Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2015, 09:08:25 AM
-Establish a minimum age of 8 to enroll in Hunter Education
-Charge a fee of up to $20 to enroll in Hunter Education
-Charge a fee of up to $10 to receive a duplicate Hunter Education card
-Establish the temporary transfer of a firearm from an instructor to a student during hunter's education is NOT a violation of the I594 law
-Establish the minimum age of 14 to hunt alone. Those under 14 must hunt accompanied by someone who a) has a valid WA hunting license and is over 18, OR b) is over 18 and have attended hunter's ed, OR c) someone born before 1972. This does not apply to private property owned by family or friends of the minor. A violation would be a natural resource infraction (not a crime)
-"Accompanied" means to go hunting with another person while staying within a range of the other person that permits continual unaided visual and auditory communication
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1119.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1119.pdf)
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2015, 09:19:28 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 13, 2015, 09:24:26 AM
And the term "up to" means this is what it will be....
Although I am happy to see private property owned by "friends" included, not just owned by the hunter's family.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2015, 09:29:57 AM
This is not a WDFW sponsored/requested legislation like it has been in the past. Although I am sure they will support it.
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2015, 09:33:10 AM
Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
Just goes to show you that none of these legislators have a clue about enforcing 594.
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2015, 09:35:33 AM
What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. :twocents:
Post by: jrebel on January 13, 2015, 09:42:30 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2015, 09:44:35 AM
When will take effect if the bill is accepted? Hoping to sign my daughter up this summer as she turns eight in July.....but I was going to register her sooner as the classes fill up fast. I am not sure I like the wording of must be eight to register for class. It should state must be eight at cometion of class.
All legislation takes effect around June/July unless it is specifically worded otherwise.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 13, 2015, 09:54:48 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 13, 2015, 09:57:05 AM
Why not just get rid of the poorly written legislation, rather than create more to explain the first?What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2015, 10:03:17 AM
So if this bill does not pass, which is likely based on previous attempts, should instructors ignore WDFW's guidance that it would be legal?What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on January 13, 2015, 11:48:34 AM
Quote
(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9
All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.
-Steve
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
He'll probably read it on here, but might be busy with the legislature.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2015, 12:08:52 PM
I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.Quote(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9
All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.
-Steve
If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 13, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.Quote(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9
All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.
-Steve
If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.
Bob is spot on.
Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.
The $20.00 serves another purpose. NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.
If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.
Post by: jrebel on January 13, 2015, 12:31:01 PM
I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.Quote(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9
All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.
-Steve
If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.
Bob is spot on.
Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.
The $20.00 serves another purpose. NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.
If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.
I agree with most of what you say.....but $20 dollars is not going to impact the no shows. If they wanted to prevent the no shows they would require $100 with an $80 refund on the first day of class if they show.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2015, 12:39:41 PM
He'll probably read it on here, but might be busy with the legislature.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
If the real costs were charged they would be many times what's outlined in the bill. In addition, the class fees are needed to incentivize people to attend the classes for which they've reserved spots. Without fees, the no-show percentage is very high. Once the fees come into play, they go way down.
I think this piece of legislation needs re-writing. The part about 594 is unnecessary and the part about under 14s seems arbitrary in light of the 8 year limit for students. I say no as written but it's a good start.
I would seek to clarify transfers between/to adult students from other students, would leave in the fee structure, and would not have an age limit for licensed hunters, as it hasn't been a problem thus far. It doesn't need to be fixed; it's not broken.
Post by: Whitpirate on January 13, 2015, 01:09:35 PM
I still don't like the accompanied part, as in who can accompany the hunter, I don't think they should have to have a license or have gone through a HS class.
And the term "up to" means this is what it will be....
Although I am happy to see private property owned by "friends" included, not just owned by the hunter's family.
Bingo.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 13, 2015, 01:27:56 PM
I seriously doubt the state is making money off hunter education programs. Even at $20 the revenues would not cover the full costs of staff, supplies, ammunition, in-service training, travel expenses, and other costs associated with the program.Quote(i) Charge a registration fee of not more than twenty dollars for37 any hunter education training course completed over the internet;38
(ii) Collect donations related to any hunter education training39 course; and40 p. 2 HB 1119
(iii) Collect an application fee of up to ten dollars for1 providing a duplicate of a hunter education certificate issued by the2 department.3 (b) All fees and donations collected under this subsection must4 be collected as program income as that term is defined in 50 C.F.R.5 Sec. 80.120 (2013).6 (c) The department must adopt and implement procedures that7 ensure the accountability of the receipt and expenditure of all fees8 and donations received under this subsection.9
All fees for hunter education program should be 'actual cost' of said series. The state should not be making money on these services.
-Steve
If you define "actual cost" as included all the expenses, they will not be anywhere near to making money at $20/student.
Bob is spot on.
Anyone who thinks $20.00 even comes close to making the expenses is dreaming.
The $20.00 serves another purpose. NO SHOWS.
Hundreds of Hunter ED seats go unfilled because of folks who sign up and do not show up for the class. And hundreds of kids go without a class because of it.
If folks had $20.00 on the table the NO Shows will go down.
I agree with most of what you say.....but $20 dollars is not going to impact the no shows. If they wanted to prevent the no shows they would require $100 with an $80 refund on the first day of class if they show.
Take note that many family's take this class as a group. So signing up a family of 5 is $100.00 . If it were more people would yell foul.
I like the 20.00., and the 8 years to sign up. And the 14 to hunt alone.
Lets remember , There are folks out there that would let their 8 year old hunt with a rifle alone without a thought to it.
Passing Hunter Ed doesn't mean you are ready to make life or death decisions. It means you passed Hunter Ed. There is lots of skill learning and life experience which comes afterwards.
A first aide class doesn't make you a doctor. :yike: :sry:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2015, 01:40:59 PM
Take note that many family's take this class as a group. So signing up a family of 5 is $100.00 . If it were more people would yell foul.Maybe the age should only go towards big game? I don't see why a 13 year old couldn't take a shotgun or .22 and go look for grouse, quail and rabbits alone.
I like the 20.00., and the 8 years to sign up. And the 14 to hunt alone.
Lets remember , There are folks out there that would let their 8 year old hunt with a rifle alone without a thought to it.
Passing Hunter Ed doesn't mean you are ready to make life or death decisions. It means you passed Hunter Ed. There is lots of skill learning and life experience which comes afterwards.
A first aide class doesn't make you a doctor. :yike: :sry:
Post by: arees on January 13, 2015, 01:45:40 PM
For those who claim that the $20 is to deter no-shows, please explain why this isn't currently allowed now and why am I sure I have seen it being done already.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2015, 03:15:38 PM
I believe that many hunter ed classes already charge a fee up front that is refunded if you show. There is nothing stopping a $20 fee to deter no-shows already. Why do we need a law to allow something that is already allowed?
For those who claim that the $20 is to deter no-shows, please explain why this isn't currently allowed now and why am I sure I have seen it being done already.
The $20 fee currently used is refunded at the end of the class. So there's an incentive to keep your reservation AND attend all classes. The change I believe would mean a mandatory fee. This is in comparison to NO fee, which had a huge no-show rate - there was nothing at stake for the person so they'd make reservations in 3 different classes to get the one they wanted and then for get to cancel out on the others.
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2015, 05:23:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2015, 05:25:32 PM
So under I 594 can children under 18 possess a firearm in the field without supervision? :hello:
Yes, as long as they have the proper licenses for that area to hunt.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 13, 2015, 05:49:50 PM
What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. :twocents:
Total agree. Having that wording in the legislation helps greatly and will help even more when someone tries to challenge that interpretation.
Post by: Stein on January 13, 2015, 06:00:40 PM
What are they attempting to fix here? No problem = no new law.
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2015, 06:07:15 PM
If they really wanted to make an improvement the language should reference any transfer conducted in a hunter education courses. As written, it addresses the least controversial (instructor <-> student) and ignores the most controversial: student<->student. If the bill does not pass WDFW will still endorse instructor to student transfers.What it does is basically secure the fact that instructor-student transfers is legal. Right now that is simply an interpretation of 594.Not sure why 594 needs to be addressed, we have already been assured that it is not violated in hunters ed. :chuckle:Correct. WDFW has gone on record as stating that exchanges between instructors and students are exempt from 594 background check requirements.
What the bill needs to address is student-to-student transfers during a course.
Someone needs to clue Blake and Buys in that this is meaningless and makes it look like they don't understand WDFW's understanding of 594. Or, do they disagree with WDFW?
I personally think it's a huge plus to have that section in the legislation. :twocents:
Total agree. Having that wording in the legislation helps greatly and will help even more when someone tries to challenge that interpretation.
Post by: blackdog on January 13, 2015, 06:28:55 PM
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2015, 09:34:54 PM
What is the Problem this bill is trying to fix?
Dont say I594 because its very similar to the one last year (or the year before)
Post by: Bob33 on January 13, 2015, 09:51:51 PM
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2015, 10:00:18 PM
I have a hard time giving that a :tup:
Post by: Greenhorn on January 13, 2015, 10:03:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 13, 2015, 10:16:20 PM
So under I 594 can children under 18 possess a firearm in the field without supervision? :hello:
I haven't figured that out yet. There are two conflicting exceptions listed in I-594, for people under 18. According to the first one, the answer to your question would be no. Under the second one, the answer is "maybe." (my interpretation only)
Quote
(4) This section does not apply to:
....
....
....
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 13, 2015, 10:22:18 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2015, 10:44:21 PM
My opinion is that it is another attempt to institute a minimum hunting age. I don't believe money is the driving force. The I594 bit was added to sweeten a bill that has failed previously. From my perspective it adds little to no value.Yeah, any suspicions why? I don't see any big groups behind a min age like Bloomberg, even though I imagine they would approve. Is there a real problem out there with kids hunting alone? Or is the rep concerned a kid will do something and then an initiative will decide to do the same but at a higher age?
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2015, 11:46:28 PM
Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state. Not sure when that changed. 8 is a good age. Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers.It changed around 20 years ago, and it was really more of a mistake in legislation that caused it to change.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 06:08:38 AM
Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state. Not sure when that changed. 8 is a good age. Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers.
And yet the incidence of hunting accidents has not increased with this age group since the elimination of the age requirement. The fact that those under the age of 14 are unable to read at the same level as those above has not statistically shown that there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed. I'll say it again: this bill seeks to address problems which don't exist, other than the fees which help support attendance numbers in the classes.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 07:33:06 AM
The bill is sponsored by four representatives:
- Brian Blake Democratic from the 19th district: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Brian-Blake/ (http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Brian-Blake/)
- Vincent Buys, Republican from the 42nd: http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Vincent-- (http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Vincent--) Buys/
Mia Gregersen, Democrat from the 33rd: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Mia-Gregerson/ (http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/roster/rep-Mia-Gregerson/)
- Luanne Van Werven, Republican from the 42nd:
http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Luanne-Van%20Werven/ (http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Luanne-Van%20Werven/)
RCW 77.32.155 addresses Hunter Education in Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.32.155 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.32.155)
WAC 232-12-227 is the corresponding WAC for Hunter Education in Washington: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-227 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-12-227)
There are two types of hunter education courses offered in Washington: (1) the “traditional classroom course which typically runs 12 to 20 hours, and (2) an online self-study course which requires that students who complete the online course attend a four-hour “skills evaluation” session.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/classes/basic.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/classes/basic.php)
Here is a breakdown of the key components of the proposed bill:
• $20 fee: there is currently no legislative minimum or maximum fee for hunter education courses in Washington. The online course collects $20 which is collected by the online vendor (Kalkomey). The cost for traditional courses in Washington varies from program to program. Some charge nothing. Many charge $5. Some charge $20 or more. Some return a portion of the fee to the student upon course completion. Programs may charge $20 now, if they wish to do so.
• Minimum age of eight to attend hunter education. Washington is one of the few states with no minimum age to hunt. Any student that passes hunter education may hunt. He can hunt rabbits with a .22, or elk with a 460 Weatherby. He may hunt alone.
In the years that I have taught hunter education, the number of students under age eight I have observed that have successfully passed is very small. We have had students as young as five enroll. In the vast majority of cases, these very young students were enrolled by parents with selfish motives. When very young students enroll, we usually talk to the parents up front and let them know about our concerns. While we want to see more hunters, we treat each student equally on his ability to safely handle firearms, regardless of age. I would prefer to have not very young students in our courses, but do not support a minimum age. If there must be a minimum age, eight is a good choice.
• Hunting alone under age 14. Instructors receive reports each year on all hunting related incidents in Washington. I have not seen any data which supports a minimum age of 14. The requirement that a young hunter must be accompanied by a licensed hunter is onerous and counter-productive to the goal of developing more youth hunters.
• “I-594” transfers. The bill addresses the “temporary transfer of a firearm from the instructor of hunter education training course to a student”. WDFW has already issued a legal advisory to instructors that such transfers are legal and not a violation of RCW 9. 41.113. This bill does not address transfers from student to student. Many hunter education courses put students through simulated field condition situations with obstacles such a fence. The intent is to observe and confirm that students can safely navigate obstacles. In many instances, students go through these exercises in groups of two with the expectation that a student can safely hand a firearm to his fellow hunter and receive it back. If the students are over 18, these types of transfers are now illegal under current law. Because this bill does not address the transfer of firearms between students, so it adds virtually no value.
I plan to contact the sponsors of the bill, and also to engage some pro hunting organizations such as the Hunter Heritage Council to address my concerns.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 14, 2015, 08:01:25 AM
I believe that many hunter ed classes already charge a fee up front that is refunded if you show. There is nothing stopping a $20 fee to deter no-shows already. Why do we need a law to allow something that is already allowed?
For those who claim that the $20 is to deter no-shows, please explain why this isn't currently allowed now and why am I sure I have seen it being done already.
""
I have been teaching 25 years. No fees ,No donations.
Some instructors charge the fee and give it back when the student attends. It helps with no show but creates another book keeping issue for the instructor.
I do not want that issue any more than the no shows.
If there is going to be a fee it should be collected and tracked by the state at time of sight up. Leave the instructors who already have a inch thick manual to follow out of it.
That's what they are after. Permission to collect this fee on line at sign up for traditional classes.
The $20 fee currently used is refunded at the end of the class. So there's an incentive to keep your reservation AND attend all classes. The change I believe would mean a mandatory fee. This is in comparison to NO fee, which had a huge no-show rate - there was nothing at stake for the person so they'd make reservations in 3 different classes to get the one they wanted and then for get to cancel out on the others.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 09:43:09 AM
YES we have to many laws already!
Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Most "young" students will fail, especially if they are not around firearms at home, has been my experience. At the same time I've had teenagers fail time and time again, but that is another story. The BEST scenario is when the Parent of a young student who passes and THEY say NO my child will not be hunting alone and my child will go out the first time for experience. I appreciate teaching those kids with that type of parent!! It is NOT about getting a second or third tag!
Legislators need to get back to more serious issues facing this state, The WFWD does a bag up job screwing up the Hunter Ed program! :bash:
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 09:59:19 AM
Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 10:19:04 AM
We are talking "hunting" not driving a vehicle.
bigtex, if your a certified instructor, get your "policy's and procedures" book out and read.
We,"instructors" CAN NOT discriminate based on Age,gender,race, disability, etc etc.
The "program" is NOT entirely broken yet, what the "legislators" need to do Buzz off! that is putting it politely!!
As Instructor's we have, at present anyways, a lot of latitude on weather a student pass'es or not. LEAVE the program alone, FIX it yes, BUT that will require higher ups to get some "backbone". AND a turn of the clock backwards.
I am not holding my breath on that happening!
Risk assessment anyone!??? :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 10:34:40 AM
Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 10:41:13 AM
Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 10:54:11 AM
That said!
YOU have to keep the "government", aka legislators, AWAY for it!!
If something WORKS, government WILL screw it up, THAT is their track record!
Go Redskins!
Spotted Owl anyone?, taste like chicken!! :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.
It may be legal to discriminate by age, but there's no justification for it with regards to youth hunting. There certainly is with regards to driving.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 11:01:46 AM
I agree. I don't support a minimum age.Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
That said, I don't support a minimum age, particularly with the onerous accompanying hunter requirements of this bill. It is true that the age group 10 to 29 has the highest number of hunting related incidents, but setting the limit at 14 is not supported by any data I have seen.
It may be legal to discriminate by age, but there's no justification for it with regards to youth hunting. There certainly is with regards to driving.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 11:06:07 AM
:yeah:Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
The way the program is ran right now there is obviously no minimum age. So if Bob said I will only accept those over the age of 15, then Bob is discriminating. But if the law said you must be 8, that is not an illegal form of discrimination.
Think about it, how many different age restrictions are there for things that many people do everyday? Driving, smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Many states have a minimum age for reserving/checking into a hotel room. So apparently that's not discriminating, but saying you have to be 8 to attend hunter's ed is?
Where are all the lawsuits in the states (like others have said, the majority of the states) that have a minimum age to attend hunter's ed.?
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 11:09:17 AM
It shows that most states do have a minimum age to hunt or hunt alone.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 11:15:19 AM
Nice link though.
Our state requirement is YOU have to pass the "Requirements" regardless of age.
It works and has been for years.
WHAT are the legislator's TRYING to fix????
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 11:16:00 AM
:yeah:Bigtex's point is that it is legal to discriminate based on age for certain activities. The fact is that Washington is one of very few states without a minimum age to hunt. If it were illegal to discriminate based on age for hunting, that would not be the case.Biggest problem is "Age Limit"!Really? So I guess we should sue so our 12 year old kids can get a driver's license. Because the state's discriminating isn't it???
Some parent will file a lawsuit, mainly because the STATE can NOT discriminate, that has been the law all along.
They would have to change the discrimination laws to have that fly.
Kind of a stretch to that conclusion, BT. No one's talking about driving, an activity which is inherently and statistically far more dangerous than hunting. The fact is, regardless of whether you personally want an age limit, there's zero indication that it's necessary for safety. :dunno:
The way the program is ran right now there is obviously no minimum age. So if Bob said I will only accept those over the age of 15, then Bob is discriminating. But if the law said you must be 8, that is not an illegal form of discrimination.
Think about it, how many different age restrictions are there for things that many people do everyday? Driving, smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. Many states have a minimum age for reserving/checking into a hotel room. So apparently that's not discriminating, but saying you have to be 8 to attend hunter's ed is?
Where are all the lawsuits in the states (like others have said, the majority of the states) that have a minimum age to attend hunter's ed.?
BT, I have a lot for respect for you and I think you bring value to the site, no question. But it seems that your justification for an age limit law is that there are age limits for other things, so why not hunting, too? My answer is that there are reasons for all of the things you listed to have age limits. Driving is dangerous. Drinking and smoking are dangerous and can be addictive. Kids staying by themselves in hotels is dangerous. Gambling is dangerous and can be addictive. Children who've taken hunter ed - not dangerous. So, the reasons that there are age limits for other things in and of themselves is not enough for creating a new restriction on our hunters. There should be a need for the restriction. If there's no need, there should be no restriction. And, just because you think it's too young doesn't make it so. I personally require verifiable proof that there's a reason to restrict a citizens activities before doing so. It's called liberty. We do it when it's indicated and necessary and we leave our citizens alone when it isn't.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 11:21:17 AM
Montana- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Wyoming- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Utah- Those under 14 must hunt with a licensed adult who is at least 21
Oregon- Nobody under 11 can hunt big game
North Dakota- Minimum age of 14 to hunt big game
Nevada- Minimum age of 12 to hunt big game. Those under 18 must be accompanied by someone over 18 who is licensed
Missouri- Those 6 to 15 can only hunt does and turkey when accompanied by an adult
Minnesota- Minimum age of 12 for big game
Louisiana- Under 16 required to be accompanied
Idaho- Minimum age of 10, must be accompanied for most activities until 17
Colorado- Under 16 must be accompanied
Arizona- Minimum age of 10 for big game. Those under 14 must by supervised by someone over 18. Someone over 18 cannot supervise more than 2 minors
I chose those states for a reason. Mostly conservative, pro gun, pro hunting states.
Post by: lokidog on January 14, 2015, 11:24:09 AM
As far as the fees go, I can see a lot of parents (especially moms who don't hunt) not doing the class with their kid(s) because of the increased cost, this would not be a positive development imo.
If there is a minimum age to hunt "alone" it should not be more than 12. I have met a lot of 16 year olds that I would trust less hunting alone than many 12 year olds, and the under 16 crowd can't drive anywhere on their own anyways.
Also, there is absolutely no reason to not allow a parent or guardian who is not a hunter or without a HS card to acompany a kid. Sorry about all of the nots in there, but hopefully this sentence is understandeable. This requirement would preclude a non-hunting parent from accompanying there kid hunting, just stupid!!
It shows that most states do have a minimum age to hunt or hunt alone.
Other states have lots of stupid laws, does that mean we should follow suit??
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 11:27:28 AM
And I am not saying that because there's minimums for a lot of things that there should be a minimum for hunting. But when you look at that site I provided and see that WA is one of only a few states that doesn't have a minimum it makes you think that a minimum age to hunt alone isn't so asinine in fact its pretty common. So common that 20 years ago it was the law in WA.
Personally, I don't really care about this bill. I think most under 14 who are hunting alone are most likely hunting on family/friends land so this law wouldn't affect them, simply because most don't have the means of getting far from home to hunt alone at that age.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 11:32:42 AM
Everything else in the bill is fluff.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 14, 2015, 11:35:14 AM
But every year kids over 8 are shut out of classes because parents enroll a 5 or 6 year old in class. Why because big sister or brother is taking the class.
Half way through the 5-6 year old drops out. You cannot bring in another student in the middle of a class.
Class size is limited for a bunch of reasons. For me it is space. 25 students is plenty to teach good handling skills too. I want quality not volume.
So if Your 12 year old wants to go through a class but cannot find a seat because 5-7 year olds ( who we know will not pass most the time) you look at it a little different.
The bottom line is the best thing for pumping out more hunters is to restrict the class age. So the folks who are ready can find a seat. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 11:42:42 AM
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 14, 2015, 11:51:07 AM
As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
:yeah:
You know the only way this is going to get fixed is a test case.
Student to student should be allowed. When we are doing fence crossings , under 594 the student would have to hand to the instructor than the instructor to another student. Stupid. I am not doing it.
We are going to handle in class unloaded guns as we have always done. Wait for the fireworks when a instructor (and the state ) and a 12 year old or two get charged with illegal transfer.
It will the bang heard around the US.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 14, 2015, 11:51:45 AM
***This is not something I do, but I can see an argument for those that do.
Post by: Stein on January 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
There are not very many kids under the age of 8 passing hunter ed these days.
But every year kids over 8 are shut out of classes because parents enroll a 5 or 6 year old in class. Why because big sister or brother is taking the class.
Half way through the 5-6 year old drops out. You cannot bring in another student in the middle of a class.
Class size is limited for a bunch of reasons. For me it is space. 25 students is plenty to teach good handling skills too. I want quality not volume.
So if Your 12 year old wants to go through a class but cannot find a seat because 5-7 year olds ( who we know will not pass most the time) you look at it a little different.
The bottom line is the best thing for pumping out more hunters is to restrict the class age. So the folks who are ready can find a seat. :twocents:
That's a pretty well thought out opinion and something I hadn't thought about. My daughter passed with flying colors at 8 and she is very mature and bright for her age. I think she maybe could have handled it at 7, but not before. At 8, she did have some challenges with working the rifle during the live fire exercise.
Essentially, I put her through early to start collecting points. This year (11) was the first time she actually hunted. I second the notion that I would prefer the state not tell me when she is ready to hunt, but I can see either a higher fee (partially refunded upon completion) or an age limit on the class if space is a concern. I would also support a $1 fee on each license to fund more classes.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 11:54:36 AM
As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.If this bill fails do you expect instructors to stop transferring firearms to students because of that extremely rare possibility?
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
It would be far better to address all transfers.
Post by: Stein on January 14, 2015, 11:59:32 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 12:00:19 PM
Of course not.As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.If this bill fails do you expect instructors to stop transferring firearms to students because of that extremely rare possibility?
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
It would be far better to address all transfers.
I am just saying right now instructors are basically in limbo. WDFW says it's their interpretation that an instructor-student transfer is legal. That interpretation can be the complete opposite of a mayor who can basically use their PD as their own little agenda squad and can force the chief to go get the instructor. If something is in law then that changes everything.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 14, 2015, 12:01:23 PM
There are not very many kids under the age of 8 passing hunter ed these days.
But every year kids over 8 are shut out of classes because parents enroll a 5 or 6 year old in class. Why because big sister or brother is taking the class.
Half way through the 5-6 year old drops out. You cannot bring in another student in the middle of a class.
Class size is limited for a bunch of reasons. For me it is space. 25 students is plenty to teach good handling skills too. I want quality not volume.
So if Your 12 year old wants to go through a class but cannot find a seat because 5-7 year olds ( who we know will not pass most the time) you look at it a little different.
The bottom line is the best thing for pumping out more hunters is to restrict the class age. So the folks who are ready can find a seat. :twocents:
That's a pretty well thought out opinion and something I hadn't thought about. My daughter passed with flying colors at 8 and she is very mature and bright for her age. I think she maybe could have handled it at 7, but not before. At 8, she did have some challenges with working the rifle during the live fire exercise.
Essentially, I put her through early to start collecting points. This year (11) was the first time she actually hunted. I second the notion that I would prefer the state not tell me when she is ready to hunt, but I can see either a higher fee (partially refunded upon completion) or an age limit on the class if space is a concern. I would also support a $1 fee on each license to fund more classes.
It really is not a funding issue . It is a time ,space, man power issue.
90% of the new instructors coming on board do not put on classes. They join teaching groups who are already doing classes. Which may not increase the number of students handled.
Why? Because most new instructors will not contribute the time and effort needed to conduct a 16 hour class. With all the hoops that the state requires you to jump through. So they join someone doing classes help out where they can and call it good.
Money will not equate to more volume of classes.
Post by: Stein on January 14, 2015, 12:07:11 PM
If we had a goal of graduating more, it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 12:09:21 PM
I am just saying right now instructors are basically in limbo. WDFW says it's their interpretation that an instructor-student transfer is legal. That interpretation can be the complete opposite of a mayor who can basically use their PD as their own little agenda squad and can force the chief to go get the instructor. If something is in law then that changes everything.I understand the point. I don't know if you're an instructor or not, but all the instructors I know accept WDFW's advisory as being sufficient justification for instructor-student transfers.
The point is that the bill doesn't change everything; it essentially changes very little or nothing because courses will be allowing instructor-student transfers regardless of whether this bill passes or not.
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 12:15:20 PM
AND BY Whom are we in that state!??
I've yet to see, where we can pass a firearm to a student who is over 18. It is getting to be more and more over that age in class in the last ten years. They are considered "adults" after that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 12:16:15 PM
per http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx)
Montana- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Wyoming- Minimum age to hunt is 12
Utah- Those under 14 must hunt with a licensed adult who is at least 21
Oregon- Nobody under 11 can hunt big game
North Dakota- Minimum age of 14 to hunt big game
Nevada- Minimum age of 12 to hunt big game. Those under 18 must be accompanied by someone over 18 who is licensed
Missouri- Those 6 to 15 can only hunt does and turkey when accompanied by an adult
Minnesota- Minimum age of 12 for big game
Louisiana- Under 16 required to be accompanied
Idaho- Minimum age of 10, must be accompanied for most activities until 17
Colorado- Under 16 must be accompanied
Arizona- Minimum age of 10 for big game. Those under 14 must by supervised by someone over 18. Someone over 18 cannot supervise more than 2 minors
I chose those states for a reason. Mostly conservative, pro gun, pro hunting states.
I don't care if it's the law of the new NRA-controlled 51st state called GUNSYLVANIA. We're not any of those states. I want you to show me the safety problem we're having which warrants changing the law to further restrict our citizens. Otherwise, I can't back it. It's really pretty simple. Don't fix something that's unbroken. Cite anything you want, but without a problem, I'm unmoved.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 12:20:23 PM
As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
I agree with you that there's ambiguity regarding 594. My opinion is that 594 should be changed to fix that ambiguity. Because, if a new law is passed which conflicts with 594, the new law will be struck down by the courts, at least the parts which conflict. My understanding is that because it's a referendum, a bill doesn't have the power to supersede it's components. I may be wrong. I know I was once.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 12:26:41 PM
If this bill were to pass the 594 component is written in a way that it should stand legal challenges. There are many other laws that are written very similar. You have one RCW stating something is illegal, but another RCW exempting an activity from that other RCW.As far as the 594 provision goes. WDFW has basically said its their legal interpretation that a instructor-student transfer is legal, nowhere in the law does it say that's legal. I don't know about you but I'd rather go by something written in law, not just someone's interpretation.I agree with you that there's ambiguity regarding 594. My opinion is that 594 should be changed to fix that ambiguity. Because, if a new law is passed which conflicts with 594, the new law will be struck down by the courts, at least the parts which conflict. My understanding is that because it's a referendum, a bill doesn't have the power to supersede it's components. I may be wrong. I know I was once.
Realistically a police chief (who reports to a mayor) could send his officers to go arrest the hunter ed instructor for unlawful transfer. The chief/mayor may not agree with WDFW's interpretation of 594. The case would then be prosecuted by the city attorney, who also happens to report to the mayor. Whereas if you put it in law that an instructor-student transfer is lawful, then obviously they can't do anything. Obviously the chances of this happening are slim to none, but when you go off of someone's interpretation of the law and not an actual wording itself, it leaves the door open for a big mess.
But I do think it should be expanded to include student-student transfers.
The problem with 594 is if a legislator wanted to go in and change the 594 impacted RCWs to include student-instructor/student transfers it would require a two-thirds majority vote. Whereas this bill, since it doesn't actually change the 594 RCWs would just need a simple majority.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 14, 2015, 12:27:49 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 12:29:09 PM
Because it changes so little of value, and because the bill is burdened with issues of greater consequence and little justification like age limits, it will not be supported by the hunter education community and the hunting community at large. I expect it will not pass.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2015, 12:40:07 PM
To recap:
2013: The bill passed the House 97-0. It passed out of the Senate committees but didn't get to a full vote.
2014: House bill passed out of committees but didn't go for a full vote. Senate Natural Resource committee gave a unanimous vote, referred it to the Ways and Means Committee (money committee) but this committee didn't take it up.
So bills similar to this one have made progress in the legislature, in fact it almost became law in 2013.
Post by: Bob33 on January 14, 2015, 12:44:44 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html)
I challenge anyone to make a case based on this data that hunters under 14 are more dangerous.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 15, 2015, 04:57:07 AM
Here's a link to the actual data of hunting incidents in Washington.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/hunting_incidents.html)
I challenge anyone to make a case based on this data that hunters under 14 are more dangerous.
While showing us where expanding government (tyranny) controls over everything is not
Post by: Tom Tamer on January 19, 2015, 02:01:09 PM
Post by: Stickerbush on January 19, 2015, 08:03:36 PM
Post by: Stickerbush on January 19, 2015, 08:48:08 PM
To me this just is politicians finding work to do for no reason. Reminds me of the commercial drivers license pre trip requirements, every few years a committee or whatever get together and changes parts of the test to what they were before and so on and so forth. The cdl driving schools just chuckle to themselves as they realize this is just part of the game. Politicians and beirocrats just finding stuff to do for no apparent reason. I would like to see the data and surveys of hunter Éd instructors regarding this issue
Post by: Little Dave on January 19, 2015, 10:41:40 PM
There are a number of benefits to training children at a young age, particularly when hunting is what the family does and the child eager and highly motivated to participate. Let the parents decide. In my case, I have three sons. Each of my sons went through the hunter safety course before his ninth birthday. My oldest son shot a doe that first year, a buck the next year a few weeks before he turned ten. My youngest son failed the course for poor muzzle control, he's just not ready yet and that's okay.
There are other things to consider: The child protective services agency considers the fact that the children have had firearms safety training in custody and visitation issues. In school the children repeat the virtues of true conservation and push back on some of the fairy tales taught in school.
I don't give a damn what other states have decided in this matter. Parents know their children best. Those several states should look to Washington for guidance on this matter because some parents there are missing out on something special.
Post by: blackdog on January 20, 2015, 08:45:02 AM
Post by: huntinguy on January 20, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Even 40 years ago you had to be 14 to hunt alone in this state. Not sure when that changed. 8 is a good age. Failure rate below that is high unless you start reading the test to them which allows coaching of answers.
When I started hunting the minimum age to be alone was 14, I had been safely handling firearms for 9 years by then. I don't feel that is really the requirement. IF a student can pass the class and the tests I think it is up to the parent when the person (student) can hunt on their own.
Considering only an Instructor should be reading the test to them... that is quite a slap in the face to the HE instructor community. :o
The funding for Hunters Ed. should be coming out of Pitman-Robertson and only a small portion is state money. Since the reason for hunters Ed. is to promote safe hunting... I would have to say the idea of charging for the class is a bad thing.... :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Some may not be aware that the online hunter education courses in Washington already charge $20 and these sessions have the greatest demand. Our online evaluation sessions often fill up with five minutes of registration opening at midnight, and I constantly get requests to make room for more.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
Age for hunter education: we have very few unders the age of eight that successfully complete the course. We are required to accept registrations for anyone, regardless of age. When a parent enrolls his three sons, all under age 8 in one of our courses. we are required to accept them and treat them equally. This usually results in additional work on the instructor's part to have a discussion with the parent, and to document the inevitable student failure that usually occurs. Because of high demand, there is also the fact the the three youths held spots in a class that could have been used by someone older.
I do not support a minimum age for hunter education, but don't have a strong disagreement with it being eight.
Age to hunt alone: I strongly disagree with this. There is no data to justify this.
I-594 exemption for instructor-student transfers: this is a frill added to make the bill more palatable, in my opinion. While WDFW's opinion about these transfers already being legal is questionable, the vast majority of instructors will transfer firearms to students ragardless of whether this bill passes or not. A far better solution would be a separate bill that addresss all transfers that occur in an authorized hunter education course.
As a final note, the information I have received from some knowledgeable sources is that this bill has virtually no chance of passage.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2015, 12:30:07 PM
Here is where we disagree.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
I doubt the fee will effect demand for classes in any way. I support the fee as one method to get a handle on NO SHOWS at traditional classes.
Which will in turn equal more students getting through the classes because seats in the hundreds are not being lost to NO SHOWS.
I have had the same families sign up for a class and than not show several times. Four or five seats lost because of it. If they were forfeiting $20.0 each time they would either get to the class or withdraw so some one else could sign up.
There is a path to withdraw when you sign up on line but most don't care enough to withdraw so someone else can get in. I say those folks should be paying up.
Unless they withdraw 48 hours before. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2015, 12:34:59 PM
BobYou can already charge $20 if you wish. We do and have for many years. Change your fee if you want.
Here is where we disagree.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
I doubt the fee will effect demand for classes in any way. I support the fee as one method to get a handle on NO SHOWS at traditional classes.
Which will in turn equal more students getting through the classes because seats in the hundreds are not being lost to NO SHOWS.
I have had the same families sign up for a class and than not show several times. Four or five seats lost because of it. If they were forfeiting $20.0 each time they would either get to the class or withdraw so some one else could sign up.
There is a path to withdraw when you sign up on line but most don't care enough to withdraw so someone else can get in. I say those folks should be paying up.
Unless they withdraw 48 hours before. :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2015, 01:03:12 PM
BobYou can already charge $20 if you wish. We do and have for many years. Change your fee if you want.
Here is where we disagree.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
I doubt the fee will effect demand for classes in any way. I support the fee as one method to get a handle on NO SHOWS at traditional classes.
Which will in turn equal more students getting through the classes because seats in the hundreds are not being lost to NO SHOWS.
I have had the same families sign up for a class and than not show several times. Four or five seats lost because of it. If they were forfeiting $20.0 each time they would either get to the class or withdraw so some one else could sign up.
There is a path to withdraw when you sign up on line but most don't care enough to withdraw so someone else can get in. I say those folks should be paying up.
Unless they withdraw 48 hours before. :twocents:
That's my point Bob,
I don't want to handle the money. I want the state to collect the money. And for them to do that for a traditional class they need the ok.
If I collect the money I have to account and track the money. And than give the money back to the student when they attend. Got enough to do without that.
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2015, 01:07:19 PM
If the state needs authorization to collect fees, how are they authorized to do it now with online courses?BobYou can already charge $20 if you wish. We do and have for many years. Change your fee if you want.
Here is where we disagree.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
I doubt the fee will effect demand for classes in any way. I support the fee as one method to get a handle on NO SHOWS at traditional classes.
Which will in turn equal more students getting through the classes because seats in the hundreds are not being lost to NO SHOWS.
I have had the same families sign up for a class and than not show several times. Four or five seats lost because of it. If they were forfeiting $20.0 each time they would either get to the class or withdraw so some one else could sign up.
There is a path to withdraw when you sign up on line but most don't care enough to withdraw so someone else can get in. I say those folks should be paying up.
Unless they withdraw 48 hours before. :twocents:
That's my point Bob,
I don't want to handle the money. I want the state to collect the money. And for them to do that for a traditional class they need the ok.
If I collect the money I have to account and track the money. And than give the money back to the student when they attend. Got enough to do without that.
Post by: bobcat on January 20, 2015, 01:13:16 PM
My daughter was eight last summer when I enrolled her in the class. She was not able to finish the class, as a result of her small size.
So from my experience, and maybe this isn't relevant to this thread, but my biggest gripe is that they require students to handle full size shotguns and rifles. I'm not sure why the students can't use the same size firearms that they would be using if they were to go hunting.
I wanted to take my daughter grouse hunting, and I had bought her a single shot 22 rifle that was short and extremely light, only 2 1/2 pounds. She was totally capable of handling and shooting that particular gun safely.
But in the class they had shotguns and rifles that were of a size and weight that were more appropriate for adults. This makes zero sense to me. The instructor told me that they don't know what firearms the students will be using in the future so they need to be sure the student is proficient with everything. Kind of makes sense, sure, but doesn't size matter? If you're teaching a child how to ride a bicycle, do you give them an adult sized bicycle?
It just seemed unfair to me how they discriminate based on size of the student. I just don't understand why it wouldn't make sense to use different size guns for different size people?
Anyway, how about a change in the law to accommodate smaller children? This state does have small game and grouse that can be hunted with 22 rifles. Why is it assumed that everyone with a hunting license will be needing a 20 gauge shotgun and a 243?
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2015, 01:14:11 PM
If the state needs authorization to collect fees, how are they authorized to do it now with online courses?BobYou can already charge $20 if you wish. We do and have for many years. Change your fee if you want.
Here is where we disagree.
I do not support legislation to change the fee. Questioning where the money goes, and how it is spent is a fair topic for discussion but a slightly higher fee would not result in fewer students, in my opinion.
I doubt the fee will effect demand for classes in any way. I support the fee as one method to get a handle on NO SHOWS at traditional classes.
Which will in turn equal more students getting through the classes because seats in the hundreds are not being lost to NO SHOWS.
I have had the same families sign up for a class and than not show several times. Four or five seats lost because of it. If they were forfeiting $20.0 each time they would either get to the class or withdraw so some one else could sign up.
There is a path to withdraw when you sign up on line but most don't care enough to withdraw so someone else can get in. I say those folks should be paying up.
Unless they withdraw 48 hours before. :twocents:
That's my point Bob,
I don't want to handle the money. I want the state to collect the money. And for them to do that for a traditional class they need the ok.
If I collect the money I have to account and track the money. And than give the money back to the student when they attend. Got enough to do without that.
Because they asked for the fees for online classes, Master Hunter, and some others.
They have never requested a fee for Traditional classes.
Funny thing thee legislature wants them to be specific.
You can do it because you are giving it back.
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2015, 01:15:45 PM
So from my experience, and maybe this isn't relevant to this thread, but my biggest gripe is that they require students to handle full size shotguns and rifles. I'm not sure why the students can't use the same size firearms that they would be using if they were to go hunting.The "they" is not WDFW. There is nothing in the policy that specifies the size of firearms. Our course has youth sized firearms available for students.
hunted with 22 rifles. Why is it assumed that everyone with a hunting license will be needing a 20 gauge shotgun and a 243?
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2015, 01:30:52 PM
I think a minimum age of eight would be reasonable, for taking the hunter education course. It seems that it would be a good idea and would eliminate some of the issues.
My daughter was eight last summer when I enrolled her in the class. She was not able to finish the class, as a result of her small size.
So from my experience, and maybe this isn't relevant to this thread, but my biggest gripe is that they require students to handle full size shotguns and rifles. I'm not sure why the students can't use the same size firearms that they would be using if they were to go hunting.
I wanted to take my daughter grouse hunting, and I had bought her a single shot 22 rifle that was short and extremely light, only 2 1/2 pounds. She was totally capable of handling and shooting that particular gun safely.
But in the class they had shotguns and rifles that were of a size and weight that were more appropriate for adults. This makes zero sense to me. The instructor told me that they don't know what firearms the students will be using in the future so they need to be sure the student is proficient with everything. Kind of makes sense, sure, but doesn't size matter? If you're teaching a child how to ride a bicycle, do you give them an adult sized bicycle?
It just seemed unfair to me how they discriminate based on size of the student. I just don't understand why it wouldn't make sense to use different size guns for different size people?
Anyway, how about a change in the law to accommodate smaller children? This state does have small game and grouse that can be hunted with 22 rifles. Why is it assumed that everyone with a hunting license will be needing a 20 gauge shotgun and a 243?
There is no requirement that any student must fire a firearm. Instructors who at range days who are forcing any student to live fire who doesn't wish too with the threat of failure are violating the policy manual and should be reported to the Hunter Ed Unit.
Now having said that. , Most classes are using state guns, youth models. An in my opinion student should be able to handle youth size firearms.
Crickets .22 are not youth size.
I bring in a mixture of my guns and State youth guns so that adults and youth to handle.
If it were up to me every student would be required to fire a youth model firearm. But that is not the case and the reason I do not do Range Days any more.
Post by: Hi-Liter on January 20, 2015, 02:10:13 PM
Post by: fair-chase on January 20, 2015, 02:31:53 PM
There is no requirement that any student must fire a firearm. Instructors who at range days who are forcing any student to live fire who doesn't wish too with the threat of failure are violating the policy manual and should be reported to the Hunter Ed Unit.
Now having said that. , Most classes are using state guns, youth models. An in my opinion student should be able to handle youth size firearms.
Crickets .22 are not youth size.
I bring in a mixture of my guns and State youth guns so that adults and youth to handle.
If it were up to me every student would be required to fire a youth model firearm. But that is not the case and the reason I do not do Range Days any more.
Could have fooled me. I've sat in on 3 classes in the past 5 years and every one of them required shooting to pass the class. You didn't have to shoot accurately, but you did have to shoot. Furthermore, what is the purpose of having online students attend a range day if not for requiring them to shoot?
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2015, 03:43:58 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 20, 2015, 05:23:26 PM
There is no requirement that any student must fire a firearm. Instructors who at range days who are forcing any student to live fire who doesn't wish too with the threat of failure are violating the policy manual and should be reported to the Hunter Ed Unit.
Now having said that. , Most classes are using state guns, youth models. An in my opinion student should be able to handle youth size firearms.
Crickets .22 are not youth size.
I bring in a mixture of my guns and State youth guns so that adults and youth to handle.
If it were up to me every student would be required to fire a youth model firearm. But that is not the case and the reason I do not do Range Days any more.
Could have fooled me. I've sat in on 3 classes in the past 5 years and every one of them required shooting to pass the class. You didn't have to shoot accurately, but you did have to shoot. Furthermore, what is the purpose of having online students attend a range day if not for requiring them to shoot?
It's called Feild Reveiw Day.
Required to keep folks honest. Someone could take the on line coarse for you. But when you show up to the reviw day. The student must pass another 10-15 question test. Demonstrate handling and is encouraged to shoot. But they cannot be forced to pull the trigger as a requirement.
I do not support or conduct the on line coarse or reveiws.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2015, 08:50:20 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 03:23:10 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2015, 08:47:48 AM
Slowly take the kids out of hunting This time 14 next time 18 pretty soon it wont even be in the minds of the next generation,Is this what you are after BT?I dont think it is but with the ideas you have brought to our attention in the last 6 months is starting to make me think so.Then you defend them without any thought about future problems with it. :twocents: The absolute best Idea that the antis came up with was to start with the kids (in schools even)by changing their ideals.Dont eat meat,you chose your friends not your parents,Everyones a winner, etc, etc, etc. Also this is Washington not other states,we dont need to be in line with other states now do we.Everytime you bring one of these discussions up you try to convince us all that its a good idea because other states are doing it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SO WHAT.This can be added to several of the threads you started like the Orange spray paint for trespassing signs.OTHER STATES DO IT. so what.I along with a lot of others wish the other side of the Cascades was another state as well.Please read my posts. I am not the one who is in the legislature starting these bills. I am opposed to the orange spray pain. I have already said that I think 8 should be the minimum age to attend hunter's ed and that's the only really thing I commented on this bill.
If I wasn't posting these bills who else would be???
But sorry, apparently if I post a bill I am suddenly the author :dunno:
Post by: fireweed on January 21, 2015, 08:54:45 AM
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 11:32:08 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2015, 11:39:49 AM
No problem with you putting these up here BT,Never thought you were the author,I have read your posts on the issues dont recall you ever giving reasons for not liking them only reasons to defend such bills IE other states do it.I remember you saying you didnt agree with the orange paint but recall you giving several defenses to it and also using the other states have it card.You are intitled to your op. no problem.I dont think there is reasoning for having a min. age here in WA. you think we should because other states do.Please read my posts because you are putting words in my mouth
1- I never said we should have a minimum age to hunt because others do. I did say other states do have minimum ages to hunt or hunt alone, but I never said we should follow those states. I said the minimum age for hunter's ed should be 8 because the failure rate below that age is high.
2- I never said other states have the orange paint law for trespassing. In fact, it was other memberswho said that. I also said I was in opposition to this bill.
But once again apparently you are seeing things in my posts that others do not.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 11:48:59 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2015, 11:55:00 AM
You may say you are for or against any of the bills you bring up on here but are you? :dunno:Fine Steve. I guess from now on I will only bring up bills that I support. I won't bring up bills that eliminate hunting/fishing rights because I don't support those and I guess I don't want others to get word of those bills. :dunno: I guess its better for me to remain silent while we lose our rights then get others angry so they contact their legislators to prevent the eroding of those rights.
It's amazing to me how every couple days I get a message from a member on here thanking me for bringing these issues to light yet you are the only one who sees negative things in them.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 12:06:34 PM
Post by: Jacque on January 21, 2015, 12:12:45 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 21, 2015, 12:14:05 PM
As far as the 8 year old proposed rule it has been talked about for 25 years. The fact is that younger kids are taking up hundreds of seats every year with zero hope of passing. Yes a few do. But most do not.
So if not a age limit what is the solution???
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
The only one,Wow that makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.I just like everyone else is glad someone brings these up,your not the only one but its nice.You are the only one that brings them up and defends the heck out of them argueing with everyone elses op..If you dont want the opinion of others dont give yours.
Soooooooooooo...............would you rather have someone share this information with us publicly here that may not necessarily be brought to light by anyone else?
Making posts like this is a sure way to drive away a great source of information directly related to the outdoors in our state.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 12:41:18 PM
I have said I appreciate it when members(not just him/her)bring these to our forum.The only one,Wow that makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.I just like everyone else is glad someone brings these up,your not the only one but its nice.You are the only one that brings them up and defends the heck out of them argueing with everyone elses op..If you dont want the opinion of others dont give yours.
Soooooooooooo...............would you rather have someone share this information with us publicly here that may not necessarily be brought to light by anyone else?
Making posts like this is a sure way to drive away a great source of information directly related to the outdoors in our state.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2015, 01:05:52 PM
Have also stated that he/she is entitled to an op. but obviously the ones that dont agree with him/her are not.
I'm just not seeing the source of your concern. Maybe it's in a different thread.
Post by: stevemiller on January 21, 2015, 02:30:34 PM
Post by: Special T on January 21, 2015, 04:10:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 09:51:35 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 23, 2015, 07:04:21 PM
I think some day you will see for profit companies conducting Hunter Education.
As far as the 8 year old proposed rule it has been talked about for 25 years. The fact is that younger kids are taking up hundreds of seats every year with zero hope of passing. Yes a few do. But most do not.
So if not a age limit what is the solution???
This would be the only reason I would support this. I think, instead of a minimum age, maybe charge a $20 or $50 deposit to take the class. All of it is refunded, or maybe $5 kept, if a student passes. If the student fails, it is completely forfeited. This would make parents of the very young ones be very sure that the kid was able and/or motivated to pass. Just a thought.
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2015, 07:07:51 PM
Courses can charge $20 now.I think some day you will see for profit companies conducting Hunter Education.
As far as the 8 year old proposed rule it has been talked about for 25 years. The fact is that younger kids are taking up hundreds of seats every year with zero hope of passing. Yes a few do. But most do not.
So if not a age limit what is the solution???
This would be the only reason I would support this. I think, instead of a minimum age, maybe charge a $20 or $50 deposit to take the class. All of it is refunded, or maybe $5 kept, if a student passes. If the student fails, it is completely forfeited. This would make parents of the very young ones be very sure that the kid was able and/or motivated to pass. Just a thought.
Students that fail usually feel bad enough. I don't think penalizing them further would be a good approach. Unless they're jerks or irresponsible we encourage them to come back when they're a bit older.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 23, 2015, 07:26:11 PM
Yes they can but when the coarse is finished they get the money back.Courses can charge $20 now.I think some day you will see for profit companies conducting Hunter Education.
As far as the 8 year old proposed rule it has been talked about for 25 years. The fact is that younger kids are taking up hundreds of seats every year with zero hope of passing. Yes a few do. But most do not.
So if not a age limit what is the solution???
This would be the only reason I would support this. I think, instead of a minimum age, maybe charge a $20 or $50 deposit to take the class. All of it is refunded, or maybe $5 kept, if a student passes. If the student fails, it is completely forfeited. This would make parents of the very young ones be very sure that the kid was able and/or motivated to pass. Just a thought.
Students that fail usually feel bad enough. I don't think penalizing them further would be a good approach. Unless they're jerks or irresponsible we encourage them to come back when they're a bit older.
I as a instructor already have enough loops to jump through. The students are required to sign up on line for a Tradional class now. This generates the paperwork which is on line and goes to the state after the class concludes all on line.
Since they have to sign up on line they should pay the deposit on line. Leaving the instructor out of the money handling.
Now if instructor goes Bobs way. You have to...
Collect the funds
Hold the funds
Redistribute the funds
And at the end of the year report all the funds and how they were handled for every class.
Bobs way= Instructer responsible.
Pay on line= state responsible.
Bobs way, no legislative action needed.
But for the DFW to collect it for tradional classes and keep the fee, they need permission from Legislature.
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2015, 07:28:27 PM