around home eating Cheetos and playing video games......hmmm...wonder who is really behind this bill.$20 isn't a sticking point for me, but if I'm reading this correctly then unlicensed grandpa cannot take his grandson out hunting.
Correct. Unless its family owned, or leased land in which he doesn't need to be accompanied anyways.
This is the killer for me, less kids are going to be exposed because of this. Working parent/s single moms whatever aren't able to take their kids out often times it's a grandparent/uncle that takes them out, but if they are now required to purchase a license or jump through hoops of some kind it's going to take the wind from their sails.
I'll click the nay button now
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 03:46:18 PM
After passing the House it went to the Senate were it passed in committee with no opposition. It then failed to make it to a full Senate vote
Post by: h2ofowlr on January 13, 2014, 03:47:30 PM
I believe the requirement to have a licensed hunter accompany a youth will be the most controversial point, and will most likely cause the bill to fail. I'm surprised they attached that poison pill to it. A minimum age of eight and a $20 fee would probably pass.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they would consider an amendment to the bill removing that section. Last year this bill started off making it a crime for a "minor" to hunt unaccompanied, enough people complained so they made it a natural resource infraction through an amendment last year.
They are talking up to the age of 14. Not a bad deal, why would you have someone that young hunting by themselves anyways? If not on a lease or there own property, they can't drive by themselves. At 14 your more likely to make some bad decision. Most don't have enough experience under there belt to know better. Heck many middle aged people don't have enough common experience half the time.
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2014, 03:57:27 PM
While i HATE giving $ to the state, i have a little one that will be taking classes soon, and have some reservations about the bill it doen't prevent me from supporting it.
Post by: snowpack on January 13, 2014, 03:57:34 PM
I think that should be the parent's decision not the state's. If the kid is competent and safe I don't see any problem walking or riding a bike down to old MacDonald's farm to shoot rabbits and crows...or going a few farms over to shoot some dove after school...or many more examples.I believe the requirement to have a licensed hunter accompany a youth will be the most controversial point, and will most likely cause the bill to fail. I'm surprised they attached that poison pill to it. A minimum age of eight and a $20 fee would probably pass.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they would consider an amendment to the bill removing that section. Last year this bill started off making it a crime for a "minor" to hunt unaccompanied, enough people complained so they made it a natural resource infraction through an amendment last year.
They are talking up to the age of 14. Not a bad deal, why would you have someone that young hunting by themselves anyways? If not on a lease or there own property, they can't drive by themselves. At 14 your more likely to make some bad decision. Most don't have enough experience under there belt to know better. Heck many middle aged people don't have enough common experience half the time.
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 03:59:53 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2014, 04:12:48 PM
At the GMAC meeting we did discuss this hunter ed fee in the context of other fee cuts. Specifically, WDFW had proposed reducing the price of 2nd deer tags...many folks said no to cutting price of 2nd deer tags (that have always sold out, indicating market support for the price) if we are going to start charging a $20 fee for hunters ed...basically, don't cut $20 from 2nd deer tags and then charge a $20 fee for hunters Ed...just didn't seem right. :twocents:
Post by: iusmc2002 on January 13, 2014, 04:28:38 PM
Beginner makes a great point,what say you pianoman,how many kids do the hunter safety volunteers get in the program because the parents are not into it or wont pay for it?But the instructors get them in free of cost(donation wise that is)(before this bill)to the parents because its good to have them interested in nature and hunting.
No idea and don't think it could be more than a couple. It's a $20 one-time cost. Someone who's taking up hunting will pay for a gun, ammo, boots clothing, tags, maybe a Discover Pass, vehicle, gas. If a one-time $20 donation is too much, they can't afford the rest. And, you can't tell me that an enterprising young kid can't find $20 if they want something bad enough.
I dislike the idea of ANOTHER fee to play, but they could easily make it refundable at the end of the class, not dependent on whether they pass or not. The classes I've been involved in have had good-sized waiting lists, but once the class starts, the list is no good and now the spot that was taken is also no good. I've had a college-aged girl drive from Spokane every night of the class so she could hunt with her boyfriend, that's how far people will go to get their cert. There is no reason not to make the fee refundable. Like pman said, it would probably solve a lot of the no-show problems. If a student gets sick and CAN'T make it to class, a simple doctor's note stating such would be cause for refund. There have been several students who show up the first class and then stop coming. $20 would be a small step for ensuring they don't just waste that class slot. If they do waste it, then it should go to the general fund for that particular class/instructor to be used on training aides and such. I see this isn't the plan for this particular bill, so I voted "no"
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 04:43:31 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 13, 2014, 05:53:26 PM
Online skills evaluation sessions already have a $20 fee. They work just fine. Demand for the online evaluation sessions which cost $20 greatly exceeds demand for the traditional courses which cost $5.
Hold up, I thought that the OP stated that the 20 dollar fee was to help offset the cost of online instruction, but the online portion already costs 20?
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 06:01:31 PM
Yes it does cost $20. The fee is collected by Kalkomey - the firm that provides the registration software. A portion is retained by them. I don't know how much the states receives.Online skills evaluation sessions already have a $20 fee. They work just fine. Demand for the online evaluation sessions which cost $20 greatly exceeds demand for the traditional courses which cost $5.
Hold up, I thought that the OP stated that the 20 dollar fee was to help offset the cost of online instruction, but the online portion already costs 20?
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 06:23:46 PM
ooops,This is apples and oranges here,you choose to pay 20 to take the class online instead of going into the class everyday,just like you pay an extra $5 to buy tabs at a store or the dmv, instead of the courthouse.Online students still have to participate in a skills evaluation session taught by instructors.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 13, 2014, 07:08:24 PM
$20 really is a lot when you consider all the less expensive alternatives that kids can engage in: soccer, skiing lessons, music lessons, buying Xbox video games - the list is endless
Not sure about soccer but when was the last time you priced kids ski lessons and all accoutrements? Or music lessons for that matter? You will end up paying a lot more for either of those and have a skill of dubious use in the end. I will not even go into video games and what those damn things cost, I love playing them (for about ten minutes) but they are totally useless and really a bane to most sane people.
As it currently stands I vote NO. There are some good points in the bill but I am usually against more bureaucracy that really does not address an existing problem. Personally I would like my kids to get their ed card as soon as they are able, probably not until they are 8 or older but I don't want that mandated. I see no reason for a minimum age, if they are able to pass the tests then let them.
I think the reg for accompanied hunters (not by another licensed hunter though, just an adult) until 14 is good for big game but not small game. I probably spent 100 days a year chasing rabbits, gophers, and whatever else I could starting about age 9 and continuing until I had to many other responsibilities. I couldn't start hunting big game as a licensed hunter until age 14 so hunting small game was my main course until then.
The $20 fee is reasonable but don't feel it should be mandated, this state already takes enough out of my pocket. If they could defend that it actually costs $20 for each student then great but they should not use this as another revenue gathering enterprise, they have enough of those.
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2014, 07:15:36 PM
Really? ;)
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 09:02:09 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2014, 09:23:21 PM
The age 14 clause was inserted to restore the old law and to block liberals who wanted to require age 18. A little bit of history is the age 14 requirement was repealed in 1994 when democrats went on a gun control frenzy and inadvertantly removed it.
:yeah:
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 09:29:54 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 13, 2014, 09:42:25 PM
As last year, I feel the supervision clause is the major problem. If supervision is required, it should only have to be by an adult. There should be no license required for the adult if they are not hunting themselves. This could be quite discriminatory toward young folks who don't have a hunting relative but do have an adult that would drive them somewhere and go along. Another example would be if my father was visiting from WI, my son at 10 would not be able to be accompanied by him because my father would not pay the ridiculous price for an out of state deer tag. THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG!!
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2014, 09:45:21 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 13, 2014, 10:14:33 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 13, 2014, 10:21:54 PM
Voted no. What's the issue that this law would be fixing? Are there a bunch of pre-teen hooligans out causing trouble while hunting?
As for the 20 dollar fee, wdfw should be happy to have new hunters buying licenses, not charging more
As a hunter Ed instructor I can tell you that the $20 fee would address the large number of no-shows for the classes. As much as 40-50% sometimes don't show and that's with a ton of people being turned away.
I also don't have a problem with any of the age requirements. I have yet to teach a child under 8 who's passed and kids under 14 don't have a lot of experience. If something unexpected happens, they'll be able to glean off the experience of the adult. I like it.
As a instructor :yeah:
Post by: ghosthunter on January 13, 2014, 10:33:37 PM
The fact is that unless a fee is in place to sign up the no shows will continue. And kids who want in are left out.
I think the fee will increase the number going through classes.
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 14, 2014, 06:36:15 AM
When I was a kid, the minimum age to hunt without supervision was 14. It didn't seem to be an issue then. It didn't affect me much since I had no way to get to a place to hunt anyway.
But I still can't agree with the way this bill is written. First, there shouldn't be any exemptions. Second, the adult accompanying the child should not be required to have a license.
:yeah: There is no good reason to require parents to get a license to supervise their kids!
No as proposed.This describes my earliest days of hunting 30 some years ago.
As last year, I feel the supervision clause is the major problem. If supervision is required, it should only have to be by an adult. There should be no license required for the adult if they are not hunting themselves. This could be quite discriminatory toward young folks who don't have a hunting relative but do have an adult that would drive them somewhere and go along. Another example would be if my father was visiting from WI, my son at 10 would not be able to be accompanied by him because my father would not pay the ridiculous price for an out of state deer tag. THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG!!
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 14, 2014, 06:52:51 AM
ooops,This is apples and oranges here,you choose to pay 20 to take the class online instead of going into the class everyday,just like you pay an extra $5 to buy tabs at a store or the dmv, instead of the courthouse.Online students still have to participate in a skills evaluation session taught by instructors.
Regarding the $20 fee that is already collected for the online class. Is part of that used to cover costs involved with the evaluation session taught by instructors?
Post by: arees on January 14, 2014, 07:49:26 AM
WDFW has requested legislation regarding hunter education, the bill has not been formally introduced into the legislature which 2014 session began today. The bill does look very similar to the bill introduced last year. Changes are:
- Minimum age of 8 for hunter ed students
- Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by another licensed hunter, UNLESS they are hunting on family property, or leased family property.. Any hunter in violation would receive a natural resource infraction (the initial bill last year said a violator would face a misdemeanor charge)
- Establish fees of up to $20 per student for hunter ed classes, and $10 for hunter ed certificate duplicates. WDFW anticipates this to generate $262,000. This fee would cover administrative costs of internet-based training, Stipends for instructors, and instructional costs.
Once again a law that addresses nothing coupled with a money grab. Where are the hunting accidents involving people under 8? Where are the hunting accidents involving people between 8 and 14 hunting alone? When they were pushing this law last year there were no children that this would have saved. Are there any more now?
Hunter ed classes can already charge in advance for classes and can keep the money if you do not show up. This just changes things so that the money goes to the state for their safe keeping. Previously we paid the money to the instructors to cover some of their costs (but never enough for all the good work they do). Under this law we pay money to the state so that they can layer bureaucracy on top of things. Lets see, give $20 to the instructors and how much goes to cover their costs? $20. Give $20 to the state and how much goes to cover the instructors costs? Diddly-Squat.
How do you pass a bad law? Make up a threat to children, claim you are trying to save the children, and then pass a law that does nothing for the children.
BigTex, I assume you are not the author of this proposed legislation, but can you provide a list of accidents in Washington involving children hunting under the age of 8 or children hunting alone between 8 and 14? Because this law is specifically targeting hunting you don't get to include things like getting lost because that could happen to any child even if they are just out on a family hike. This law is claiming to be protecting children from hunting accidents so lets see the list of children this would have saved.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 14, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
WDFW has requested legislation regarding hunter education, the bill has not been formally introduced into the legislature which 2014 session began today. The bill does look very similar to the bill introduced last year. Changes are:
- Minimum age of 8 for hunter ed students
- Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by another licensed hunter, UNLESS they are hunting on family property, or leased family property.. Any hunter in violation would receive a natural resource infraction (the initial bill last year said a violator would face a misdemeanor charge)
- Establish fees of up to $20 per student for hunter ed classes, and $10 for hunter ed certificate duplicates. WDFW anticipates this to generate $262,000. This fee would cover administrative costs of internet-based training, Stipends for instructors, and instructional costs.
Once again a law that addresses nothing coupled with a money grab. Where are the hunting accidents involving people under 8? Where are the hunting accidents involving people between 8 and 14 hunting alone? When they were pushing this law last year there were no children that this would have saved. Are there any more now?
Hunter ed classes can already charge in advance for classes and can keep the money if you do not show up. This just changes things so that the money goes to the state for their safe keeping. Previously we paid the money to the instructors to cover some of their costs (but never enough for all the good work they do). Under this law we pay money to the state so that they can layer bureaucracy on top of things. Lets see, give $20 to the instructors and how much goes to cover their costs? $20. Give $20 to the state and how much goes to cover the instructors costs? Diddly-Squat.
How do you pass a bad law? Make up a threat to children, claim you are trying to save the children, and then pass a law that does nothing for the children.
:yeah: that's what I've been trying to say,... this law fixes NOTHING. you want to charge a fee to stop no-shows? guess what? you already can without this law.
(sarcasm) Oh,.. but what if my child between 8 and 14 wants to go hunting alone? I need the state to tell me he can't,... (sarcasm)
guess what? its called being a parent, you can make it illegal in your house,... use a belt. it solves a lot of problems very fast.
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 14, 2014, 10:57:22 AM
As an HS instructor, those stats should be available.Point number two is probably coming to light because of hunting accidents, and deaths. I believe it's hard to regulate across the board an age for youth hunters, but 14 seems young for some kids, but others would do fine. Remember we had a hunting death not to long ago during bear season two youths older than 14 hunting together and a hiker was killed.
I know when my son was able to drive and hunt with his friend I was always nervous about it even though he was really mature for his age.
I might be wrong, but I think those guys were in their 20's
plus I believe there are ALOT more hunting accidents caused by adults than kids
I guess that's possible but I'd like to see stats on that. Plus, it's not just about hunting accidents involving firearms. It's about getting used to the woods and Mother Nature, animal interactions, dealing with mechanical injuries. There's a lot of stuff that can happen which is beyond most under-14s. My :twocents:
Here's what I have for July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011 12 incidents, 2 of those fatal
1. Fatal 31 year old shooter, 39 y.o. victim weapon - bow
2. Fatal 29 y.o. shooter, 25 y.o victim weapon 30-06
3. Nonfatal Unk. shooter, 60 y.o. victim weapon bow
4. Nonfatal 40 y,o. shooter, 22 y.o. victim weapon 30-30
5. Nonfatal 26 y.o. shooter, self inflicted weapon 308
6. Nonfatal 68 y.o. shooter, self inflicted weapon 7mm
7, Nonfatal 39 y,o. shooter, 50 y.o. weapon 12 gauge
8. Nonfatal 29 y.o. shooter, self inflicted weapon .50muzzy
9. Nonfatal 45 y.o. shooter, self inflicted weapon 12 gauge
10. Nonfatal 16 y.o. shooter, 16 y.o victim weapon 12 gauge
11. Nonfatal 52 y.o. shooter, self inflicted weapon 12 gauge
12. Nonfatal 42 y.o. shooter, 47 y.o. victim weapon 10 gauge
In the above cases-
Avg. shooter age is 38 years old.
33% Shot by someone in their own group.
42% Self inflicted injuries.
25% Non related party.
Only one shooter was a minor.
None of these cases would have been affected by the proposed changes.
Post by: lokidog on January 14, 2014, 03:35:15 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 14, 2014, 03:59:52 PM
Spend your time trying to really do some good for our natural resources rather than paying for surveys to find out that 86% of people love to do things outdoors and the top activity is gardening.
The ways that WDFW comes up with things that will be helpful or better for us while it creates $$$ for them I can no longer stomach. It is for these reasons that there is more disconnect between those of us who pay for these activities and the ones in charge of managing them.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2014, 03:59:58 PM
The victim and shooter were hunting rabbits with a 22 L.R. semi-auto rifles. A rabbit flushed in front of them and ran into an irrigation pipe. The victim went to one end of the pipe while the shooter went to the other end. The victim bent over to look into the pipe. As he did so, he was struck in the face by fragment from a single 22 L.R. bullet that the shooter had shot into the other end of the pipe. The bullet fragment penetrated the bridge of the victim’s nose and sinus cavity and lodged next to his upper vertebra. Shooter did not possess hunting license.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2014, 04:20:37 PM
Tell me how making a new law would stop a lawless child?
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 09:01:21 AM
Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by another licensed hunter or by someone who is at least 18 and has taken hunter's ed, UNLESS they are hunting on family property, or leased family property.. Any hunter in violation would receive a natural resource infraction (the initial bill last year said a violator would face a misdemeanor charge)
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 09:17:52 AM
Also, as I said before, it doesn't seem fair to me that kids under 14 could hunt alone if on their family's property. Why discriminate against the kids who hunt public land or private land that isn't owned by their family?
Oh, and another thing- what's the definition of "family?" Would a son be able to hunt alone on a person's property, but not a niece or nephew?
How about a law that wouldn't restrict our freedom as much? Like simply a minimum age of 12 for hunting big game alone?
I could see myself in the future putting my daughter in a ground blind, say when she is 13 years old, and then leaving her for a couple hours while I hunt elsewhere (but still nearby so I could be there quickly if she needed help) Under this new proposed law I couldn't do that. I would be required to stay in the blind with her. I think that choice should be up to me.
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 09:20:45 AM
Oh, and another thing- what's the definition of "family?" Would a son be able to hunt alone on a person's property, but not a niece or nephew?
All the law says in regards to the family provision is "However, a hunter under the age of fourteen is not required to be accompanied if he or she is the immediate family member of a private property owner or lessee and is hunting on property his or her family owns or is leasing."
There is no definition of "immediate family member"
Post by: jason stevens on January 15, 2014, 09:29:48 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 15, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
Post by: Curly on January 15, 2014, 11:36:28 AM
Just keep it simple. It should just simply go back to basically how the law was prior to 1994. What was wrong with the way it was? :dunno:
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 15, 2014, 11:41:44 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2014, 11:44:17 AM
Here is how it should be written. Hunters between the ages of 8-14 should be accompanied by an adult, but if not, their parent/guardian will be held liable for any damages done by said 8-14 year old
Parents are already responsible for damages done by their minor children unless the child has committed a criminal act for which he's tried as an adult.
Post by: jason stevens on January 15, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
This change is a start, but I am still agreeing with Bobcat. And, JS, I know several 10 year olds that are a hell of a lot more responsible than many 18+ year olds I have known.I agree some kids at 9 or 10 are very capable problem is some parents don't teach them right and the coment I made about youth til 18 was more for oppurtunity. Same with most states youth til 18 not 16 or 15 on fishing.as for charging for hunter ed I strongly disagree we pay enough and the instructors sign up for it and get special drawings when should the line be drawn enough is enough.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 15, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
Here is how it should be written. Hunters between the ages of 8-14 should be accompanied by an adult, but if not, their parent/guardian will be held liable for any damages done by said 8-14 year old
Parents are already responsible for damages done by their minor children unless the child has committed a criminal act for which he's tried as an adult.
Then maybe it doesn't need to be written at all!
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 12:04:08 PM
Here is how the law should be written: Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by an adult.
Just keep it simple. It should just simply go back to basically how the law was prior to 1994. What was wrong with the way it was? :dunno:
That's too restrictive and would solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Post by: Curly on January 15, 2014, 01:01:54 PM
Here is how the law should be written: Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by an adult.
Just keep it simple. It should just simply go back to basically how the law was prior to 1994. What was wrong with the way it was? :dunno:
That's too restrictive and would solve a problem that doesn't exist.
It is not much different than what you suggested.
Quote
How about a law that wouldn't restrict our freedom as much? Like simply a minimum age of 12 for hunting big game alone?
When we were growing up, the state had a law that said we couldn't hunt alone until we were 14. That law never seemed to be a problem back then.
I was just pointing out that if they are bent on proposing age restrictions between 8 and 14, then I wouldn't have a problem with them restricting a kid from hunting until he/she can pass hunters ed at 8 and then not letting them hunt alone until age 14. It seems ok to me.
Min age of 8 seems ok. And Min age of 14 seems appropriate.........just like it seemed appropriate prior to the law being changed in 1994.
There are always going to be exceptions where some kids maybe could hunt safely at 6 or 7 and safely hunt alone at 9 or 10, but almost all Laws are like that...........they are set to encompass generalities.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:06:16 PM
at the rate my son is growing a learning with his shooting, he will be ready to be shooting with me in the duck or dove blind with a single shot before he is 8 years old.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:09:25 PM
Here is how the law should be written: Hunter's between the age of 8 and 14 MUST be accompanied by an adult.
Just keep it simple. It should just simply go back to basically how the law was prior to 1994. What was wrong with the way it was? :dunno:
That's too restrictive and would solve a problem that doesn't exist.
It is not much different than what you suggested.QuoteHow about a law that wouldn't restrict our freedom as much? Like simply a minimum age of 12 for hunting big game alone?
When we were growing up, the state had a law that said we couldn't hunt alone until we were 14. That law never seemed to be a problem back then.
I was just pointing out that if they are bent on proposing age restrictions between 8 and 14, then I wouldn't have a problem with them restricting a kid from hunting until he/she can pass hunters ed at 8 and then not letting them hunt alone until age 14. It seems ok to me.
Min age of 8 seems ok. And Min age of 14 seems appropriate.........just like it seemed appropriate prior to the law being changed in 1994.
There are always going to be exceptions where some kids maybe could hunt safely at 6 or 7 and safely hunt alone at 9 or 10, but almost all Laws are like that...........they are set to encompass generalities.
I don't get the purpose for the min age. if the child/adult/person is able to pass the hunters safety course on their own,.. they should be able to hunt... isn't that the whole point of the class? to not give hunting licenses to people who aren't able to pass the class...
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 01:13:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:16:55 PM
how about just leave it the way it is?
Or how about we change it back to the way it was prior to 1994?
I am not arguing or disagreeing with you. The law was essentially inadvertently changed in 1994 and the supervision requirement was removed. Now some will say if the law was incorrectly changed then why didn't they change it in 1995? Well how much confusion will that have caused? Up until 1994 you cant hunt alone, then in the fall of 1994 you can hunt alone, but law changes in 1995 and now you can't hunt alone?
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:17:41 PM
I look at this from a dad's point of view. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't take my 12 year old daughter deer hunting unless I stay by her side the entire time. Why can't put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet he definition of "accompany.":yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 01:23:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:24:36 PM
Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
Post by: arees on January 15, 2014, 01:26:38 PM
There is no long list of hunting accidents occurring due to hunters 14 and under hunting without a licensed adult along. This is a solution looking for a problem.
The hunter ed fee is being sold as a way to stop people from registering and not showing up. Here is the special instructions from a hunters ed class being taught this year (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397 (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397)):
Special Instructions for All Students
NO CLASS 2/6/14 pay $20.00 deposit to save spot in class get(pay deposit get book and assignments) deposit back on range day.Must attend all classes,if under 12 years old, adult must accompany student.Class held UP-STAIRS in fire hall.BE ON TIME.
Hunter ed instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
What problem is this bill addressing?
Post by: Curly on January 15, 2014, 01:28:50 PM
I look at this from a dad's point of view. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't take my 12 year old daughter deer hunting unless I stay by her side the entire time. Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
The state probably feels that you aren't a good enough judge of when your kid is mature enough to be left alone. Maybe parents sometimes have a biased view of their kids' ability to be out hunting alone? :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
Post by: arees on January 15, 2014, 01:29:42 PM
Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
The answer to "you can't write a good law" is not "write a bad law."
Post by: arees on January 15, 2014, 01:34:44 PM
instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
If the reason for the money portion is "WDFW doesn't trust the instructors to handle the money." why didn't you say that at the beginning? Why was there a discussion about how this is to help prevent no-shows at the classes? I try to make pointed comments about the legislation without bashing the people, but this makes that difficult.
Also, where does this bill say that all instruction and material fees must go through WDFW?
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:36:21 PM
how about just leave it the way it is?
Or how about we change it back to the way it was prior to 1994?
I am not arguing or disagreeing with you. The law was essentially inadvertently changed in 1994 and the supervision requirement was removed. Now some will say if the law was incorrectly changed then why didn't they change it in 1995? Well how much confusion will that have caused? Up until 1994 you cant hunt alone, then in the fall of 1994 you can hunt alone, but law changes in 1995 and now you can't hunt alone?
why change it back? it just gave parents more freedom on how and when to hunt with their kids. there is no problem with how it is right now. so why change it? you're saying it as if after the law was changed in 1994 there was a huge increase of little kids shooting people in the woods.
when they changed the law in 1994, it was a positive move for more freedom for the parents,...
the law they are trying to pass now does nothing but restrict parents unnecessarily, claiming it will solve a problem that does not exist
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:38:42 PM
This law is trying to wrap two issues under "child safety" it the hope that legislator will pass it.
There is no long list of hunting accidents occurring due to hunters 14 and under hunting without a licensed adult along. This is a solution looking for a problem.
The hunter ed fee is being sold as a way to stop people from registering and not showing up. Here is the special instructions from a hunters ed class being taught this year (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397 (http://www.register-ed.com/events/view/41397)):
Special Instructions for All Students
NO CLASS 2/6/14 pay $20.00 deposit to save spot in class get(pay deposit get book and assignments) deposit back on range day.Must attend all classes,if under 12 years old, adult must accompany student.Class held UP-STAIRS in fire hall.BE ON TIME.
Hunter ed instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
What problem is this bill addressing?
:yeah: :yeah:
What problem is this bill addressing???
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 01:39:57 PM
I look at this from a dad's point of view. I don't want the state to tell me that I can't take my 12 year old daughter deer hunting unless I stay by her side the entire time. Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
The state probably feels that you aren't a good enough judge of when your kid is mature enough to be left alone. Maybe parents sometimes have a biased view of their kids' ability to be out hunting alone? :dunno:
In the examples I gave I'm not even talking about the kid really hunting alone, but only being separated for a relatively short period of time and distance from the parent. Close enough that most likely if a shot were fired it would be heard by the other person. Even this wouldn't be legal under the new law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: jackmaster on January 15, 2014, 01:41:55 PM
That's still not good enough. My dad should be able to accompany my kids but he's old enough that he never had a hunter education class, and he shouldn't have to buy a hunting license that he isn't going to use.:yeah: :yeah: all of that :tup:
Also, as I said before, it doesn't seem fair to me that kids under 14 could hunt alone if on their family's property. Why discriminate against the kids who hunt public land or private land that isn't owned by their family?
Oh, and another thing- what's the definition of "family?" Would a son be able to hunt alone on a person's property, but not a niece or nephew?
How about a law that wouldn't restrict our freedom as much? Like simply a minimum age of 12 for hunting big game alone?
I could see myself in the future putting my daughter in a ground blind, say when she is 13 years old, and then leaving her for a couple hours while I hunt elsewhere (but still nearby so I could be there quickly if she needed help) Under this new proposed law I couldn't do that. I would be required to stay in the blind with her. I think that choice should be up to me.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:42:48 PM
instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
so it has nothing to do with no-shows,... I'd honestly rather the instructors take all the money to themselves then let the state "handle" it. :chuckle:
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2014, 01:44:53 PM
WAC 232-12-828 includes the following language which could be reused in some form:Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
(f) "Accompany" means the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion are in the physical presence of each other, not to exceed a 1/4-mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.
(3) The designated hunter companion does not need to accompany the hunter with a disability while tracking an animal wounded by either hunter, or while tagging or retrieving a downed animal on behalf of the hunter with a disability.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828)
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:45:34 PM
Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
:dunno: :dunno: because this is such a problem right now... :dunno: :dunno: they better make it illegal for a 12 year old to drive,.... oh wait... :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
If the reason for the money portion is "WDFW doesn't trust the instructors to handle the money." why didn't you say that at the beginning? Why was there a discussion about how this is to help prevent no-shows at the classes? I try to make pointed comments about the legislation without bashing the people, but this makes that difficult.instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
Also, where does this bill say that all instruction and material fees must go through WDFW?
It is to help prevent no-shows. The following is the $ section from the bill, the bolded sections are the changes to the law as proposed.
(5) Beginning July 1, 2014, the department is authorized to charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for any hunter education training course. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
(6) Upon the successful completion of a hunter education training course instructed by or being taught under a contract with the department in the safe handling of firearms, outdoor safety, wildlife conservation, and ethical hunting behavior, the trainee must receive an approved hunter education certificate.
(7) The department is authorized to collect an application fee, not to exceed ten dollars, for providing a duplicate hunter education certificate. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
(8)(a) The
(b) The
(b) The department may provide reimbursement for instructor expenditures incurred in providing hunter education training courses.
(c) The commission shall adopt rules specifying the use of program funds for reimbursing instructors. In no case may the total amount of all reimbursements exceed annual program income generated by fees.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 01:51:09 PM
instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
As usual it IS about the money. Accountability/ Washington bureaucrats? Oxymoron......
:yeah:instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
so it has nothing to do with no-shows,... I'd honestly rather the instructors take all the money to themselves then let the state "handle" it. :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:51:28 PM
WAC 232-12-828 includes the following language which could be reused in some form:Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
(f) "Accompany" means the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion are in the physical presence of each other, not to exceed a 1/4-mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.
(3) The designated hunter companion does not need to accompany the hunter with a disability while tracking an animal wounded by either hunter, or while tagging or retrieving a downed animal on behalf of the hunter with a disability.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828)
That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:
"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"
RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
WAC 232-12-828 includes the following language which could be reused in some form:Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
(f) "Accompany" means the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion are in the physical presence of each other, not to exceed a 1/4-mile separation. While stalking or shooting an animal, the hunter with a disability and the designated hunter companion must have a form of reliable and direct communication.
(3) The designated hunter companion does not need to accompany the hunter with a disability while tracking an animal wounded by either hunter, or while tagging or retrieving a downed animal on behalf of the hunter with a disability.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-828)
That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:
"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"
RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 01:55:39 PM
That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication
"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"
RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
The definition of "accompanied" the bill says we must use is "means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication"
There is no set distance
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 01:57:07 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 15, 2014, 01:57:44 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 02:00:28 PM
how far can you yell across a clear cut? :chuckle:
When stalking would you want to yell?
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
That is wrong. Per the bill we must use RCW 77.32.155 for the definition of "accompanied." From the bill:I'd say you would have to be even closer than a 1/4 mile for unaided visual AND auditory communication
"the term "accompanied" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 77.32.155"
RCW 77.32.155
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
The definition of "accompanied" the bill says we must use is "means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication"
There is no set distance
I know, I'm saying that you have to be pretty damb close all the time to have unaided visual and audible communication
Post by: arees on January 15, 2014, 02:00:51 PM
If the reason for the money portion is "WDFW doesn't trust the instructors to handle the money." why didn't you say that at the beginning? Why was there a discussion about how this is to help prevent no-shows at the classes? I try to make pointed comments about the legislation without bashing the people, but this makes that difficult.instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
Also, where does this bill say that all instruction and material fees must go through WDFW?
It is to help prevent no-shows. The following is the $ section from the bill, the bolded sections are the changes to the law as proposed.
(5) Beginning July 1, 2014, the department is authorized to charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for any hunter education training course. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
(6) Upon the successful completion of a hunter education training course instructed by or being taught under a contract with the department in the safe handling of firearms, outdoor safety, wildlife conservation, and ethical hunting behavior, the trainee must receive an approved hunter education certificate.
(7) The department is authorized to collect an application fee, not to exceed ten dollars, for providing a duplicate hunter education certificate. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011).
(8)(a) The ((director)) department may authorize a once in a lifetime, one license year deferral of hunter education training for individuals who are accompanied((by a nondeferred Washington-licensed hunter who has held a Washington hunting license for the prior three years and is over eighteen years of age)), while hunting, by a hunter currently licensed to hunt in Washington, age eighteen or older, and whose Washington license is not a one-year deferral license. The commission shall adopt rules for the administration of this subsection to avoid potential fraud and abuse.
(b) The ((director)) department is authorized to collect an application fee, not to exceed twenty dollars, for obtaining the once in a lifetime, one license year deferral of hunter education training from the department. This fee must be collected as program income as defined in 50 C.F.R. Sec. 80.120 (2011), deposited into the fish and wildlife enforcement reward account, and ((must be)) used exclusively to administer the deferral program created in this subsection.
(((c))) (9) For the purposes of this ((subsection)) section, "accompanied" means to go along with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication.
(((3))) (10)(a) To encourage the participation of an adequate number of instructors for ((the)) hunter education training ((program)) courses, the commission shall develop nonmonetary incentives available to individuals who commit to serving as an instructor. The incentives may include additional hunting opportunities for instructors.
(b) The department may provide reimbursement for instructor expenditures incurred in providing hunter education training courses.
(c) The commission shall adopt rules specifying the use of program funds for reimbursing instructors. In no case may the total amount of all reimbursements exceed annual program income generated by fees.
Under the current law instructors can charge a fee to deter no-shows and cover costs and they can return the fee to the students if they want.
Under the new law WDFW must collect the fee and they may give some of it to the instructors (or they may not). WDFW is not allowed to give the fee back if the student shows up.
The current situation allows for discouraging no-shows by charging a fee and giving it back if they show. The proposed law just collects a fee.
If they want to address no-shows, just ask the instructors to collect a fee and return it if the student doesn't show. If WDFW is really trying to address no-shows through a fee, have they done this simple, non-law-changing act yet? If not, they are not really trying to address no-shows.
When my son asks for help I ask him what he has tried for himself so far. If he hasn't tried anything, he doesn't need my help yet.
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:01:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 02:01:51 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 02:02:36 PM
how far can you yell across a clear cut? :chuckle:
When stalking would you want to yell?
you have no choice,..... you have to tell out a holler and wave you're arms at your child every 25 seconds to make sure you are within the law.. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
I think a few people misunderstood the point Bob33 was trying to make. He posted that other law as an example of some language that could be used in the new proposed law.
That rule (it's a WAC so it's not a law :chuckle:) only applies to disabled hunters.
There is already a law pertaining to hunter education (in this case deferrals) which states what accompanying is. Since the definition is already in law, and it already pertains to hunter ed, that is the definition the bill is going with.
In a perfect world it would be great to have one definition for everything. But its the reason you cant look at a WDFW WAC for a definition that you need on a DNR term. The word may be the same, but the definition can be totally opposite.
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 02:08:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
So the proposed law (or rule, whatever it is) is already set in stone and cannot be revised? Is that what you're saying?
I am saying the term for accompanying is already law. Right now it is being used for when people have a hunter education deferral. They must be accompanied by a licensed hunter.
The bill just says the definition for accompanied for the proposal for 8-14 year olds is the same as it is already written for the deferral term. The bill isn't going to use any other definition then the one already in place under RCW 77.32.155
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2014, 02:17:37 PM
Post by: BIGINNER on January 15, 2014, 02:23:46 PM
Okay, well all we can hope for is that the lawmakers use some common sense and don't pass this one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
:tup: :tup: :yeah: :yeah: :tup: :tup:
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 02:42:46 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on January 15, 2014, 03:14:43 PM
But, I think it needs said AGAIN......
Thank You Bigtex! You are informing us, adding to the debate to allow folks to hash it out while keeping very neutral. Not easy to do and much appreciated :tup:
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 15, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
Okay, well all we can hope for is that the lawmakers use some common sense and don't pass this one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
:tup: :tup: :yeah: :yeah: :tup: :tup:
Contact your representatives and let them know what you think :tup: Please!!!
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Bigtex forgot to mention one significant aspect of this bill that shouldn't be overlooked: instructor pay is doubled.instructors can already charge a fee and return it if you show up. This is adding nothing but putting the money in the hands of the WDFW rather than the instructors.
That is true and WDFW admits it. Their reasoning is it's accountability. How much money are instructors getting right now? WDFW has no idea. When you have WDFW run the funds the agency knows exactly how much money is coming in.
so it has nothing to do with no-shows,... I'd honestly rather the instructors take all the money to themselves then let the state "handle" it. :chuckle:
Post by: dscubame on January 15, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 05:06:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 05:56:00 PM
Heres another thought what is the states legal definition of alone or accompanied by an adult.5-10 20 50 100 1000 yards?visual?what is the states definition?Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
Read all of this thread and you'll find the definition of "accompany."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2014, 05:56:19 PM
Bigtex already provided it. Twice.Heres another thought what is the states legal definition of alone or accompanied by an adult.5-10 20 50 100 1000 yards?visual?what is the states definition?Why can't I put her on a stand while I go to another stand 300 yards away? Or whatever the situation may be. What if we are walking into a logged area behind a locked gate. I want her to walk to the end of one spur road while I walk down the other. With this new proposed law, we couldn't hunt that way. It wouldn't meet the definition of "accompany."
I completely agree with you. Problem is WDFW wants this "accompany" thing. I think the true reasoning behind the law change is they don't want the 12 year old to pick up a gun head up to the mountain and be hunting alone. I personally see a difference between that, and the examples you listed.
Problem is, how could you write into law the examples you listed? In reality you probably can't.
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2014, 06:06:38 PM
Ok found it,so then there wouldnt be a problem with putting a kid in a blind and then going off a little ways.audible range,and visual range could be quite far. :twocents:
Yes, I believe it would be illegal if this were to become law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: lokidog on January 15, 2014, 08:23:46 PM
:bash: :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2014, 10:42:01 AM
Post by: stevemiller on January 22, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
The Senate Bill (version states that the accompanying person must have attended hunter ed) had it's committee hearing yesterday.. No oppositionDoes this mean regardless as to when the accompanying person was born they would have had to have gone to hunters ed?
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2014, 08:10:47 PM
The Senate Bill (version states that the accompanying person must have attended hunter ed) had it's committee hearing yesterday.. No opposition
1) All hunters under age fourteen must be accompanied, while hunting:
(a) By a hunter:
(i) Who is currently licensed to hunt in Washington;
ii) Whose Washington hunting license is not a one-year deferral license; and
(iii) Who is age eighteen or older; or
(b) By a person who is age eighteen or older who has successfully completed a hunter education training course as described in RCW 77.32.155.
Post by: deerhuntr4885 on January 30, 2014, 10:09:33 PM
[/quote
Those are parenting issues, not wdfw issues :twocents:
[/quote]
Until you or one of your family are killed by some unattended kid.
Post by: lokidog on January 30, 2014, 10:23:57 PM
[/quote
Those are parenting issues, not wdfw issues :twocents:
Until you or one of your family are killed by some unattended kid.
[/quote]
Oh Yeah, and that happens so often we should pass new more restrictive laws.... :bash:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 31, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
[/quote
Those are parenting issues, not wdfw issues :twocents:
Until you or one of your family are killed by some unattended kid.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
And HERE is the "money grab"............
1) All hunters under age fourteen must be accompanied, while hunting:
(a) By a hunter:
(i) Who is currently licensed to hunt in Washington; Youth license $ x 3
Oh Yeah, and that happens so often we should pass new more restrictive laws.... :bash:
[/quote]
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2014, 10:50:19 AM
1- Reduces the $20 to $10
2- Allows those that were born before 1972 to be classified as accompanying adults in terms of accompanying minor hunters
Post by: KFhunter on January 31, 2014, 10:41:52 PM
The Senate Bill passed out of committee with two big changes:
1- Reduces the $20 to $10
2- Allows those that were born before 1972 to be classified as accompanying adults in terms of accompanying minor hunters
Are they listening to HW? It's like they read our minds :chuckle:
Just to be clear anyone born prior to 1972 can accompany a minor without a hunters safety certificate or hunting license....
I'm running out of reasons to oppose this bill.
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2014, 11:21:45 AM
This is still a money grab and simply phases in the "licensed hunter" part. :bash: :bash: Don't let them fool you KF.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2014, 11:24:55 AM
It's getting better, but if you are an adult (born before Feb. 1, 1996) you should be able to acompany yours or someone else's kids. What makes a 42 y.o. more qualified to accompany than a 24 year old?
This is still a money grab and simply phases in the "licensed hunter" part. :bash: :bash: Don't let them fool you KF.
I don't think it's a "money grab" but I agree with the rest of your post. It's okay for now but in the future why can't grandpa take the grandkids hunting without having a license himself?
Oh well, to use a phrase from another thread, "it is what is is." :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on February 01, 2014, 10:41:33 PM
I read all of this and can fully understand why people feel the way they do.
But, I think it needs said AGAIN......
Thank You Bigtex! You are informing us, adding to the debate to allow folks to hash it out while keeping very neutral. Not easy to do and much appreciated :tup:
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 02, 2014, 07:39:49 AM
The Senate Bill passed out of committee with two big changes:
1- Reduces the $20 to $10
2- Allows those that were born before 1972 to be classified as accompanying adults in terms of accompanying minor hunters
Other than it was a MUCH BETTER ( So many fewer laws,regulations, and gates) time to live in this state, my favorite year of Chevy truck, we had a republican governor, and the "immaculate reception" occurred......................................just WHAT is so magical about 1972
Could it be that was the cutoff date when kids and parents had common sense?
Post by: wafisherman on February 02, 2014, 09:29:07 AM
So NONE of the 3 points of the proposed legislation have ANY redeeming qualities? If the Younger ones cannot pass they will get another chance, but If they can. this bill would not let them So some think that under the age of 8 children don't need to be trained or made aware of firearm safety?
Number 1 and number 3 I like. Number 2 is the one I disagree with.
:yeah:
Why not just a licensed adult? I didn't have to take hunters ed, so would that rule prevent me from taking my boys hunting???
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 01:53:29 PM
Correct. If you were born before 1972 you can accompany a minor and you do not need to have a license.The Senate Bill passed out of committee with two big changes:Are they listening to HW? It's like they read our minds :chuckle:
1- Reduces the $20 to $10
2- Allows those that were born before 1972 to be classified as accompanying adults in terms of accompanying minor hunters
Just to be clear anyone born prior to 1972 can accompany a minor without a hunters safety certificate or hunting license....
I'm running out of reasons to oppose this bill.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 01:54:19 PM
It's the year hunter ed became mandatory in WA.The Senate Bill passed out of committee with two big changes:WHAT is so magical about 1972
1- Reduces the $20 to $10
2- Allows those that were born before 1972 to be classified as accompanying adults in terms of accompanying minor hunters
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
The House bill has lowered the $20 fee to $10 and allows those born before 1972 to accompany hunters even if they don't have a license.
The Senate bill still has the $20 fee and still requires the accompanying hunter to either be atleast 18 and licensed, or at least 18 and have attended hunter's ed.
So in the House bill the 65 year old grandpa could accompany his grandson without further restrictions. In the Senate bill the 65 year old grandpa would either need to be licensed or have attended hunter's ed.
House is controlled by the Democrats, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans.
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Thanks guys, I appreciate it!I read all of this and can fully understand why people feel the way they do.:yeah: :tup:
But, I think it needs said AGAIN......
Thank You Bigtex! You are informing us, adding to the debate to allow folks to hash it out while keeping very neutral. Not easy to do and much appreciated :tup:
Post by: bigtex on February 05, 2014, 10:40:40 PM
As of today both the Senate and House bills are in each chamber's fiscal/appropriations committee which looks at funding. The issue right now is the bills are now different.
The House bill has lowered the $20 fee to $10 and allows those born before 1972 to accompany hunters even if they don't have a license.
The Senate bill still has the $20 fee and still requires the accompanying hunter to either be atleast 18 and licensed, or at least 18 and have attended hunter's ed.
The House Bill and Senate Bill have both now reduced the $20 fee to $10 and both allow those born before 1972 to accompany hunters even if they don't have a license.
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 18, 2014, 03:41:57 PM
Post by: stevemiller on February 18, 2014, 03:47:17 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 18, 2014, 06:31:21 PM
Any others fckfords07?
Not sure. I just got an email from my representative's representative regarding this one
Post by: stevemiller on February 18, 2014, 06:58:25 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2014, 07:21:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
Post by: stevemiller on February 18, 2014, 08:17:03 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 18, 2014, 08:20:44 PM
Something similar to it will be back next year. WDFW is going to try and pass some type of hunter ed bill. With the amount of amendments that both the Senate and House bills had the past two years I am sure the bill from the get-go next year will probably be what the final amended bill was this year :twocents:
Thanks for bringing these HB's to everyone's attention Bigtex. I wouldn't have known or been able to voice my opinion on it if you hadn't posted it up here
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 08:28:04 PM
Do you think they had to much at the table this year?And didnt have the time to continue on this bill this year.
WA's legislature has a short session and a long session. The short sessions are the even years, long sessions are the odd years. One of the reasons for this is the legislature needs to make a full 2-year budget in the long session, but only a one year supplemental in the short session. So from the get-go this year the bills needed to be fast-tracked if they wanted to get passed.
Post by: timberfaller on March 16, 2014, 03:39:19 PM
:bash:They have done more to keep people from becoming Instructors, because they can't keep it "simple"!
If you think its hard getting into a class now, wait a few years, I don't see any foreseeable changes taking place.
When you do things to outright tic off "volunteers" and then LOOSE them, Who's to blame??
Oh ya, Its the Volunteers :bash:They are such a unruly bunch!!
Post by: Bob33 on March 20, 2014, 03:33:33 PM
We have instructors with over 50 years of service, and some new ones with just a few. Each contributes in his own way.
Each year we review our practices to look for ways that we can improve our teaching and are always open to incorporating new ideas.
Our program is bursting at the seams with students eager to attend a hunter education course. If anyone is interested in becoming an instructor, I would encourage you to pursue it. I know that our program can always use committed, enthusiastic individuals with a passion for ethical, safe hunting.