Post by: Abolt338 on August 07, 2008, 12:19:56 PM
--- ---
Dear Director and Commission,
My name is Rylan Weythman. I am a lifelong resident of Washington State - an avid hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman.
I am writing in regards to the shooting incident that took place this past week when a young bear hunter unfortunately took the life of an innocent hiker. The news shocked me just as much as the rest of the state, and I am deeply sympathetic, both towards the family of the victim as well as the young hunter whose life will never be the same.
In spite of my emotions on this issue, however, I am concerned over the announcement of possible regulation changes - specifically those concerning the closure of public lands to hunters and the establishment of a minimum hunting age.
In times like these it is most important to avoid distraction and stay grounded when evaluating the effects of an incident. Was this a tragic experience? Of course. Should it have been avoided? Of course. Does it necessitate changes to the above-mentioned regulations? Absolutely not.
Public lands are just that: Public. When we restrict public lands to only certain forms of legal activity, we transform those lands into something that is no longer public but selective. Who is to say that hunters and hikers should have different rights to equally public lands? If we prevent hunters from accessing portions of public land to prevent interactions with hikers, are we not shifting from a fair and balanced division of use (something that public land by definition should entail)? The same could be said if the roles were reversed.
Hunters are constantly losing access to nature due to development, community-imposed no shooting zones, and increased regulation. It would be a travesty, however, for regulators in Washington to allow further loss of access due to one very, very rare incident. Hunting is too important to conservation efforts and our culture, and it is something that must be regulated with great care and consideration.
In regards to imposing a minimum age for hunters, I must ask the question, "On what grounds?"
Washington averages approximately ten hunting-related shooting accidents each year; a great majority of which involve the shooting of someone in the hunting party. In fact, the incident I alluded to at the beginning of my letter was the first of its kind in the past twenty-five years.
Furthermore, if we look at the statistics, we see that of those ten accidents per year, children are involved in very few, if any. So on what basis do we establish a minimum age for hunters? Certainly it's not out of public concern over incident rates. If that was the case, we would be better served to regulate the minimum age for riding a bike, playing on a public playground, or chewing gum - as these activities have significantly higher accident rates for American youth.
People will argue that shooting a firearm requires a great deal of responsibility and maturity. I agree. Anyone who has the power to take a life must exercise control over their weapon, their demeanor, and their decisions. But these advocates will further argue that children under a certain age - the age varies with each opinion - are not capable of such control. With this I disagree.
If their argument is true, where are the accidents? Where are the numbers? Where are the news clippings? The short-sighted few will point to the incident this past week as proof, but let us not forget that this hunter was a teenager and that this type of incident is rarer than being struck by lightening.
In light of this, setting a minimum age for hunters accomplishes nothing in the realm of public safety. What it does do, however, is restrict parents from assessing their child's unique ability and maturity, and it prevents parents from introducing their children to an activity that has been passed down from generation to generation. As a society, we are already losing our children to video games, gangs, and drugs. Why would we want to deter them from participating in an activity that promotes health, responsibility, maturity, and self-reliance?
The more I read about last week's incident, the stronger I feel that this isn't about land use or sharing terrain, and it isn't about people being too young to hunt. It's about a lack of supervision.
Instead of restricting hunters' access to public lands or instituting a minimum age for hunters, Washington State should simply require young hunters to hunt under direct supervision of an adult. That way we encourage the role of mentoring and we reduce the already low risk that someone will get hurt in the field.
Sincerely,
Rylan Weythman
Cashmere, WA
Post by: KillBilly on August 07, 2008, 12:37:24 PM
Post by: DeKuma on August 07, 2008, 12:38:14 PM
Post by: Ellensburg on August 07, 2008, 12:38:46 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 07, 2008, 12:45:10 PM
Post by: Curly on August 07, 2008, 12:48:03 PM
Post by: huntingnut on August 07, 2008, 12:48:22 PM
Post by: cabin308 on August 07, 2008, 12:56:56 PM
Post by: saylean on August 07, 2008, 12:58:35 PM
Post by: tlbradford on August 07, 2008, 02:27:33 PM
Post by: Abolt338 on August 07, 2008, 02:37:14 PM
RW
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2008, 02:39:00 PM
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2008, 02:41:39 PM
Post by: rainshadow1 on August 07, 2008, 03:06:36 PM
Well done, A-Bolt.
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2008, 03:07:08 PM
Post by: KillBilly on August 07, 2008, 03:11:26 PM
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2008, 03:17:09 PM
Post by: KillBilly on August 07, 2008, 05:10:31 PM
Killbilly, no matter what the family said in their interview the frenzy has already been set into motion.
Actually Ray, the only Frenzy I have witnessed is right here. I work with a large amount of people, Hunters, hikers, snowmobilers, quad & motorcycle riders, etc. Only 2 people have even mentioned it this week. Both people only ask if I had heard about it. No doubt there are groups that are going to take advantage of the opportunity but that doesn't change the families opinion. If you read it again, all you can take from it is that they weren't asking for or advocating any changes. Pretty plain and clear. So, I see more frenzy here than anywhere else. That is not a bad thing necessarily. Our desire to do something and make something positive out of this is admirable. But the doom and gloom may be just a trifle premature. Keep thinking good and positive while doing good and positive.
Post by: Abolt338 on August 07, 2008, 05:12:37 PM
RW
Post by: BlackTail on August 08, 2008, 11:56:32 AM
KillBilly, you want to see a frenzy go over to nwhiker.net. I just read 58 pages of frenzy!
Post by: Ray on August 08, 2008, 12:01:15 PM
The point is that people are upset and want change. You can talk about your letters but I think the WDFW has already said what they are going to do in a terse manner. See the other topic "Bones thoughts on the shooting" or whatever it is for my interpretations. Therefore the letters must be concisely on what you want to see changed and what you don't want. For example - The Start of Bear season dates, wht is the correct age to get a license, who should be allowed to hunt alone unsupervised, what is supervised. Are other seasons under the radar like High Buck because they coincided with hiker use? What else is next?
Who is representing hunter rights in Wa state collectively? Probably just the NRA-ILA which I emailed yesterday. We'll need to be organized a lot more than with letters in order to mitigate the losses. Maybe hunters should be the ones who propose the changes before the anti hunters do...... Why should we remain reactive instead of being pro-active?
Post by: gramps on August 08, 2008, 02:37:55 PM
Post by: KillBilly on August 09, 2008, 04:43:19 AM
Killbilly, If you have not seen the mob in action check out the Seattle PI Soundoff or NWHikers.
The point is that people are upset and want change. You can talk about your letters but I think the WDFW has already said what they are going to do in a terse manner. See the other topic "Bones thoughts on the shooting" or whatever it is for my interpretations. Therefore the letters must be concisely on what you want to see changed and what you don't want. For example - The Start of Bear season dates, wht is the correct age to get a license, who should be allowed to hunt alone unsupervised, what is supervised. Are other seasons under the radar like High Buck because they coincided with hiker use? What else is next?
Who is representing hunter rights in Wa state collectively? Probably just the NRA-ILA which I emailed yesterday. We'll need to be organized a lot more than with letters in order to mitigate the losses. Maybe hunters should be the ones who propose the changes before the anti hunters do...... Why should we remain reactive instead of being pro-active?
Wanting and getting are two different things. We want changes in Iraq, we want changes in taxes, we want changes in gas prices. The "mobs" as you refer to them are much larger on those issues. I don't expect to see any large or wholesale changes because of this unfortunate instance. I do expect WDFW to act intelligently and make decisions that will enhance safety without degrading opportunities for any user groups. My experience with Mobs is that are very seldom right and usually are wrong. Thus the name mobs....
Post by: Ray on August 09, 2008, 05:59:15 AM
Post by: Ray on August 09, 2008, 06:43:53 AM