Post by: danderson on July 07, 2011, 06:46:23 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 07, 2011, 06:51:58 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on July 07, 2011, 08:49:38 AM
Post by: steen on July 07, 2011, 10:21:27 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 07, 2011, 10:36:24 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on July 07, 2011, 10:40:53 AM
How many other hunter education instructors are baffled by the new changes to the program.what are they? :dunno:
Post by: arrowflinger on July 07, 2011, 11:28:18 AM
remember, Just hear say.
Post by: CedarPants on July 07, 2011, 11:35:34 AM
I see you are from Orting - I'll be there next weekend. Try and save me some good BBQ'n weather :chuckle:
Post by: arrowflinger on July 07, 2011, 11:38:25 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 07, 2011, 11:41:42 AM
Post by: leed on July 07, 2011, 12:23:40 PM
Post by: arrowflinger on July 07, 2011, 01:08:09 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 28, 2012, 07:43:11 PM
I expect them to tell everyone at IST in Yakima and have a completion date of July 2013. After that you will never touch a working firearm in Hunter Ed Class. They also want to do away with any live fire days.
They are spending thousands on firearms with no firing pin.
I am told only on set of five per class.
So that is it for me, when the final word comes that I am not allowed to use working firearms in my classes than I am done,
Post by: danderson on January 28, 2012, 08:34:26 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2012, 09:02:18 PM
Post by: wraithen on January 28, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 28, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Well it is official. I got a letter from Director Anderson and he fully supports the move to remove all working Firearms from Hunter Education Classes.
I expect them to tell everyone at IST in Yakima and have a completion date of July 2013. After that you will never touch a working firearm in Hunter Ed Class. They also want to do away with any live fire days.
They are spending thousands on firearms with no firing pin.
I am told only on set of five per class.
So that is it for me, when the final word comes that I am not allowed to use working firearms in my classes than I am done,
I quit years ago! They make it so hard to be an instructor, I am surprised anyone bothers. One of the things that I thought was great when I taught was that we could bring in all kinds of firearms, things that most students do not get a chance to see. My two biggest beefs were having to teach a class EVERY year and having to do the worthless instructor training (teaching us how to teach). Oh yeah, I have a Masters in Teaching, I think I had more teaching training and experience than most of the administrators of the program. :twocents:
Thank goodness for all of you instructors that can, and do, put up with all of the State's crap.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 28, 2012, 09:48:13 PM
Live fire is not being eliminated.
Yet
I was told by a staff member that live fire will be the next to go.
Post by: Bob33 on January 28, 2012, 09:51:35 PM
That is not going to happen.Live fire is not being eliminated.
Yet
I was told by a staff member that live fire will be the next to go.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 28, 2012, 09:56:10 PM
Its time for all hunter education instructors to let there voices be heard, the program will not work without live fire training, I cannot continue instructing if this becomes reality, the enviros have taken over the hunter education program, we should have a poll asking our fellow sportsman for a no confinance vote :bdid:.
It is a done deal. Some instructors according to Anderson are already doing it. Once Mik left the down hill slide started. We went from a guy who would question policies to a commissioned officer who takes orders. The job Mik held for years has been filled at least twice now.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 28, 2012, 09:59:51 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 29, 2012, 06:13:07 AM
Post by: Oldguy on February 06, 2012, 09:06:53 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 06, 2012, 09:20:32 PM
Post by: Arteman on February 07, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 02:30:08 PM
I'm glad then I got my daughter who was 7 last year through the class already and passed. She is excelled in the knowledge and respect of weapons more so than many other children her age. I like that she got the opportunity to handle many different weapons of different working actions that I don't have in my own gun collection during her class, and liked the fact that even after passing the booklet she still had to carry a gun through a field course, and shoot a live 223 without me to pass hunters safety. Maybe one of the complaints is the cost of live ammo, idk, I donated two boxes to her instructor.Live fire is not going away.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 02:41:40 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 02:45:57 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 02:50:06 PM
What decision?
To change
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
First off, no changes have been made. The state is evaluating many issues: consistency of instruction, finding ways to reach more potential hunters, liability risks, and so forth.What decision?
To change
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 02:58:47 PM
Well it is official. I got a letter from Director Anderson and he fully supports the move to remove all working Firearms from Hunter Education Classes.
I guess I am confused then. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 03:09:35 PM
Use of non-functioning firearms for classroom instruction (not live fire) is being considered.
I got that much of it, now back to my original question. What is the rational behind it?
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 03:12:21 PM
Why do they have to have a rationale for that? Why wouldn't they?
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 03:16:53 PM
Let me ask you the question: if you ran a business, wouldn't you evaluate ways to improve the consistency of your product or service, to reduce your liability, and to attract more customers?
Why do they have to have a rationale for that? Why wouldn't they?
Down Kujo, I simply asked a question that I did not see explained earlier in the thread and was wondering. A simple "liability" would have sufficed and kept your blood pressure down. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 07, 2012, 03:17:44 PM
Well it is official. I got a letter from Director Anderson and he fully supports the move to remove all working Firearms from Hunter Education Classes.
I expect them to tell everyone at IST in Yakima and have a completion date of July 2013. After that you will never touch a working firearm in Hunter Ed Class. They also want to do away with any live fire days.
They are spending thousands on firearms with no firing pin.
I am told only on set of five per class.
So that is it for me, when the final word comes that I am not allowed to use working firearms in my classes than I am done,
Stay in it for the kids. You don't do this for the WDFW. You do it for the future of hunting. I'm not sure all of this information is accurate, anyway. The kids need you to continue teaching them about our sport. Don't quit. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2012, 03:18:59 PM
Well it is official. I got a letter from Director Anderson and he fully supports the move to remove all working Firearms from Hunter Education Classes.
I expect them to tell everyone at IST in Yakima and have a completion date of July 2013. After that you will never touch a working firearm in Hunter Ed Class. They also want to do away with any live fire days.
They are spending thousands on firearms with no firing pin.
I am told only on set of five per class.
So that is it for me, when the final word comes that I am not allowed to use working firearms in my classes than I am done,
Stay in it for the kids. You don't do this for the WDFW. You do it for the future of hunting. I'm not sure all of this information is accurate, anyway. The kids need you to continue teaching them about our sport. Don't quit. :tup:
+1 :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2012, 03:25:44 PM
I did post earlier that "First off, no changes have been made. The state is evaluating many issues: consistency of instruction, finding ways to reach more potential hunters, liability risks, and so forth."Let me ask you the question: if you ran a business, wouldn't you evaluate ways to improve the consistency of your product or service, to reduce your liability, and to attract more customers?
Why do they have to have a rationale for that? Why wouldn't they?
Down Kujo, I simply asked a question that I did not see explained earlier in the thread and was wondering. A simple "liability" would have sufficed and kept your blood pressure down. :chuckle:
I am quite certain some changes will be made, and I'm pretty sure I won't agree with all of them. I'm positive some instructors won't agree with all of them. There are some instructors who don't want any changes, period.
I'm going to wait and see what the changes are. Rather than throw my toys down and go home, I'll try to find a way to work around anything I find distasteful and still teach students about hunting and firearm safety. If the state mandates that all firearms must be inert, I suspect I could still teach firearm safety using a gun without a firing pin for classroom purposes.
It really is unfortunate that any change will result in the loss of some good instructors, because in the end we all suffer if more hunters are not joining our ranks in the future.
So... :brew:
Post by: Special T on February 07, 2012, 04:49:45 PM
This pic is an example of what every business man already knows.
Another business 101 that the WDFW fails at is that it is less costly to keep a customer than to go out and find a new one. the rule of thumb is it costs about 7-8times as much to find and sell a new customer than keep an existing customer happy and purchasing from you.
The WDFW is so disconnected from reality i do not think they even have a clear path/goal to work tward... I get the feeling they run around like chicken little crying the sky is falling, trying to do anything to keep hunter's $$$ coming in...
Post by: steen on February 07, 2012, 06:29:44 PM
Post by: Cascade_fisher on February 07, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 09, 2012, 08:05:10 PM
I did post earlier that "First off, no changes have been made. The state is evaluating many issues: consistency of instruction, finding ways to reach more potential hunters, liability risks, and so forth."Let me ask you the question: if you ran a business, wouldn't you evaluate ways to improve the consistency of your product or service, to reduce your liability, and to attract more customers?
Why do they have to have a rationale for that? Why wouldn't they?
Down Kujo, I simply asked a question that I did not see explained earlier in the thread and was wondering. A simple "liability" would have sufficed and kept your blood pressure down. :chuckle:
I am quite certain some changes will be made, and I'm pretty sure I won't agree with all of them. I'm positive some instructors won't agree with all of them. There are some instructors who don't want any changes, period.
I'm going to wait and see what the changes are. Rather than throw my toys down and go home, I'll try to find a way to work around anything I find distasteful and still teach students about hunting and firearm safety. If the state mandates that all firearms must be inert, I suspect I could still teach firearm safety using a gun without a firing pin for classroom purposes.
It really is unfortunate that any change will result in the loss of some good instructors, because in the end we all suffer if more hunters are not joining our ranks in the future.
So... :brew:
I am sorry but I disagree. The decision has been made it is a done deal. The Dept. has already decided to ban all working firearms from Hunter ed classes and any one who says no change has been made is not being truthful. The change has been made in the mind of the department and it will be done. They just have not announced it yet. How do I know? I have a letter in my hand from the Director. One of my teaching team received a call from Sgt. Kline because he wrote the director about the change, That instructor, a very good one has already quit the program. I have already told Dan Boes that I will not teach classes under this requirement and when they tell me I can no longer bring working firearms into classes I will be done after 17 years. My teaching team consits of 12 instructors who will all make their own decision.
As I understand it some instructor some where transported a loaded handgun to a class and opened up to expose a live round. Excuse me but isn't it the instructors primary purpose to insure that do sent happen. Instead of dealing with that instructor every instructor must live under this requirement or leave the program.
Trauma center around the country were having problems with leaving items in patients, They did not stop operating. They came up with simple required check list to insure those things never happen. The same could have been done here.
Even more irritating to me is there are instructors out there who just buckle down and do whatever is asked. Never mind the effect it may have on preventing accidents down the road. I bring in 20 or more firearms of assorted shapes and sizes the first two classes to let students handle a selection of rifles and shotguns. The 2nd week we have only shotguns mostly state issue as the students will do skills and range with a shotgun. because we teach at a shotgun range. This is for 25 students.
Now the dept is going to limit us to a set of five non working firearms of different actions for 25 students. heck we have 12 students on a skill coarse at one time.
Students enjoy the different arms and look foreward to handling them. Many accidents are because people do not check firearms to see if they are loaded or dint know how. In my mind different arms by different makers goes a long way to solving that.
This is not about if you can teach a class with five fake guns. It is about Should we teach a class with five fake guns. Sorry I say no way.
The law says that they have to go through 10 hrs of certified training. It do sent say it has to be a state run program. Maybe it is time to become NRA certified and put on classes. That way we would not have to put up with these dumb requirements.
yes dumb because Hunter Ed Instructors have a excellent safety record over many years. There no reason for these anti gun tactics.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 09, 2012, 09:05:27 PM
If you are concerned direct your letters to the Director. It wont do any good but it is better than rolling over like a whipped puppy.
Post by: Special T on February 09, 2012, 09:29:33 PM
It always takes less effort to influence change from the inside of an organization than to start all over on the outside.. Just remember that is how the Anti Gun/hunting crowd has co-opted our WDFW, from the inside... :twocents:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 09, 2012, 09:49:40 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 09, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
Special T - great graph, seems to explain the problem pretty well.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 09, 2012, 11:27:49 PM
uccessfully Sent
The following message was sent to Senator Kevin Ranker (D), Representative Kristine Lytton (D) and Representative Jeff Morris (D) of the 40th district.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:
Senator Kevin Ranker
CC:
Representative Kristine Lytton
Representative Jeff Morris
FROM:
Mr. Bobby Beddome
STREET ADDRESS:
1427 Walter St
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-4852
EMAIL:
ghost.hunter.1@hotmail.com
PHONE:
(360) 661 - 6704 Ext: 00
SUBJECT:
Fake gun Policy
MESSAGE:
Sir
My name is Bobby A. Beddome. I am a volunteer Hunter Education Instructor for the Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.
I teach Hunter Education classes in Skagit County and have done so for 17 years. I have a teaching team of 8-12 instructors.
I a writing to voice my concern about a new DFW policy which I think will in the long run endanger the public and increase firearm accidents in this state.
As part of the classroom instruction, instructors have instructed students with a large selection working firearms in hunter ed classes across this state since the begining. Instructors have a excellent safety record and have trained thousands of washington residents without incident.
The Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is on the threshod of banning all working firearms from Hunter ed classes state wide. Instead instructors are to use five non working firearms from one arms company. Currently in my classes we bring in 20 or more working firearms of differnt ,sizes ,shapes,and makes. This allows students to learn the safe handling of many types of firearms. Because of this wide range of firearms students get a broader training session.
Why would we want less training? You don't teach a person to drive with a fake car.
Instructors throughout the state are upset over this change.Not because it is change but because provides a lower standard of training.
I for one cannot live under this policy and will stop teaching classes as soon as I am restricted from using working firearms in classes. My conscious and dedication to safe gun handling will not allow me to dumb down my classes. In 1985 my best friend and hunting partner was shot. I know first hand about safe gun handling. This policy if allowed will forever cheapen the instruction students currently get in this state.
Regardless where you stand on firearms, More training is better than less training.
I ask that you ask questions about this policy not only with the Dept. but with instructors on the ground.
Thank you
Bobby A. Beddome
RESPONSE:
No response required by the sender.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 07:38:13 AM
Use of nonfunctional firearms for classroom instruction (not live fire) is being considered.
ok
If liability is the issue, Than tell me where is the most danger , in the classroom WITH NO LIVE AMMO or on the range with live ammo.
Yes live fire is not required. But it is encouraged. In fact I was asked by a staff member "If you had to cut your class hours where would you cut them"
My answer was I would cut Range day. The staff member said "that bothers me."
As the policy stands today a chief instructor can require his students to attend and shoot at a range day. It is at his or her discreation.
If liability is the issue it would make sense to say No more range days.
The less variety in firearms the students are exposed to lessens the training they receive. And cheapens the program.
Post by: JLS on February 10, 2012, 07:48:15 AM
Think about this for a minute though. As a parent, I'm enrolling my kids in a class to learn about hunter safety. Obviously, the hunter safety class is only a small component of the training and instruction my kids will receive about firearms safety, shooting, and hunting.
Is it absolutely necessary to have live firearms in a classroom, which opens up the possibility of a child, parent, or instructor being hurt or killed? Sure, the safety record has been excellent. However, an instructor in ID discharged a firearm in a classroom. What if someone was killed? What if your kid was killed?
I am a little mixed on this. If my child is required to take a class, I expect it to be in the safest environment possible. Is it the state's responsibility to teach my kids about firearms and live fire? No, it's mine. It is the state's responsibility to fairly evaluate my kids' firearm handling practices and determine if they meet a safety standard to be allowed in the field.
I have taught plenty of courses that did not involve live fire. Yes, it is nice, but it is not a necessity. If inert firearms are available, and they have working actions like a live firearm, what is the harm in using them instead of a live gun? I don't see this as dumbing down, I see it as looking at options to prevent an accident in the classroom. They've already happened, and will happen again at some point.
I am not worried that my child will have the opportunity to look at a break action shotgun in Hunter Ed. I want them taught and evaluated on the basics of firearm safety, which they have already been drilled on and will continue to be drilled on.
I don't see this as a slap at instructors at all. I see this as making the class as safe as one can and reducing liability. Ammo has mysterious ways of finding itself into places it shouldn't be. We all know that.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 07:51:18 AM
First off, no changes have been made. The state is evaluating many issues: consistency of instruction, finding ways to reach more potential hunters, liability risks, and so forth.What decision?
To change
If you mean there is no change till you tell instructors maybe.
If you mean the Dept. has not already commit ed to the changes than I have to disagree. The Dept. has decided on the changes and will implement them without any discussion from the majority of instructors.
Let me be clear I am not against changes. Uniform class hours, uniform range days,uniform testing no problem. I am against the changes that effect hands on classroom training. And the discretion of the instructor to teach the very best class he can. Limiting the types of firearms in the classroom, limits my ability provide varied gun handling experience.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 08:25:48 AM
I understand and appreciate the passion with which the instructors teach these classes. The good far outweigh the bad.
Think about this for a minute though. As a parent, I'm enrolling my kids in a class to learn about hunter safety. Obviously, the hunter safety class is only a small component of the training and instruction my kids will receive about firearms safety, shooting, and hunting.
Is it absolutely necessary to have live firearms in a classroom, which opens up the possibility of a child, parent, or instructor being hurt or killed? Sure, the safety record has been excellent. However, an instructor in ID discharged a firearm in a classroom. What if someone was killed? What if your kid was killed?
I am a little mixed on this. If my child is required to take a class, I expect it to be in the safest environment possible. Is it the state's responsibility to teach my kids about firearms and live fire? No, it's mine. It is the state's responsibility to fairly evaluate my kids' firearm handling practices and determine if they meet a safety standard to be allowed in the field.
I have taught plenty of courses that did not involve live fire. Yes, it is nice, but it is not a necessity. If inert firearms are available, and they have working actions like a live firearm, what is the harm in using them instead of a live gun? I don't see this as dumbing down, I see it as looking at options to prevent an accident in the classroom. They've already happened, and will happen again at some point.
I am not worried that my child will have the opportunity to look at a break action shotgun in Hunter Ed. I want them taught and evaluated on the basics of firearm safety, which they have already been drilled on and will continue to be drilled on.
I don't see this as a slap at instructors at all. I see this as making the class as safe as one can and reducing liability. Ammo has mysterious ways of finding itself into places it shouldn't be. We all know that.
I want to be clear. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT LIVE FIRE. Live fire range day can go away right now and I would not complain one bit.
The vast majority of students coming through my classes do not fit your neat little mold. Kids with one parent, kids with no parents, back in the day when I was growing up there was a loaded firearm behind every door and parents moms and dads knew how to handle them. That is not the case now.
Classes are filled with folks who have never hunted and never handled a firearm in their life.
The whole issue for ammo in a classroom could be addressed with a mandatory check list. Two instructors required to sign the list every class. Your kid could get killed on the school bus, in drivers ed,on the football field, riding a skate board, living life. all more likely than in a Hunter ed class.
The real problem is the state is to willy nilly with its instructors. They want to take the touch feel approach. An instructor introduces live ammo into the classroom should not be teaching Hunter Ed. If I did it I would quit.
But there is still an instructor teaching that did just that.
And this is not Idaho
A variety of firarms with different features for the student to experience is far better training than only seeing five guns by the same manufacturer.
And a far better use of Pitman Robinson funds than spending $1500.00 per set of five for every teaching team in the state. For fake guns.
Post by: JLS on February 10, 2012, 08:41:51 AM
Post by: Cascade_fisher on February 10, 2012, 08:44:14 AM
Showing non-working firearms is no big deal but 5 is ridiculous. I totally agree with you. I also believe that showing the variety of firearms is key and 5 doesn't cut it. The group I help with does not have any desire to show an AR-15/ AK and I think this is a disservice to the students as many homes have one of these tacti-tools around. I feel that the muzzle loader section could be decreased substantially to show a wider array of more common firearms.
I hope you don't leave after 17 years for the good of the students that would feel the result. The changes could just be the new minimum which may allow your group (and hopefully others) to add more time requirements and use that for gun handling/ exposure. I feel that this is the area that gives the most useful safety education. It may come to your group requiring a NRA gun handling class, to be offered at the same day/ time as week 2 and delay Hunter Ed by a week for students to take this. It is problematic but I think a collaborative effort at the IST is our best chance.
Regards,
Post by: Oldguy on February 10, 2012, 08:54:44 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2012, 08:57:51 AM
Because some class firearms already are, or will be made "inert" those classes may not need any of the five-firearm sets. This will allow other classes to be provided with more than one set. In the vast majority of instances there will be more than five firearms available for classes that require them.
One issue is how "inert" will be defined if this goes forward.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2012, 08:58:32 AM
I don't think that is necessarily the best course of action, however how do we get OUR WDFW to recognise our needs as hunters? I feel a strange disconnect between me the hunter, and the organisation WDFW that is managing and "promoting" our sport. I am often at a loss how we can send them a loud clear message that they will listen to for more than just one second, on one issue...
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 09:18:22 AM
"Showing nonworking firearms is no big deal but 5 is ridiculous."
Because some class firearms already are, or will be made "inert" those classes may not need any of the five-firearm sets. This will allow other classes to be provided with more than one set. In the vast majority of instances there will be more than five firearms available for classes that require them.
One issue is how "inert" will be defined if this goes forward.
Non working is a big deal. 10 guns the same in the classroom is still dumming down the class. I am not in to ARs or any of that. But I should be able to bring any fire am in that I feel pertains to the class. I am not saying range days or skills I am saying show tell and touch if you want.
As far as IST there will be no discussion there. Instructors will stand up and voice on the issues but that will change nothing. The issue has been decided
it is finshed. They have already made the decision.
I have to go with my heart . I love teaching Hunter ed and I pride myself on teaching a safe informative class. i pride myself on being able to teach very young folks how to safely handle firearm. And hope it sticks with them.
But to me real guns are the key. they have the mystry to them that attracts the students intrest. I am not lowering myself to teach with fake guns.
Save the money and the instructors who are left can use broom handles.
Post by: Bob33 on February 10, 2012, 09:22:31 AM
The WDFW seems to not pay attention to the slow demise of the sport due to recruitment.Please don't misunderstand this, because I am also quite critical of certain actions, but "the WDFW" is a rather broad brush. There are certainly many, many fine people within the organization that care about hunting now, and in the future. Unfortunately, there are also some that consider their jobs as nothing more than a paycheck, and worse yet there are some that are most likely anti-hunting. I think the issues we're discussing with hunter education are driven by risk-averse attorneys. Of course, they're paid to reduce risk and to a point that is a good and necessary function. When the bad outdoes the good, we all lose.
Don't give up on this fight, or any other that preserves hunting for us and future generations.
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2012, 09:33:34 AM
Most of WA state gov is top heavy. I believe the WDFW isn't much different. :twocents:
Post by: NoBark on February 10, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
Get that idea out of your head. They are NOT here to 'promote' hunting. That is not their mandate. They are mandated to administer hunting and fishing and ALL outdoor flora and fauna stuff in the state. Like Bob33 said. Some good ones but also some 'who-cares' ones.
The Commission is not made up of hunters, and they are not looking to 'promote' hunting.
So, don't waste your time trying to figure out why they don't. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2012, 09:40:55 AM
Post by: lokidog on February 10, 2012, 09:54:26 AM
This, to me, is the key part of why this is a bad idea. It makes me wonder who is getting kickbacks from the company that will supply the non-functioning guns to the Dept.?
Many HS students do not grow up in hunting households and many did not even grow up in a house where guns were present. These are the students that will lose the most by not being able to see/handle a wide variety of firearms in a controlled classroom setting. It is not as much of an issue in a house like JLS's or my own where the kids have grown up learning about firearm safety.
It appears, by looking at the previously posted requirements for firearms training, that a private group should be able to administer a hunter/firearm safety class as long as when tested, the students can demonstrate that they meet the state's expectations. Maybe the state needs some competition?
Post by: JLS on February 10, 2012, 10:26:34 AM
If I give a kid a gun he or she has never seen before, and that kid obeys all four rules, there should be no issue in talking them through how to work the firearm. I care that they keep their finger of the trigger and show safe muzzle control.
Law enforcement professionals use inert firearms for training exercises all the time. I teach with "red guns" and don't feel I've lowered myself because of it.
I am not saying that exposure to many different makes/models is a bad thing. I don't see it as a huge issue in the grand scheme of things. Your mileage may vary.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 10:30:39 AM
Regardless of the type of action, or whether a firearm is fully functional vs. inert, the four basic rules of firearm safety never change. I honestly don't care of Little Johnny next door sees a Marlin lever action .22, so long as he learns and strictly obeys the four rules.
If I give a kid a gun he or she has never seen before, and that kid obeys all four rules, there should be no issue in talking them through how to work the firearm. I care that they keep their finger of the trigger and show safe muzzle control.
Law enforcement professionals use inert firearms for training exercises all the time. I teach with "red guns" and don't feel I've lowered myself because of it.
I am not saying that exposure to many different makes/models is a bad thing. I don't see it as a huge issue in the grand scheme of things. Your mileage may vary.
Law enforcemet and military do not train 7 year olds.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 10:33:46 AM
Post by: Cascade_fisher on February 10, 2012, 10:36:59 AM
Post by: Special T on February 10, 2012, 11:22:52 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 10, 2012, 01:17:48 PM
I agree with GH. LEO and military training is for older people. The young children in HE would not benefit from RED guns as that would, in my opinion, keep the video game aspect of the gun in their mind which is a key component to dismiss. Real firearms have that mystique which holds their attention.
Well said
Post by: buckfvr on February 10, 2012, 01:34:46 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 11, 2012, 05:55:22 AM
CF In understand where you are coming from... The WDFW seems to not pay attention to the slow demise of the sport due to recruitment. Do you think they would pay more attention to a large scale walk off?
I don't think that is necessarily the best course of action, however how do we get OUR WDFW to recognise our needs as hunters? I feel a strange disconnect between me the hunter, and the organisation WDFW that is managing and "promoting" our sport. I am often at a loss how we can send them a loud clear message that they will listen to for more than just one second, on one issue...
I worry about this too. The last thing I personally want to see is a mass "up yours" to wildlife, with herds of instructors deciding to sit it out or quit altogether. You instructors are the life blood of our sport, awfully patient and exercise the utmost of diplomacy IMHO. I cringe at the thought of longtime instructors hanging up their vests.
The "we know better than you" attitude from WDFW on this is maddening. Risk management teaches us to weigh the associated quantitative risk associated with any task. My fear is that their risk assessment has been fused with political bias, allowing this bias to contaminate the resulting changes; the end of functional guns in the classroom.
Why would a school district ever allow kids to play sports, or a playground be installed at a school? Baseball has kids throwing a hard ball directly at each other. Ever go to a track meet and watch a javelin or discus throw? Imagine how wildlifes mentality would change this. How many kids have dropped dead from heart failure as they round second base? Nationally, how many kids have been killed in an automobile accident on their way to firearms instruction class? For safety sake maybe the classes can be eliminated altogether and turned into an online resource? (Of course I am kidding.)
My point is that life does have it's risks. I still hold that safety is the point of the class for a reason. That to properly teach safety, there is no better way than to hand a real gun to a child, and let the instructor do their job, not to pretend that they are teaching about it.
Post by: Bob33 on February 11, 2012, 06:55:36 AM
Unfortunately our society does not view all deaths as equal. Hundreds if not thousands of Americas die everyday from automobiles, forks, sports injuries, and all sorts of other causes, and yet go unnoticed except by a few. However, a single death by a firearm gets national attention. The "if it saves just one life" line is a crock, because they really don't mean it. It's only "if it saves a single death by something I don' t like".
The shooting of a the hiker by the 14 year old bear hunter a few years ago had far reaching effects on the view of hunting and hunters by many.
The "devils advocate" argument about this issue will be something like this: if you are given responsibility to teach a group of individuals how to safely handle firearms, and yet you do not have functioning fireams to work with, are you not creative enough or capable enough to do so?
I understand why there is a concern. Firearms must be handled with extreme caution. In my opinion the solution should not be a complete ban on working firearms, but rather a reasoned set of policies and guidelines that reduce potential risks to a very low level yet provide students with appropriate learning experiences. I'm convinced that is possible to achieve.
Post by: danderson on February 11, 2012, 08:50:37 AM
The new on-line registration process for students is in effect this year and I have some real issues with the overall process, its real confusing,, my students are having a hard time with it , my class enrollment is way down because of it and I blame the new computer on-line process for this, again if its not broken don't mess with it, not everyone has access to a computer. We instructors volunteer our time to teaching because we want to pass on our skills to a new generation, and without new generations of educated hunters we loose.
We will adopt to the new format and registration process whatever it ends up being because were not willing to throw in the towel not yet, knowing how the state operates and the fact that changing times with everything going to electronic computerized gizmo's for getting anything done these days is the future, but don't throw out everything that's worked in the past.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 11, 2012, 09:27:31 AM
I have been a certified hunter education instructor for 9 years and lead instructor for the last 6, we have a great teaching team that combined has around 50 years experience teaching hunter education, theres one thing that everyone can agree on and that is we don't like change, if its not broken don't mess with it, our classes are full of excited Young adults wanting to learn safe gun handling skills and practices, and everything else that goes into the required content of the class, we have the local wildlife enforcement officer attend our class and he helps instruct the wildlife laws, rules bag limits etc. section of the required elements, and of coarse has his service weapon, another one of my instructors is a state patrolman, he also carries his, I had a federal agent as an instructor for a few years, if there on duty of coarse they have a firearm. For a few years we held our class in a school, that had a zero tolerance for guns, we were allowed to bring guns into the school because of the importance of education, we need to educate young people on the safe handling of firearms and what better way is to expose them to lots of different models, rifles, handguns, shotguns, and actions, what a concept, it works theres nothing to fix.
The new on-line registration process for students is in effect this year and I have some real issues with the overall process, its real confusing,, my students are having a hard time with it , my class enrollment is way down because of it and I blame the new computer on-line process for this, again if its not broken don't mess with it, not everyone has access to a computer. We instructors volunteer our time to teaching because we want to pass on our skills to a new generation, and without new generations of educated hunters we loose.
We will adopt to the new format and registration process whatever it ends up being because were not willing to throw in the towel not yet, knowing how the state operates and the fact that changing times with everything going to electronic computerized gizmo's for getting anything done these days is the future, but don't throw out everything that's worked in the past.
I agree with your concept. I have accepted all the changes over 17 years and made them work for me. And I cannot think of another change that riles me more than No Working Fireams in class. I have made the on line work but you are right students call me all the time about trouble with it. I refer everyone to the dept. Because they created it they should handle the problems with it. Instructors who are teaching in rual areas may not have the problems but anyone along I-5 gets a lot of Students wanting in. I turn folks away every class. And Dan Boes has said that he gets a larger volume of requests for Skagit Classes than any other.
I too taught in schools, senior center,sporting goods store, never ever a problem with working arms. And with the exception of one guy in this state who couldnt hold up his end there has been no problem.
They are running from shadows and that dosent sit well with most gun guys. They could have handled this with a lighter hand as far as policy. No working firearms is over kill in my opinion and I can not work under it.
There are guys like you that will. But sooner or later a unnessary change will come along and you will have had enough. I have two grandsons to get thru. If they hold off till July 2013 for full impelment of this policy I will be able to get one of my boys through. After that I will not step into a hunter ed class again except to get my 2nd grandson through.
They could have saved all the money they spent . You can buy five straw brooms for gun handling for $30.00. I am not teaching with a $300.00 clubb.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 13, 2012, 11:25:42 AM
For me I have put my team on notice. They will make their own minds up. But right now it looks like half and half
Post by: woodswalker on February 13, 2012, 03:46:25 PM
I dont know what happened to my lengthy post back about page 3...
But the short version is that i have more than 5 kids at a time in the field course. Usually have 3-4 groups of 3 outside with another minimum of 3 students on the handling drill stations - EACH of which has a selection of rifles and shotguns to cover all the action types....on the days when i have heavy student handling usage I have no less than 25 of MY guns on deck as well as a few from other instuctors.. Most of those are MINE, many purchased solely for the HE classes but some that i use regularly for myself.
I cant imagine the bottleneck and strangulation of the class flow with 1-2 sets of finely machined clubs. I have purchased or made up a comprehensive set of dummy rounds for every caliber represented (kids will have 300 Savage, .308, 30-06 and 7/8mm dummy cartridges in one dish for the handling drills where they identify the caliber and ammo...and firearms in those calibers too.) I want the kids to HAVE the similar calibers and have to READ the chambering information from the firearm and also the HEADSTAMP.
The electronic signups have impacted class sizes as has the demise of the hardware and sporting goods stores locally (who used to handle signups for alternating classes and sell licenses and tags) and I dont see things getting any better.
I'm seriously considering sitting this out a bit and NOT being a chief instructor for a while. Just teach some segments and go home. Or just hang it up all together. The tighter the noose on teaching methods it gets, the less fun and spontaneous the classes...and more boring for the students. I'm waiting for us to have to teach the book in chapter order and basically read it out loud to the class. I'll be quit for sure then.
I'm not sure how to make Oly LISTEN to the instructors, they sure have seemed tone deaf since Mik and Tom left...Dan is decent about most things and Chuck on the east side is pretty cool to work with..but still...we seem to have no real voice.
Post by: Rob on February 13, 2012, 04:55:39 PM
It is going to be an interesting meeting in Yakima next month!
BTW, in my classes we teach in the classroom with non-live firearms and ammo, and we have a live fire session with "real" guns - the students are not told the classroom guns are disabled. They seem to learn just as well as if they were "live".
I agree that it is a foolish rule, but In my mind, walking away becuse they want you to use disabled guns in the classroom is cutting your nose off to spite your face... It would be a shame to punish the future generation of hunters to make a point to WDFW regarding a policy change. But that is just my opinion.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 13, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Well, I'll say this...
It is going to be an interesting meeting in Yakima next month!
BTW, in my classes we teach in the classroom with non-live firearms and ammo, and we have a live fire session with "real" guns - the students are not told the classroom guns are disabled. They seem to learn just as well as if they were "live".
I agree that it is a foolish rule, but In my mind, walking away becuse they want you to use disabled guns in the classroom is cutting your nose off to spite your face... It would be a shame to punish the future generation of hunters to make a point to WDFW regarding a policy change. But that is just my opinion.
I here the argument what about the kids all the time. It is just not about kids. A instructor has to be interested in what he is doing. I have no intrest in fake guns. many instructors do skills with rifles and shotguns. We do not, we teach at a shotgun range we need more tha two shotguns to do skills with and to get students ready for live fire. And classes are not made up entirely of kids over half are adults. It is not just foolish its up side down. The real liability is on the range not in the classrrom. Get rid of the range and leave the classroom alone.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 13, 2012, 11:26:22 PM
Post by: Brownarola on February 14, 2012, 08:51:44 AM
Why? It costs a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.
We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 09:25:50 AM
If you have not figured it out by now, it's all about the insurance. What do you think would happen if someone get's injured in a hunter ed class? They are going to go after the state. The problem really isn't the state. It's our government not stepping in stopping frivolous law suits and putting a cap on judgement amounts. With that said, as insurance rates continue to explode, and with the budget shortfalls, the wdfw has to make cuts somewhere and if eliminating live fire exercises and replacing functioning firearms with clones than that's what they are going to do. They have to keep the costs down. Of course anyone who has ever taught hunter education knows you only have x number of hours to introduce safe firearm handling practices to students. After that it's on the student to continue to learn and practice safe firearm handling techniques. Looking at this fact, should a hunter education instructor truly be responsible for teaching students how to safely handle firearms or should this responsibility fall back on the people who should have been instilling these practices long before the student ever attends a firearm safety class; the parents? In today's society we seem to want the government to do more and more for us. We want them to deliver the mail, take care of us when we retire and now we want them to handle our medical needs. In addition we want them to give our children an education and teach them how to handle firearms safely. Then if they screw up we go on a witch hunt and we want to make the government pay. Sadly enough we only have ourselves to blame and in my opinion if things don't change I think you are going to see a switch to 100% online certification and the elimination of traditional hunter education all together.
Why? It cost's a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.
We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.
This is the direction that certifications and licensing is headed in every state. I now renew my professional licenses online and even renew my first aid training online. Not only is it more cost effective, it is more convenient for everyone. With that said, I think the state should continue some sort of live fire excersize for certification.
Another item I would mention, I am an NRA certified rangemaster. I called the Olympia HE office and volunteered to help with the live fire excersizes for online HE students in Stevens County, but have never recieved a call back from Olympia. Is there a surplus of HE help or am I not qualified? A call back would have been nice. ;)
Post by: Brownarola on February 14, 2012, 09:46:21 AM
Here is a link to the waiver.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/HunterEd/Documents/Waiver.pdf
Post by: ghosthunter on February 14, 2012, 12:36:01 PM
This is interesting.. This is how Delaware is addressing Hunter Education. They require a signed insurance release. Funny. I recommended this a year ago and was basically ignored. http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/11/hunter-education-program-requires-live-gun-fire/
Here is a link to the waiver.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/HunterEd/Documents/Waiver.pdf
There is no reason we could not do that here. They already get several signed forms. I myself have one students sign for the Trap Club i teach at.
I understand liability. But where is thegreater risk in the classroom or on the range? In my mind they should banning Range day,leave the shooting to the families. Not working guns from the classroom.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 14, 2012, 12:43:41 PM
If you have not figured it out by now, it's all about the insurance. What do you think would happen if someone get's injured in a hunter ed class? They are going to go after the state. The problem really isn't the state. It's our government not stepping in stopping frivolous law suits and putting a cap on judgement amounts. With that said, as insurance rates continue to explode, and with the budget shortfalls, the wdfw has to make cuts somewhere and if eliminating live fire exercises and replacing functioning firearms with clones than that's what they are going to do. They have to keep the costs down. Of course anyone who has ever taught hunter education knows you only have x number of hours to introduce safe firearm handling practices to students. After that it's on the student to continue to learn and practice safe firearm handling techniques. Looking at this fact, should a hunter education instructor truly be responsible for teaching students how to safely handle firearms or should this responsibility fall back on the people who should have been instilling these practices long before the student ever attends a firearm safety class; the parents? In today's society we seem to want the government to do more and more for us. We want them to deliver the mail, take care of us when we retire and now we want them to handle our medical needs. In addition we want them to give our children an education and teach them how to handle firearms safely. Then if they screw up we go on a witch hunt and we want to make the government pay. Sadly enough we only have ourselves to blame and in my opinion if things don't change I think you are going to see a switch to 100% online certification and the elimination of traditional hunter education all together.
Why? It cost's a lot less to administer.
1. You eliminate 700+ Volunteer liabilities
2. You eliminate the cost of booklets and postage.
3. You can take the Pittman Robertson monies and roll them into conservation and wildlife agents
4. You eliminate the need for Hunter Education Supplies
5. You trim the number of Hunter Ed jobs needed at the WDFW.
6. You pretty much eliminate insurance liability.
7. You increase your number of license sales.
8. Online certification generates revenue.
We all need to remember the WDFW works like a business and as a business you have to be cost effective.
This is the direction that certifications and licensing is headed in every state. I now renew my professional licenses online and even renew my first aid training online. Not only is it more cost effective, it is more convenient for everyone. With that said, I think the state should continue some sort of live fire excersize for certification.
Another item I would mention, I am an NRA certified rangemaster. I called the Olympia HE office and volunteered to help with the live fire excersizes for online HE students in Stevens County, but have never recieved a call back from Olympia. Is there a surplus of HE help or am I not qualified? A call back would have been nice. ;)
Denny I would not take the no call to heart. I called down there every day for a week to get them to post my class on line and never got a live person.
New instructors who apply never here anything for weeks, if at all. Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 14, 2012, 12:46:33 PM
Post by: Brownarola on February 14, 2012, 01:39:10 PM
Quote
Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.
Actually they do a mentoring program and when instructors meet the requirement they put on a hunter ed course with Chuck or Dan doing the evaluations. If they fail to meet the expectations they are sent back to their mentor for more training, but you are correct; this is too much for Dan and Chuck who also have to put on online-student evaluations. My hat goes off to both of them.
Quote
My point is that life does have it's risks. I still hold that safety is the point of the class for a reason. That to properly teach safety, there is no better way than to hand a real gun to a child, and let the instructor do their job, not to pretend that they are teaching about it.
Iceman, the question isn't about safety; It's about liability. The state wants you the volunteer to go out on a field course and evaluate Johnny on his handling skills with live firearms but if anything happens to Johnny and his dad files a lawsuit, don't be surprised if you are the one left holding the bag. The state needs to decide what they want? Do they want to protect the volunteer instructor or themselves. If they want to protect both we volunteers and themselves from this threat they need stop playing around and implement a liability waiver releasing the state and we volunteer instructions from the possibility of litigation. IMHO it's the least they can do for the amount of free labor we provide.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 14, 2012, 07:42:41 PM
QuoteChuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.
Actually they do a mentoring program and when instructors meet the requirement they put on a hunter ed course with Chuck or Dan doing the evaluations. If they fail to meet the expectations they are sent back to their mentor for more training, but you are correct; this is too much for Dan and Chuck who also have to put on online-student evaluations. My hat goes off to both of them.QuoteMy point is that life does have it's risks. I still hold that safety is the point of the class for a reason. That to properly teach safety, there is no better way than to hand a real gun to a child, and let the instructor do their job, not to pretend that they are teaching about it.
Iceman, the question isn't about safety; It's about liability. The state wants you the volunteer to go out on a field course and evaluate Johnny on his handling skills with live firearms but if anything happens to Johnny and his dad files a lawsuit, don't be surprised if you are the one left holding the bag. The state needs to decide what they want? Do they want to protect the volunteer instructor or themselves. If they want to protect both we volunteers and themselves from this threat they need stop playing around and implement a liability waiver releasing the state and we volunteer instructions from the possibility of litigation. IMHO it's the least they can do for the amount of free labor we provide.
There are lots of ways to reduce risk. Dan & Chuck do a great job. But they are only two. Have you ever had your class evaluated? Or your range day? I have been teaching 17 years and never had a range day with staff there. If they want to reduce risk the waiver is a good start. If the want to enforce uniformity they need more people.
Post by: Brownarola on February 15, 2012, 07:34:44 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 15, 2012, 01:50:56 PM
Well said Sean
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2012, 02:18:51 PM
Quote
Denny I would not take the no call to heart. I called down there every day for a week to get them to post my class on line and never got a live person.
New instructors who apply never here anything for weeks, if at all. Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.
I got a call this morning from Sgt Cline, I offered to help if I am qualified, he said he would check with the team in my area. The future of HE worries me, I hear a lot of folks complaining that they couldn't get their kids or an adult family member in a class. Someone took the time for me when I was a kid, I figure it's my turn to try and return the favor.
Helping out with a range day for online students would actually work best for my schedule, so that's what I volunteered for.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 15, 2012, 03:04:52 PM
They want you to conform to their schedule.
Post by: Bob33 on February 15, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
Dale, I'm glad to hear that. Sgt. Klein is a good man and you are too to volunteer. Class attendance in our area tends to be 100%, even in the spring. There is often a panic in the fall as potential students rush to get qualified in order to hunt. It's a double whammy because fall is the time when the vast majority of instructors take time off to hunt.QuoteDenny I would not take the no call to heart. I called down there every day for a week to get them to post my class on line and never got a live person.
New instructors who apply never here anything for weeks, if at all. Chuck and Dan looking after all the old and new instructors for the whole state is stupid they cannot do it. Any program signed waiver or not has risks. If someone wants to sue they will find a way.
I got a call this morning from Sgt Cline, I offered to help if I am qualified, he said he would check with the team in my area. The future of HE worries me, I hear a lot of folks complaining that they couldn't get their kids or an adult family member in a class. Someone took the time for me when I was a kid, I figure it's my turn to try and return the favor.
Helping out with a range day for online students would actually work best for my schedule, so that's what I volunteered for.
I think you will enjoy the experience!
Post by: ghosthunter on February 15, 2012, 04:25:25 PM
Well, I'll say this...
It is going to be an interesting meeting in Yakima next month!
BTW, in my classes we teach in the classroom with non-live firearms and ammo, and we have a live fire session with "real" guns - the students are not told the classroom guns are disabled. They seem to learn just as well as if they were "live".
I agree that it is a foolish rule, but In my mind, walking away becuse they want you to use disabled guns in the classroom is cutting your nose off to spite your face... It would be a shame to punish the future generation of hunters to make a point to WDFW regarding a policy change. But that is just my opinion.
What color are your fake guns?
Post by: danderson on February 15, 2012, 07:43:33 PM
It may work good for the larger city's were theres a greater number of potentail students but not so great for rural communities.
As far as all the rumors going around about non-functing firearms in the classroom is concerned, that isn't true, at least theres been no directive that I am aware of, what has changed is the instructor certification process, it used to be anyone that wanted to get involved with getting certified as a instructor contacted chuck (east-side) took a pre-test, enrolled in a pre-servce training class, usually one full day, then found a class and helped teach, the lead instructor signed off that they participated and they were ready to be certified, now anyone wanting to get certified must first contact chuck, and he assigns a mentor instructor, the mentor instructor works with the want-a -be instructor until he or she determines that they are ready to teach, however long that may be, then the want-a -be instructor takes part in a two or three day hunter education class with other new instructors and actually teach a class, this might be were the non- functing firearms are used. My classes are going to be taught the same way that I was taught, hands on with lots of examples of real working firearms, dummy ammo and lots of common sense.
Post by: Paul Sims on February 15, 2012, 08:34:49 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 15, 2012, 10:42:13 PM
We know that the hunter education program is becoming more computerized, it will have to be to remain cost effective, lets face it everything is, this year is the first year that registration can only be done on-line, no more dreaded bubble forms to fill out in class, I had to create my own class schedule along with instructions to direct students to my class, plus print a parent agreement form that they will bring to class already filled out, that was a challenge since I am not the most computer savey person but I figured it out, all done by the student or parent well before the class starts, I get an email letting me know a student has enrolled in my class, sent by the program, I teach two classes each year and at times struggled to get 20 students per class, this year enrollment is way down, just a guess but my feelings are not everyone has a computer, or they cant figure out the website.
It may work good for the larger city's were theres a greater number of potentail students but not so great for rural communities.
As far as all the rumors going around about non-functing firearms in the classroom is concerned, that isn't true, at least theres been no directive that I am aware of, what has changed is the instructor certification process, it used to be anyone that wanted to get involved with getting certified as a instructor contacted chuck (east-side) took a pre-test, enrolled in a pre-servce training class, usually one full day, then found a class and helped teach, the lead instructor signed off that they participated and they were ready to be certified, now anyone wanting to get certified must first contact chuck, and he assigns a mentor instructor, the mentor instructor works with the want-a -be instructor until he or she determines that they are ready to teach, however long that may be, then the want-a -be instructor takes part in a two or three day hunter education class with other new instructors and actually teach a class, this might be were the non- functing firearms are used. My classes are going to be taught the same way that I was taught, hands on with lots of examples of real working firearms, dummy ammo and lots of common sense.
As far as all the rumors going around about non-functing firearms in the classroom is concerned, that isn't true,
You are mistaken. I have a letter in my hand from the director of Fish & Wildlife Phil Anderson. NO WORKING FIREARMS IN HUNTER ED CLASSES. They will anounce it at IST it is a done deal. Some instructors are already are using them.
This is not only on line it is all hunter ed classes.
I have already said a dozen times here that when I can no longer use working firearms in my classes I would quit.
Dan Boes is coming to Skagit County on the 26th to discuss the matter with us . One of my teaching team has already quit after SGT kline called him.
at least one person here has already seen the non guns.
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 07:16:44 AM
In regards to the online sign-ups; The state is starting to put more information in the hunting manuals and after a while people will know where to look. Personally I think stores should have a terminal at their counters that people could use to sign up for classes. That would make things easier.
In regards to course standardization; I was always able to kick out students that met the state requirements in 13 hours of class time. I actually heard horror stories of courses running 25 and 30 hours? In my opinion that is not a class; that is a college course. Unless you hold a degree in education or you a degree in modern child and adult learning theories you would think that a 25 or 30 hour course is ok. However students of today are not the same as the students of yesterday. They are multi-taskers who get their information from the Internet, TV, radio, podcasts, school, books, social networking, friends, etc. If you look at how most instructors are forced to teach firearm safety, it's a little bit of hands on training with the majority of the class being more of an information dump (lecture) with a 75 point test to see how much of that short-term memory information they remember. Most courses I have observed are still preaching from the books, with little student involvement. They show students firearms but they are not allowed to touch them. My question if you are doing this is how are students able to learn how to operate firearms if they are not allowed to place their hands on them and operate them with snap-caps? In addition to that, on the range day evaluation I see instructors still preaching and teaching instead of evaluating. If you have done your job, there should be no need to teach or preach on the range day. They either can handle a firearm safely or they cannot and it does not take all day field event to prove they can do this.
For those of you not holding a degree in education let me give you a short lesson on learning theories which is a theory of the way people learn. A learning theory that was introduced back in the early 1960's called Constructivism was about the student learning by doing. It was dismissed as ineffective back then because the person behind the theory, Siemour Papert, was simply ahead of his time. Actually Papert invisioned using a programming language called Logo to teach geometry in 1960 and by 1969 his dream became reality when he introduced the Logo software into the education system which btw is still being used today to teach geometry. Anyway to put it mildly, his learning theory has proven to be correct. What stopped it from entering mainstream eduction systems? Cost.. Computers in that day were old and costly and no everyone had access to them so schools opted to stay with the old traditional teaching methods introduced by B.F. Skinner in the 1940's and that is how the current firearm education teaching system is still designed.
Fast forward to now and computers are everywhere and the traditional learning style used by the educational machine for all these years is going by the wayside because Siemour Paper's 1960 learning theory is strongly coming back into the lime light along with other learning theories that were build on his theory by Howard Gardner and George Siemens. Educators are starting to see that old traditional preaching style of education is actually a very ineffective method of teaching but as everyone knows the education system is slow to change.
With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers had to face the reality that the old way of teaching was ineffective, and they needed a better form of teaching and if you look at some cutting edge schools, you would be amazed with how students are now being taught and how well they are responding to the new form of teaching. Unfortunately we still have holdouts and the traditional firearm safety programs happen to be one of them. Until both the instructors and the management staff realize there are better ways of teaching besides lecture, there is going to be students forced to take some rather dry firearm safety courses.
Many are questioning the online option and that they do not wish to sign them off. They feel they are not as safe as traditional classroom students. I for one will tell you that if you tell students precisely what is expected of them on the range day evaluation and what constitutes a go and no go situation well in advance of the test date, not only will students come prepared to handle the task, but in my own personal observations, they displayed a higher degree of safety than the traditional classroom students. The true key to the online course is providing the student with detailed information about what is expected of them on the range day and then when it comes time for the range day, instructors need to stop teaching and do what the military does; evaluate them. They either pass or fail but it is also up to the instructor to use some common judgement when it comes time for a go or no go.
I'll jump down off my soap box now..
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 17, 2012, 07:42:08 AM
Post by: Bob33 on February 17, 2012, 08:06:35 AM
Which of those cannot be done with a gun that has a firing pin removed?
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 08:18:29 AM
The non functioning firearms have everything the live ones do except they have an orange stock, cost$1500 for a set and have no firing pins. It's nice to have a variety of firearms in the classroom but face it, no matter how many firearms you bring in, students really need to become familiar with their own guns; an action is an action. I.e. a semi auto shotgun is pretty close to a semi auto rifle and a pump is a pump. Plus there are so many videos online about how a the various firearm operate, you can honestly learn more about a firearm online than you ever could hope to learn in a class. Not to say we do not have some pretty knowledgeable instructors, but you can do a search on YouTube for your particular action type and figure out how it works outside the classroom. I think this is also a good thing because it should eliminate the no-touchy touchy syndrome that I have seen in some courses, meaning the instructors did not want the students handling their firearms because they were afraid the students might harm them.
In regards to the online sign-ups; The state is starting to put more information in the hunting manuals and after a while people will know where to look. Personally I think stores should have a terminal at their counters that people could use to sign up for classes. That would make things easier.
In regards to course standardization; I was always able to kick out students that met the state requirements in 13 hours of class time. I actually heard horror stories of courses running 25 and 30 hours? In my opinion that is not a class; that is a college course. Unless you hold a degree in education or you a degree in modern child and adult learning theories you would think that a 25 or 30 hour course is ok. However students of today are not the same as the students of yesterday. They are multi-taskers who get their information from the Internet, TV, radio, podcasts, school, books, social networking, friends, etc. If you look at how most instructors are forced to teach firearm safety, it's a little bit of hands on training with the majority of the class being more of an information dump (lecture) with a 75 point test to see how much of that short-term memory information they remember. Most courses I have observed are still preaching from the books, with little student involvement. They show students firearms but they are not allowed to touch them. My question if you are doing this is how are students able to learn how to operate firearms if they are not allowed to place their hands on them and operate them with snap-caps? In addition to that, on the range day evaluation I see instructors still preaching and teaching instead of evaluating. If you have done your job, there should be no need to teach or preach on the range day. They either can handle a firearm safely or they cannot and it does not take all day field event to prove they can do this.
For those of you not holding a degree in education let me give you a short lesson on learning theories which is a theory of the way people learn. A learning theory that was introduced back in the early 1960's called Constructivism was about the student learning by doing. It was dismissed as ineffective back then because the person behind the theory, Siemour Papert, was simply ahead of his time. Actually Papert invisioned using a programming language called Logo to teach geometry in 1960 and by 1969 his dream became reality when he introduced the Logo software into the education system which btw is still being used today to teach geometry. Anyway to put it mildly, his learning theory has proven to be correct. What stopped it from entering mainstream eduction systems? Cost.. Computers in that day were old and costly and no everyone had access to them so schools opted to stay with the old traditional teaching methods introduced by B.F. Skinner in the 1940's and that is how the current firearm education teaching system is still designed.
Fast forward to now and computers are everywhere and the traditional learning style used by the educational machine for all these years is going by the wayside because Siemour Paper's 1960 learning theory is strongly coming back into the lime light along with other learning theories that were build on his theory by Howard Gardner and George Siemens. Educators are starting to see that old traditional preaching style of education is actually a very ineffective method of teaching but as everyone knows the education system is slow to change.
With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers had to face the reality that the old way of teaching was ineffective, and they needed a better form of teaching and if you look at some cutting edge schools, you would be amazed with how students are now being taught and how well they are responding to the new form of teaching. Unfortunately we still have holdouts and the traditional firearm safety programs happen to be one of them. Until both the instructors and the management staff realize there are better ways of teaching besides lecture, there is going to be students forced to take some rather dry firearm safety courses.
Many are questioning the online option and that they do not wish to sign them off. They feel they are not as safe as traditional classroom students. I for one will tell you that if you tell students precisely what is expected of them on the range day evaluation and what constitutes a go and no go situation well in advance of the test date, not only will students come prepared to handle the task, but in my own personal observations, they displayed a higher degree of safety than the traditional classroom students. The true key to the online course is providing the student with detailed information about what is expected of them on the range day and then when it comes time for the range day, instructors need to stop teaching and do what the military does; evaluate them. They either pass or fail but it is also up to the instructor to use some common judgement when it comes time for a go or no go.
I'll jump down off my soap box now..
Wow
I sure have no teaching degree. And some chapters we teach still follow the book in my classes. But if we teach nothing else we teach gun handling and really the rest of it dosent cost lives. Every night of class, before and during we handle firearms. Evey firearm they can put their hands on. Not only Mossbergs. Every firearm on the table the student can handle if they want. After two classes the rifles go away. We teach at a shotgun range and range day will be shotguns. So we do skills with shoguns too. When they leave everyone of my classes with a pass they can load,unload and handle safely.
My friend does the internet reveiws after my class range days. I have seen student after student fail it because they could not even work the action a pump shotgun. They did not know where the saftey was, how to release the action. pointing guns in every direction.
One time we tried to run internet students through our skills with the tradtional students. It didnt work. Because the traditional students out handled the internet folks regardless of age.
Post by: Special T on February 17, 2012, 10:17:13 AM
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 11:47:35 AM
Quote
Of course nothing about that statement means I am ignorant on the subject. You bring up Papert and the military in your text, yet you fail to mention the three different learning styles: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. You see in the Corps, when they teach instructors, they teach you to hit on all cylinders
These actually are not learning theories but are teaching methods and much of what is taught by the military originated from the Behaviorist B.F. Skinner. The military needed a quick way to train individuals in mass how to perform a certain skill. If you'll note this is how the new recruits were and are still being trained in basic training. Remember the Army needed a quick was of cranking out a soldier who would do what they were told when told to do it and the behaviorist learning style seemed to be the most effective method at the time. However in today's age that is no longer the case since kids of yesterday are not the kids of today, teaching methods need to change to reflect the current time.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
Wait until some instructor some where fails a kid because he pointed a orange gun at someone. And the parent doesn't like it. I can here it now. "Its not a real gun, why did you fail my son"?
You can say whatever you want pointing a orange gun and pointing a real one are two different ponies. And sooner or later some one will challenge it.
Liabilities are still present they have just been shifted around with no net gain.
I have no problem with, class sizes,hours, any of that. But toy guns come on..
These kids grew up with orange guns. Take a walk down any toy store isle. Orange guns and guns with orange tips every where.
Someone posted that the students would have no idea they couldnt fire. Really ?? They are friggin orange.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 12:00:20 PM
They do not train 7 -8 years olds in the military.
If this is the way they want to go than Live Fire should go first.
Post by: Rob on February 17, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
Someone posted that the students would have no idea they couldnt fire. Really ?? They are friggin orange.
If you are referring to my comment earlier, you are misrepresenting me. I said our students don't know the guns won't fire for the classes we teach TODAY.
Our guns are real guns, but have had the firing pins removed. They look just like everyother gun. In-fact when I started with our classes I did not know they were nonfunctional guns.
If they say we have to use orange guns in class, then fine. I don't have a problem with that. For me, that would be a silly reason to get out of the program. But if it is important to you, then you have to make that call for yourself.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 12:56:11 PM
Someone posted that the students would have no idea they couldn't fire. Really ?? They are friggin orange.
If you are referring to my comment earlier, you are misrepresenting me. I said our students don't know the guns won't fire for the classes we teach TODAY.
Our guns are real guns, but have had the firing pins removed. They look just like everyother gun. In-fact when I started with our classes I did not know they were nonfunctional guns.
If they say we have to use orange guns in class, then fine. I don't have a problem with that. For me, that would be a silly reason to get out of the program. But if it is important to you, then you have to make that call for yourself.
Being restricted to use only five different firearms for classes is too restrictive for the the type of classes I want to put on. I follow every directive up till now. But I will not cheapen the classes I put on with the use of orange guns. Those who wish too may do so. I am not one of those folks. I care too much about gun handling to be involved in a watered down version. :twocents:
More variety equals better training. In my view this is a step backwards.
Post by: Rob on February 17, 2012, 01:24:12 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 01:30:19 PM
Then if you are not able to influence the State's point of view on this, it sounds like you are making a wise decision to opt out of the program.
Anyone who thinks that they are going to influence the state is mistaken. I think orange guns are a done deal. I think some instructors might complain but it is fact now. And I do not see it changing. I will wait to here the whole works at IST. But as it looks now, I think I am out.
Dan is coming up on the 26th to talk to me. But unless they have some plan on how I bring in other than orange guns in than my last class is in progress.
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 01:59:45 PM
What I really wanted to see while I was teaching was a hybrid course comprising of online content that students take care of in their spare time with live firearm handling outside or on the range. If you look at the modern classrooms, teachers are having students post blogs / reflections about what they learned online and then respond to each others posts in a tactful manner. Teachers are also assigning out of class assignments so that when students are in the class, instructors can use this time for hands on exercises and learning scenarios. You can do the same thing and still meet the state requirements.
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
Quote
But for the youth of our state, I see danger ahead. A computer is a lifeless thing. Real passionate teaching comes from something with a soul. Many kids come to class with baggage in regards to the men in their life. There’s a barrier to learning if Dad is the sole teacher beyond a glorified biology film in the form of e-Learning. When an experienced hunter stands before them, gray-haired and dressed in hunter orange, you generally have their attention and without barriers. My hair isn’t gray yet, not through lack of trying, but I know I have their undivided attention when I tell the story of Pamela Almi. I put up a picture of her and her grandchild on the projector and I tell the story of her tragic death. I ask them to think of their own grandmothers. I ask them to imagine themselves the young boy behind the trigger violating several of the cardinal rules of firearm safety, and then depriving a child of their grandmother. The tears in their eyes prove that I have them. I’d like to see a computer program do that.
I'm glad you actually use mulit-media in your classroom and it's great that you tell stories about what can happen when someone does not follow a safety rule but this is still lecture. Instead of telling them about Pam Almli tie this into the causes of hunting accidents. When a student must make a choice and then face the consequence of that choice they definitely remember it.
In regards to computers being a mindless tool; you are right they are mindless but if you want to go anywhere or do anything you had better know how to operate one. In a recent study over 89% of households have one and kids definitely know how to use them. If online course content is properly built and taught by a live instructor, not only is online education effective but it's also very engaging. You may scoff at this notion but many students are more inclined to share their honest opinions when sitting in front of a computer screen as opposed to staring down at an instructor. Many students feel safe behind a computer monitor and thus you are able to get a more clear idea of the student's thoughts when they post to a forum.
Granted not everyone will agree with this point of view and I respect that and for you hunter ed instructors still in the trenches I wish to thank you for providing a badly needed service to our communities.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 17, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 02:31:41 PM
Post by: Brownarola on February 17, 2012, 05:52:19 PM
Not to be the devils advocate but I can see why this may not work. You would not want underage students being contacted by adult students so that's probably one main reason the self paced online course was chosen by so many states. Plus the state was simply responding to the pressure of the public wanting an alternative method to the traditional hunter ed course. Lives are busy and face paced and it's easier for them to take the course when they have time as opposed to hunting down a local course.
Post by: Stickerbush on February 20, 2012, 10:14:47 AM
It is kinda a shame but I have been taking them shooting enough and I figure they will get enough exposure to it that way.
Post by: Bob33 on February 20, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
So I have been emailing the instructor for a hunter ed course, as I plan to take my brother and sister to it in March. He said they use pellet guns for the field day. I asked him if they dont use live ammo because of the new regulations but I think its just due to the fact that they only have a pellet gun range. He never answered me as far as the new regulations, I will just ask him in person.If they are currently using pellet guns it would have nothing to do with policy. I suspect they use them only because they have no alternative. Some classes have no live-fire capabilities at all.
It is kinda a shame but I have been taking them shooting enough and I figure they will get enough exposure to it that way.
Post by: rjn cajun on February 20, 2012, 06:11:48 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 20, 2012, 08:37:45 PM
I`m not a regular poster but this topic has caught my eye. I just enrolled my two oldest daughtersand for some crazy reason thought it would be the same as when I took it years ago. Why do they have to screw with the things that aren`t broke? This is my two cents but I don`t think an online class should even be an option. The whole reason for the class is the hands on experience with a teacher/instructor. I`ve taught my kids all that I have learned and know and maybe an instructor can teach them something else. I`m also not in favor of guns that don`t fire or not having a fireing aspect of the class. When I took it it was part of the class shooting. Now my #1 concern is the few instructors thinking about leaving and not teaching anymore. You guys are what keeps the youth involved and passing it on. If you aren`t teaching then who is computers,phone apps or individuals who really don`t care? Just my 2 cents sorry for rambling. :bash::tup:
Post by: Brownarola on February 21, 2012, 07:48:46 AM
Quote
I`m not a regular poster but this topic has caught my eye. I just enrolled my two oldest daughtersand for some crazy reason thought it would be the same as when I took it years ago. Why do they have to screw with the things that aren`t broke? This is my two cents but I don`t think an online class should even be an option. The whole reason for the class is the hands on experience with a teacher/instructor. I`ve taught my kids all that I have learned and know and maybe an instructor can teach them something else. I`m also not in favor of guns that don`t fire or not having a fireing aspect of the class. When I took it it was part of the class shooting. Now my #1 concern is the few instructors thinking about leaving and not teaching anymore. You guys are what keeps the youth involved and passing it on. If you aren`t teaching then who is computers,phone apps or individuals who really don`t care? Just my 2 cents sorry for rambling. :bash:
rjn cajun, times are changing. A lot of things that were once only available in a classroom are now available online. After teaching hunter education for a few years I can tell you there were times when the parents actually knew more about some of the particular firearms than I did and I was not afraid to admit it. Don't be too quick to knock the online course and your own personal knowledge of firearm safety. The online course simply presents all the materials that the traditional courses do with the only noticeable difference is the hands on training with the various firearm actions which btw does not have to be done in a classroom; it can be done at home.
To get a really good idea of all the actions do a search of YouTube and look up firearm actions. Next go out and purchase some snap-caps for your firearms. Now watch the video and practice using the various actions. Prior to the Internet I would have had to agree with you that kids need to be in a hunter ed course. However I also have to say I did evaluate online students and the one thing I discovered was that the course room time could be done online but the firearm portion had to be practiced at home and then evaluated on range. To get students prepared for the range I drafted a simple guide that explained everything that would be tested on the range day. I had a little trial and error, but once I got the right formula, not only were students showing up to the range day ready to accept the challenge, but they actually, in my honest opinion these students were safer with handling firearms than some students who had went through my traditional 5 day course. One thing I liked about the online course is that it forced parents to become involved in the learning process of their student. Instead of a complete stranger teaching them about firearm safety, it was their family member who taught them.
I think the real question is can the online program be improved to be equal or better to a traditional classroom course? I personally think an online course weather led by an instructor or self paced can be just as engaging and informative as a traditional course but IMHO the true test of handling a firearm safely must be done by a Hunter Ed instructor and it's up to the parent to continue to work with their child after the course to build on what was learned in the class.
BTW - these are just my opinions and I mean no disrespect to current hunter education instructors and I want to thank you current instructors for VOLUNTEERING your time to teach our families how to handle firearms safely.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2012, 11:22:26 AM
If a student brought a loaded handgun to your class. What would you do?
You have already instructed the students and parents that there can be no guns or ammo brought into class.
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2012, 11:23:37 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2012, 11:33:24 AM
No law enforcement.
Post by: Bob33 on February 21, 2012, 11:38:07 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2012, 12:27:42 PM
Fail them if they are not a commissioned LEO. Instant safety failure, not following instructions, etc.Falls under attitude?
Post by: rjn cajun on February 21, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
I just wondered if and instructor did it should he/she be treated any differently?
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2012, 07:00:55 PM
How can instructors expect to be treated any differently?
I think it is a big difference between a teaching team that before class and before students arrive. Secures their classroom and checks all firearms. If they find something no arm no foul. Their protocols worked, they found a hazard.
opposed to
An instructor who stands in front of a class opens a firearm and a live round pops out. That is a total failure not only of that instructor but of the whole team and a lack of safety protocols.
How can the state on one hand say we are serious about liabilities and safety breaches yet on the other hand allow that instructor to continue?
Your neighbor got a DUI and you know it. Do you let him drive your kids around?
One popular instructor grabbed a kid during a gun handling exercise somewhere, the dept. ends up pulling his card. Another brings a loaded gun to class and the dept. does nothing. Where is the standard. I know neither of these instructors. I am saying the Dept. seems to be reactive instead of proactive about liability. Instead of dealing with the real problem which is an instructor not following basic safety protocols they compound the problem and remove valuable teaching aids from all instructors.
Your finger is infected so cut off your arm.
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2012, 07:26:24 PM
Gotta agree with that GH... Very reactive and not very well thought out!
Post by: Oldguy on February 21, 2012, 08:42:26 PM
Post by: Special T on February 21, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
Post by: Brownarola on February 22, 2012, 08:25:16 AM
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/HunterEd/Documents/Waiver.pdf
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2012, 01:37:43 PM
inert guns are not to be used at home or any outdoor activites. The use of ORANGE GUNS may cause the user and anyone nearby to be less trained in the operation of real guns due to the limited number of models.
Eye protection should always be used. Bright ORANGE GUNS have been know to cause orange eye spots in some users. Users should not confuse ORANGE GUNS with the real thing as the long term effect may be to dumb down the user.
USE ORANGE GUNS AT YOUR OWN RISK.
new sign for classes.
Post by: danderson on February 24, 2012, 08:05:46 PM
One of the casualties of limiting exposure to different types of firearms in the hands on portion of classroom is that students wont get the opportunity to handle pistols, every year we get students that have never handled one, adults and youth, if we cant expose students to different working firearms weather it be a semi automatic pistol or a lever action rifle, its called hunterEDUCATION not uneducated, I wonder if the nine year old boy that brought a loaded handgun to school that discharged and struck the little girl could have benefited from such a class on the proper way to treat someones elses pistol, education is the key to life.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2012, 08:19:27 PM
A lot of attention has been spent on the non-firing guns in the classroom portion of the class, if that's all that was changing then it wouldn't be so bad, theres been alot of rumors going around and its not clear to me what the final changes might look like , since the DFW doest have the balls the interject there proposals on this public form but instead chooses to take the lazy approach and say nothing, the instructor news letter was apparently discontinued for no apparent reason other than maybe they didn't want the instructors to have any input, after all what do we know, but from what I have learned these changes wont take place statewide until 2013, my classes are going to be taught exactly the same way that we have in the past, with lots of good examples of different rifles and shotguns and muzzeloaders and pistols, and from what I have learned public outcry from teaching teams from accross the state, can and will influence the final outcome.
One of the casualties of limiting exposure to different types of firearms in the hands on portion of classroom is that students wont get the opportunity to handle pistols, every year we get students that have never handled one, adults and youth, if we cant expose students to different working firearms weather it be a semi automatic pistol or a lever action rifle, its called hunterEDUCATION not uneducated, I wonder if the nine year old boy that brought a loaded handgun to school that discharged and struck the little girl could have benefited from such a class on the proper way to treat someones elses pistol, education is the key to life.
:yeah:
I will have a better idea of the changes sunday night as I had a meeting scheduled with Dan noon Sunday. That meeting has now turned into a meeting with Dan, Carl Kline, and officer Jeff Lee. Feels like a full court press to me. And several members of my teaching team.
The changes will finalize July 2013 because that is the beginning of a new fiscal year.
Until I am ordered not to bring working guns to class I will continue to teach as usual.
I too have heard the rumors of the other changes. And no of those bother me yet. But Non working guns is the end for me.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 26, 2012, 07:27:17 PM
I have said many times here the issues for me where 1. I am not teaching with Orange guns.
2. I am not teaching with guns which are not operational.
The issues for me were resolved in the following way by Carl & Dan. 1. We will not be required to use the orange guns. Provided the guns we do use in the classroom and for skills cannot be fired. The solution for me is a trigger lock on all firearms in the classroom. This way the student can train and handle the exact gun used for live fire and skills testing. We never let the students put their finger on the trigger any ways. This way they will not be able too.
This solves both my complaints. I will continue to use the same guns I have always used with trigger locks in place that I can take off when needed.
I still need to come up with a so loution for lever action firearms.
They brought a set of orange guns to the meeting and we all inspected them. Here's my observations.
The guns are butt ugly orange.
All of the guns are heavier than the state owned 20 GA. youth models.
Non of the firearms are Youth Models, they are all full size.
As expected all the actions are very stiff.
Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. :yikes: What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.
So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot require it. So why have a range day?
Other changes are in the works, set max hours, age limit?, I did not discuss these changes with them because I am not concerned with them.
So that is what I know right now. More will be fleshedout at IST.
Post by: Cascade_fisher on February 26, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 27, 2012, 11:58:50 AM
In order to not have to duplicate information, I am going to post my findings from our meetings with Dan Boes and Sgt. Klein on this thread:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=92925.60
In short, all is not what it's been made out to be.
I have to say I did enjoy being able to talk to them in a smaller group. And I have no reason to not think they were being geniue.
Post by: Outdoor Guardian on February 27, 2012, 03:39:57 PM
There’s been a lot of discussion on this forum about potential changes to the Hunter Education Program and how they may impact students and volunteers. I thought it was about time to weigh in.
We all understand the importance of Hunter Education, right? As hunters, we want to be sure there are safe, ethical, and responsible hunters out there sharing the woods with us. And we want to make sure there are future generations of hunters to carry on the tradition that is so important to all of us. I hope that at least we can agree that those are the ultimate goals. And, if so, we should also be able to agree on the same common results that we want achieve through Hunter Education. It’s the “how” that has everyone spinning. And honestly, we are all going to have different opinions about how to achieve the results we’re after, based on our own history, perception, and role in the effort.
A critical component of the program is the volunteer instructor. We have around 900 across the state – that’s a lot of volunteers! They are vital to our ability to teach the number of students we do each year. These instructors are willing to unselfishly commit their personal time toward this effort because they are passionate about hunting and firearm safety. Some of them have many, many years invested. Some have probably invested their own money as well. We recognize this investment, we really do.
That being said, the Hunter Education Program is here first and foremost to serve the students. And to best serve our students, we must constantly re-evaluate the program to ensure we meet the goals we talked about earlier: creating safe, ethical and responsible hunters and continuing the hunting heritage. But this is where things get a bit sideways. Hunter Education is not, and should not, be perceived as the finishing school for hunters and hunting. We provide a very focused training and learning environment to teach students the basics of firearms safety and hunter education in a short period of time, but the majority of learning usually comes from mentoring and additional field experience long after the class has ended and the student has their certificate in hand.
RCW 77.32.155 states “The director may establish a program for training persons in the safe handling of firearms, conservation, and sportsmanship.” This is not something we have to do, but our Department decided long ago that we would make this a self-imposed mandate. Given the authority to create such a training program, it then becomes our responsibility to manage and cultivate it. This is a great responsibility! As if managing the development of a training curriculum and policies, coordinating volunteer instructors, and ensuring students learn what is necessary to become safe and ethical hunters aren’t enough, we also have to manage the liability that comes with a training environment that includes firearms, volunteers, Department staff, and the public co-mingling in public locations.
So let’s focus on the liability piece for a minute. Once WDFW is given statutory authority to implement a program, we are then ultimately held accountable for all aspects of that program. With Hunter Education, this includes the responsibility to protect our students and volunteer instructors, and ensure a safe environment in which to learn (and teach). And if there was an incident in a classroom – whether an accidental discharge with no injuries, or an accidental discharge that resulted in serious injury or death – it would ultimately be our fault for not preventing such a tragedy. If any of you have been involved in litigation before, you know it can take many, many years, and many, many dollars before there is any resolution. Unfortunately if an incident occurred in a Hunter Education class, the students and volunteer instructors would most likely be dragged into the legal system right along with the Department. None of us want to see that happen. And if that wasn’t enough, there would undoubtedly be a media storm with certain groups calling for an end to Hunter Education altogether. But, it’s not about covering our own butts or protecting our volunteer instructors and students from years of litigation. And it’s not about the controversy that would ensue. Personally, I don’t want to be the one to have to visit a child’s parent or loved one and explain what went wrong, or have to apologize for a horrible tragedy that might have been prevented. The largest concern here is keeping our students and volunteers safe from harm in the first place. And if that means using inert firearms in the classroom to provide the proper level of human and program protection, then by comparison, it is a small price to pay.
Since the use of inert firearms seems to be a hot issue for folks, I’ll address that now. It’s true that we have purchased and begun using inert firearms in some Hunter Education classes. While they lack a firing pin, they represent the five actions types and are otherwise fully functional: you can load/unload them and work the action and safety. Yes, they are a bit stiff at first, but so is any new firearm. After a couple class’s worth of students handle them, they’ll be broken in. And I agree that they may be ugly, but handling pretty firearms is not the priority. Safe handling of ANY firearm is the priority. So far our instructors who have used them have provided positive feedback, and don’t think the fact that they are bright orange or without a firing pin diminishes their value in the classroom at all.
That being said, we also realize the value of using different types of firearms to highlight specific points, so we’re working on protocols to continue to allow the use of various firearms and archery equipment in the classroom and during field course activities. These could include firearms issued by the Department, those that have been donated or purchased with donated funds or grant monies, firearms that have been loaned to instructors, or privately owned firearms. In all instances, the firearms would have to be approved by the Department and permanently or temporarily disabled. Other requirements may be necessary dependent on the firearm and how it was obtained. There does need to be some uniformity here……. we have seen some interesting things through the years (I will leave it at that).
Let me be clear: We have no intention of doing away with optional live-fire exercises. However, to limit liability, we are currently discussing the use of only WDFW issued/inventoried firearms during live-fire exercises. We are also considering limiting the firearms that are used for live-fire exercises, regardless of ownership, to the following: .22 rifle, .223 rifle, .243 rifle, 20-gauge shotgun, .177 air rifle, or bow.
Many folks are also concerned about some of the policy changes they’ve heard about, which may or may not be true. Here’s what’s happening: It’s been many years since we conducted a thorough review of our Hunter Education policies. And while our program is successful and has an excellent safety record, we also recognize areas we could improve upon. If you don’t anticipate problems, you will likely be faced with them. And yes, some of the policy changes we’re considering are a result of the actions of a few, but that’s not our only motivation. We’ve thoroughly reviewed Hunter Ed policies from 22 other states and two provinces, and in doing so, we’ve found some very valuable information that could help us improve our Hunter Education program. We’ve also brought together a group of instructors (the Instructor Advisory Committee or IAC) to discuss potential changes, their effect on instructors and students, and how we can make the program better. Let me assure you we’re not just unilaterally making decisions, but seeking input from those who bring years of experience to the table. The policies we plan to review and update first are those that deal with the general use of firearms, accountability and liability issues, instructor conduct and corrective action, and donations and fees. If you have ideas or suggestions, please feel free to contact Sgt. Klein, our new Hunter Education Manager. He is more than willing to listen and eager to hear what folks have to say. He can be reached at Carl.Klein@dfw.wa.gov or 360.902.2426. And yes, he will return your call. Our goal is to post the updated policy manual on the Instructor website in the next couple of weeks. Once posted, we hope that you’ll review it and let us know what you think. If you have comments, concerns, or suggestions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
With regard to our online Hunter Education classes…. another hot issue: The online course was developed to address changes in society and make it easier for folks to complete Hunter Education with limited time. Let’s face it – folks are busy! We have single parents trying to work two jobs, go to school, and take care of the kids. And we have kids who are involved in school, sports, and other extracurricular activities. But we still want them to succeed at Hunter Education so that they can get out there and hunt with the rest of us. And let’s not forget the people who take Hunter Education with no intentions of hunting – they just want to learn how to handle a firearm safely! We want to be sure EVERYONE with an interest has the ability to complete Hunter Education, despite their busy schedules. So we developed the online curriculum. Now, this new course was not without its problems in the beginning. We saw a failure rate of nearly 90% and received several complaints from instructors. To address this we looked at our processes to see what we were doing wrong and how we might fix it. Since then, we have made significant changes to the online curriculum and have received lots of positive feedback from instructors. The new Online Skills Evaluation Class is not the preferred delivery method for all students, and we still recommend the traditional course for a more enriching and interactive learning experience, but at least it’s an option for folks that just can’t make it to a traditional class. Let me be clear about this: We have no intention to only offer online hunter education classes. There will always be a need for traditional classes.
One of the other issues we’ve struggled with is ensuring consistency in our classes across the state. When we looked at Hunter Education courses offered throughout the state, we noticed that some instructors’ classes lasted thirty hours or more, while the requirement is ten hours of instruction on safe handling, safety, conservation, and sportsmanship. Some students were even being told they should take a class from a different instructor because they would not pass a particular instructor’s class. While we feel instructors should have the flexibility to structure the course in a way that works best for them, we also need to remain somewhat consistent. We understand that it’s impossible to teach a student all there is to know about hunting in ten or even twenty hours. But Hunter Education is meant to be a basic course, designed to introduce the student to firearm safety and hunting with the understanding that there is always more to be learned about both. With this in mind, and with strong support from numerous instructors and the IAC, we are looking to limit Hunter Education course length to twenty hours.
So there you have it. This is not an “Us vs. Them” issue. We all are working toward the same goals here. But as the managers of this program, we have to consider the students, first and foremost, and ensure their safety and their success in learning the basics of Hunter Education and firearm safety. We have to consider our volunteer instructors, and ensure their safety while teaching, protect them from involvement in legal actions, and also allow them some flexibility in how they teach their classes. We have to consider the Department as a whole, maintain the integrity and success of the Hunter Education program, and consider the liabilities that come with managing a program that involves the handling of firearms by students and instructors. And we also have to consider the public, and those who may encounter our former students while recreating. Our top priority will ALWAYS be safety and trying to prevent the potential for tragedy.
If you ever have concerns about something you hear about the Hunter Education program or WDFW Enforcement as a whole, I would ask that you talk to us directly, get the facts and hear our perspective. One more thing – we truly honor and respect those who volunteer to teach others about Washington’s rich hunting heritage and firearms safety. And we thank you for your service to the Hunter Education Program.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 27, 2012, 04:05:00 PM
Post by: danderson on February 27, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on March 24, 2012, 08:20:34 AM
Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. :yikes: What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.
So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot require it. So why have a range day?
I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!
I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!
Post by: HORSEPOWER on March 24, 2012, 09:30:34 AM
So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot require it. So why have a range day?
Quote-I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!
I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!
Hold on.... Live fire hasn't been required for years, although most of us have insisted on it and feel strongly about that. We all still have to remember that this is a BASIC course and that the safety and handling is done in class BEFORE the live fire. Also, there are more restrictions imposed for good reason. But most importantly- It is the parents' responsibilities to go practice. When you made the commitment to be a parent, you also made a commitment to be up at 0 dark 30 to go out with your kids and teach them how to do it right. :twocents:
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on March 25, 2012, 09:37:12 AM
Quote-I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!
I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!![/color]
Hold on.... Live fire hasn't been required for years, although most of us have insisted on it and feel strongly about that. We all still have to remember that this is a BASIC course and that the safety and handling is done in class BEFORE the live fire. Also, there are more restrictions imposed for good reason. But most importantly- It is the parents' responsibilities to go practice. When you made the commitment to be a parent, you also made a commitment to be up at 0 dark 30 to go out with your kids and teach them how to do it right. :twocents:
I do agree that as a parent you should be out teaching them how to do it, but what about the kids and adults, there are some adults that are new to this, don't have a person to show them how to do it the right way? I feel that if you are not going to do a live fire just because some of the students in your class are not going to show up you are doing a disservice to the ones that will show up. I'm not a hunter ed instructor but do feel that you should provide the best class available, and if you have the means for a live fire you should do it :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on March 28, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Another topic of discussion was Live Fire Range Days. They assured me those would not go away. But Range days are optional for the instructor and the student. :yikes: What? The student may op out of live fire. So in my class we do skills one night and live fire on the weekend. If the student is allowed to op out of live fire than why should I have live fire? Why should I get up at o dark 30 if only half my class shows up for live fire.
So for me I intend not to have live fire range as long as students are allowed to op out of Live fire. This is not how I interput ed live fire over the years. I saw live fire as optional for the instructor. If I had a range everyone was required to attend and shoot. That according to Dan & Carl in not policy. If a student does not want to shoot you cannot require it. So why have a range day?
I have been getting up at o dark 30 for 18 years. I have gone out of my way to put on a quality class. I bring in dozens of firearm, and trunks of hands on gear. I spend countless hours working one on one with students.
I am not cheating the class. The state is , with needless restrictions and rules. All making my job tougher. I am a volunteer not a employee. If this is the kind of program they want. OK.
But I learned along time ago that you cannot be everything to everyone.
We already cannot meet the needs for all the folks who want in these classes. It is only going to get worse. I do not have to even put on a class. I can do what 3/4 of the instructors do, help in another class for few hours and go home. Why let the state give me a headache.
I think as a instructor you are going to far with not having a live fire just because you feel that all of your class will not go to it, may be those students have been shooting guns and bows since they where barely able to hold a gun and their dad or other family member or mentor has already taught them more about gun safety then a you can learn in a hunter safety course, I know I did when I took mine back in 80'. But what about the kid in your class that has never had the ability to shoot guns or has only had a little bit of exposure to guns, I have step kids that when they started hunter ed I had only been with their mom for a couple of years and I have gone strictly to bow hunting and have not had them out shooting guns as much as I should have, by not having a live fire day you, as a instructor, are failing to teach these students who want to learn and need to learn!
I don't want to slam you but by becoming a instructor you made a commitment to wake up at 0 dark 30 to provide the students, and other hunters and outdoors people, the knowledge to be able to go out into the woods and handle a gun safely!!
Post by: JJD on April 13, 2012, 09:52:07 PM
Please explain how functional firearms in an environment where live ammo is not allowed (class room) is a risk, and having functional firearms with live ammo (live fire) is not a risk? :dunno:
Please present the case where any student has been injured by the discharge of a firearm in a WA hunter education class room?
I have seen the non-functional arms. They are full size arms and will be quite difficult for younger students to handle. Remember the state will not allow a minimum age. Smaller frame students will be at a decided disadvantage. Don't know what your frame size is, but do you have a better chance of controlling the muzzle of a fire arm that fits you or controlling one end of an 8 ft, 2x8? Setting up students to fail is a liability in and of itself.
There is always potential liability/litigation with anything we do. If we allow the risk management people to run our lives, you will have your a** planted in your recliner 24/7 and by golly ya better be wearing a helmet and seat belt just in case.
I can't wait for the risk management folks to get involved in Drivers Ed. No more driving a real cars in the class. You will have the option as to whether you drive at all during your examination process. The state will supply all the cars for exam if you choose to dive one. They will be orange M1 Abrams tanks with the barrels removed.
Yeah, I read all 54 pages of the posted draft.
Post by: Special T on April 14, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on April 17, 2012, 06:17:01 PM
There are some things that I can't get my head wrapped around.
Please explain how functional firearms in an environment where live ammo is not allowed (class room) is a risk, and having functional firearms with live ammo (live fire) is not a risk? :dunno:
Please present the case where any student has been injured by the discharge of a firearm in a WA hunter education class room?
I have seen the non-functional arms. They are full size arms and will be quite difficult for younger students to handle. Remember the state will not allow a minimum age. Smaller frame students will be at a decided disadvantage. Don't know what your frame size is, but do you have a better chance of controlling the muzzle of a fire arm that fits you or controlling one end of an 8 ft, 2x8? Setting up students to fail is a liability in and of itself.
There is always potential liability/litigation with anything we do. If we allow the risk management people to run our lives, you will have your a** planted in your recliner 24/7 and by golly ya better be wearing a helmet and seat belt just in case.
I can't wait for the risk management folks to get involved in Drivers Ed. No more driving a real cars in the class. You will have the option as to whether you drive at all during your examination process. The state will supply all the cars for exam if you choose to dive one. They will be orange M1 Abrams tanks with the barrels removed.
Yeah, I read all 54 pages of the posted draft.
You're close to cracking a code, I suspect.
Just for the sake of argument...and I'll be this is going to start one...does it seem like the WDFW is deliberately trying to discourage hunter ed volunteer instructors, and thus reduce opportunities for holding classes...and thus reduce the opportunities for new would-be hunters?
The WDFW has tons of interest in promoting wolf expansion, but they seem to be bending over backwards to reduce the number of hunters and then stick those remaining hunters with higher fees, thus reducing hunting to a pastime of the elite.
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2012, 06:31:25 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 06:32:52 PM
I think the Governor (and decades of liberal governors before her) has top-loaded the commission with people who detest hunting and will work to end it or at least severely limit it. If a wolf is a convenient vessel to attain that goal, great. By allowing this predator unprecedented protection and adopting the most aggressive wolf plan in the west and No. Rockies, they'll decimate ungulate populations (to include the extinction of the woodland caribou), and be "forced" to limit our hunting opportunities and reduce the number of tags sold.
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2012, 06:48:36 PM
Come up with some BS rules about wolves and other predators and you will have some Lax enforcement by people that understand and use digression. But the vast majority will tow the line because they are more worried about their paychecks. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2012, 06:35:44 AM
P-man you obviously don't work for the gubment... There are some good people in the WDFW but they do not have enough rank to change Chit! What you just describes is the difference between playing Chess and Checkers! Gov employees don't speak up very often on policy unless its some serious whistle blower stuff and even then its rare because it ends their career. I know because i Have a mom and a wife that have seen some stupid stuff in education.
Come up with some BS rules about wolves and other predators and you will have some Lax enforcement by people that understand and use digression. But the vast majority will tow the line because they are more worried about their paychecks. :twocents:
My comments in no way contradict what you've said, Special T. I don't think all of the DFW employees agree with the severity of the wolf plan, but I don't count on any of them bucking the system to change it, either. Once the commission has spoken, the edict is followed.
Post by: JJD on April 18, 2012, 08:35:18 AM
I don’t think the “Hunter Ed” leadership or the advisory groups are anti hunting, they are just being led down a path set by liberals where personal responsibility is a non issue. They still spend their time trying to “level the playing field” as well as making the world a safer place through reduction in personal freedom.
The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that if a conservative does not like a classes’ format or time frame, they will find a class that does. A liberal on the other hand, will complain that he (or his kid) had to spend 4 more hours in my class than he would have in a class in a nearby community. A conservative will research what is available well in advance; a liberal will be mad when they try to sign up the day the class starts and find the class is full. A conservative gives back to that which has brought them joy over the years and volunteers to keep it going, liberals want us all to pay a tax or fee to keep everything going, so they can have things where, when and how they want it.
:twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on May 02, 2012, 04:33:53 PM
I am not totally sure I will be doing another class. I have been waiting to see what the policies are. If in fact they insist on serial numbers of my own firearms than I may be done doing classes. At this moment I have not given any time to the consideration of another class. From the emails I am getting the serial number issue seems to be the tipping point for a lot of instructors. Not surprising
because it reeks of Big Brother.
At this point I am on the fence. If I can continue to bring in firearms with trigger locks or a double instructor sign off and not use orange guns. Provide no serial numbers of my own guns than I can think I can live with that. If they insist on the serial numbers of pernonal firearms than I would encourage any instructor to leave the program.
It is wait and see for now. They would have been better advised to do this process during the slow months instead of the middle of the teaching season.
Bobby Beddome
My gun permit was issued December 15, 1791 and never expires.
Give your rights some exercise or lose them forever.
Bobby:
Josh would like to know when you are going to hold your next class. He would like to get his son in. Alex
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2012, 05:04:43 PM
I received a email today from a past instructor inquiring about future classes. The following was my response.
I am not totally sure I will be doing another class. I have been waiting to see what the policies are. If in fact they insist on serial numbers of my own firearms than I may be done doing classes. At this moment I have not given any time to the consideration of another class. From the emails I am getting the serial number issue seems to be the tipping point for a lot of instructors. Not surprising
because it reeks of Big Brother.
At this point I am on the fence. If I can continue to bring in firearms with trigger locks or a double instructor sign off and not use orange guns. Provide no serial numbers of my own guns than I can think I can live with that. If they insist on the serial numbers of pernonal firearms than I would encourage any instructor to leave the program.
It is wait and see for now. They would have been better advised to do this process during the slow months instead of the middle of the teaching season.
Bobby Beddome
My gun permit was issued December 15, 1791 and never expires.
Give your rights some exercise or lose them forever.
Bobby:
Josh would like to know when you are going to hold your next class. He would like to get his son in. Alex
In light of your passion for hunting and our 2nd Amendment, I find it interesting that you would consider not doing the program anymore. That's the one action that will leave us with fewer proponents down the road - not having enough instructors to teach the up and coming young-ins. This is not the time to quit Hunter Education.
Post by: Oldguy on May 03, 2012, 08:13:38 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on May 03, 2012, 10:35:36 PM
I received a email today from a past instructor inquiring about future classes. The following was my response.
I am not totally sure I will be doing another class. I have been waiting to see what the policies are. If in fact they insist on serial numbers of my own firearms than I may be done doing classes. At this moment I have not given any time to the consideration of another class. From the emails I am getting the serial number issue seems to be the tipping point for a lot of instructors. Not surprising
because it reeks of Big Brother.
At this point I am on the fence. If I can continue to bring in firearms with trigger locks or a double instructor sign off and not use orange guns. Provide no serial numbers of my own guns than I can think I can live with that. If they insist on the serial numbers of personal firearms than I would encourage any instructor to leave the program.
It is wait and see for now. They would have been better advised to do this process during the slow months instead of the middle of the teaching season.
Bobby Beddome
My gun permit was issued December 15, 1791 and never expires.
Give your rights some exercise or lose them forever.
Bobby:
Josh would like to know when you are going to hold your next class. He would like to get his son in. Alex
In light of your passion for hunting and our 2ND Amendment, I find it interesting that you would consider not doing the program anymore. That's the one action that will leave us with fewer proponents down the road - not having enough instructors to teach the up and coming young-ins. This is not the time to quit Hunter Education.
I have often heard this argument. I do have passion for the program. But I cannot sell my soul in the name of the children. At some point so much needless regulation takes the fun out of it. You spend more time worring about all the needless restrictions than teaching the class. I am willing to change, to try new ways , providing serial numbers of my personal arms just because I bring them to a class is needless regulation and does nothing to improve the quality of the program.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 04, 2012, 06:43:03 AM
Post by: Special T on May 04, 2012, 07:50:20 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on May 04, 2012, 08:28:40 AM
Ghosthunter, this is not selling your soul. No ones asking you to do something immoral or unethical; pretty dramatic, don't you think? It's adjusting to new regulations. That's all. Can we teach the program effectively without live weapons? Of course we can and we still have an optional live fire session we can do. Is it harder to teach? Maybe, but I doubt that the difference is noticeable if you're not focused on it. And, this is not just for the children, because many of the people taking hunter education are adults. This is literally for the future of our sport. If we don't have enough instructors to teach all of the people who want to hunt, we lose opportunities and we lose bodies. We have to stem the hemorrhaging of hunters from our sport or it will go away over the coming years. We can't have more hunters without the needed instructors.
Ive been teaching 17 years I have adjusted to lots of new regulations. Some of them I was the first to try. At some point its just too much regulation. Instructors not teaching the classes will be the least of the problems in this state. Hunter numbers are down. Sauces rates are down, Access is down,costs for everything is up.
Everyone teaches for their own reasons. Mine was to give back and to turn out excellent gun handlers, not shooters, gun handlers. Young folks who could pick up most firearms and do it safely. The program allowed me to do that in the beginning. I brought in a variety of firearms and let students explore them. The students needs where met and my intrests where met, underlying is my support of 2A and the right to bear arms.
Some of the new policies like fake guns, and required serial numbers go against my beliefs. So it is like selling my soul. When you give up the things you be live in just to fit into a group. I am not sure I can do it, thus I am taking a break.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 04, 2012, 09:06:49 AM
Ghosthunter, this is not selling your soul. No ones asking you to do something immoral or unethical; pretty dramatic, don't you think? It's adjusting to new regulations. That's all. Can we teach the program effectively without live weapons? Of course we can and we still have an optional live fire session we can do. Is it harder to teach? Maybe, but I doubt that the difference is noticeable if you're not focused on it. And, this is not just for the children, because many of the people taking hunter education are adults. This is literally for the future of our sport. If we don't have enough instructors to teach all of the people who want to hunt, we lose opportunities and we lose bodies. We have to stem the hemorrhaging of hunters from our sport or it will go away over the coming years. We can't have more hunters without the needed instructors.
Ive been teaching 17 years I have adjusted to lots of new regulations. Some of them I was the first to try. At some point its just too much regulation. Instructors not teaching the classes will be the least of the problems in this state. Hunter numbers are down. Sauces rates are down, Access is down,costs for everything is up.
Everyone teaches for their own reasons. Mine was to give back and to turn out excellent gun handlers, not shooters, gun handlers. Young folks who could pick up most firearms and do it safely. The program allowed me to do that in the beginning. I brought in a variety of firearms and let students explore them. The students needs where met and my intrests where met, underlying is my support of 2A and the right to bear arms.
Some of the new policies like fake guns, and required serial numbers go against my beliefs. So it is like selling my soul. When you give up the things you be live in just to fit into a group. I am not sure I can do it, thus I am taking a break.
Have you used or seen the inactive firearms? They're real guns, not fake. They're just unable to fire. I'm not sure what the perceived problem is because if you have active guns in class, there's nothing you can do with them that the new guns can't do. Active firearms are still allowed for the optional live-fire.
Ghost, your 17 years as an instructor show your incredible level of commitment to the program. Thanks for the probably thousands of hunters you've added to our ranks. I hope that I've been able to give this much to our sport when my days are done. :tup:
Post by: JJD on May 24, 2012, 06:07:29 PM
The state does not allow us to put a minimum age on perspective students, have you seen an 8 year old try to handle one of these adult sized arms? IMHO, we are setting them up for failure in the field course. Be like you trying to control one end of an 8 ft, 2x8 from the opposite end.