WA Hunter Ed Legislation 4/15 Update

[Bob33]

My wife took the class 7 or 8 years ago, and I remember there being a small fee. I think it was $15 or $20, and was fully refundable if you showed up for class.

So really, the class is free. They just hold onto your money for a while, and then give it back.

That may be true for your wife's class, but not all classes are free. Some are, but most of the ones I'm aware of charge $5 which is the maximum currently allowed. As stated earlier, it's a common practice in many classes to charge $20 or $25 to register, and then refund the difference at the end of class.

"No shows" are a real problem. In 2012, in Washington there were almost 2,500 individuals that registered for a class and then did not show up. That's 2,500 empty seats that could have been filled by someone else that wanted to enroll but couldn't.

[bobcat]

Oh I don't know, Bob. I really didn't pay much attention to the cost. It could have been that all but $5 was refundable.

[Hunter4Life]

If one kid doesn't take HE for $20 then that is a shame.  Yeah, $20 isn't a big deal to me but add $20 to the first year license, a new gun maybe that fits right and it just all adds up.  There are other places to cut and or open up opportunities for people to volunteer before we need to start charging kids $20 to take the class. 

300rum, you hit the nail on the head.  The goal should be to get as many kids in the field as possible.  Putting up unnecessary barriers is foolishness.  These kids are the future of our sport. 

[lokidog]

When I was a HE instructor in Olympia (late 90's), the group I taught with charged $5 to cover costs of ammo and other instructor personal expenses that were not covered by WDFW including decoys to be used on the extensive field course.  I do not think $5 would be a detriment to recruitment, or even a $20 deposit and then refund upon completion of the course, not just showing up the first night.

[Bob33]

If one kid doesn't take HE for $20 then that is a shame.  Yeah, $20 isn't a big deal to me but add $20 to the first year license, a new gun maybe that fits right and it just all adds up.  There are other places to cut and or open up opportunities for people to volunteer before we need to start charging kids $20 to take the class. 

300rum, you hit the nail on the head.  The goal should be to get as many kids in the field as possible.  Putting up unnecessary barriers is foolishness.  These kids are the future of our sport.

The cost of classes is not the weak link currently. Classes across the state, for the most part, are filled up within days of registration opening.

A more significant issue is "no shows". In 2012, there were nearly 2,500 individuals that signed up for Hunter Education classes and never showed up. When that happens (if the class does not have a waiting list), there is an empty seat that could have been taken by a potential new hunter who couldn't get a spot. 

In my years to being an instructor, I have never once had a student come to class and ask it the fee could be waived. If one did, we would waive it in a heartbeat, or take money out of our own pockets if it came to that.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I started hunting alone before 14 and I don't see anything wrong with it.

[bigtex]

Prior to 1994 it was against the law to hunt alone under the age of 14 in WA.

House Bill 1199 recently had it's first committee hearing. To watch it:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013010133

The discussion starts around minute 12

[xd2005]

Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.

I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).

[lokidog]

Personally, I'm okay with the age 14 thing. However, I do sternly believe the adult should not be required to be licensed. It could be an out-of-state father that is taking his WA resident son hunting, but simply cannot afford to buy an out of state license as well. Or maybe a grandpa, etc. I just do not agree with it.

I've let my representatives know. One responded back that is looks to have a lot of support, but that she'll consider my thoughts (i.e. since WDFW recommends it, she'll support it, regardless).

That's the sad part, they don't really give a crap what input we have to add.   

[KFhunter]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

That is what is being proposed...

I didn't see an LE exemption in there?

When I was in HE with my son a couple years ago there was an armed deputy taking the class with all the kiddies in there 

[Fl0und3rz]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic  (myself included).  I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.

[lokidog]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic  (myself included).  I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.

That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force?  How about crossing a fence?   

[scotty1969]

maybe what they should do is monitor these no shows to see if they are antis and charge them accordingly for malicious mischief

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic  (myself included).  I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.

That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force?  How about crossing a fence?   

Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.

[lokidog]

Some of the changes look good.. The only thing I would change is the age from 8 to at lease 10, and then to totally exempt ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY from hunters ed.

Hunterman(Tony)

I still think the active duty guys should still have to know WA game laws and such.  Maybe they could do a test on-line or something.  I have no problems with them not having to do the range portion.

Note that a large number of non-combat (or non-MP) military people never touched a firearm in service, other than a few shots from a .22 LR pistol in basic  (myself included).  I agree that some could be exempted based on a showing of firearms competency, but a blanket exemption is not accomplishing the intended goal of firearm safety and competency for those non-combat (or non-MP) types.

That, and it's still a HUNTER safety class, do they cover getting into and out of a boat safely in the air force?  How about crossing a fence?   

Now days we have to shoot more than a .22 even if you aren't in a "combat" job. You are required to go anytime you deploy. They don't teach you how to get out of a boat or other hunting related situations but they do teach basic firearms safety which is what hunters education does. Granted, that by no means makes anyone proficient... But neither does hunters education. Most people will go through this more than one time at basic (particularly) if they spend a career in the Air Force. Even if they did only go through it once it would equal the number of times one has to attend hunters education. There are some of us who have training far above and beyond what you get at hunters education.

So, I guess I am confused, does this proposal mean they don't have to do the range portion but still have to pass the written test?  If so, no problem.  But, I think I've read on here, previously, that no student has to do the live shooting, so what's the point of this besides adding more words to whatever government code this is part of?  Anyone taking an NRA or other firearm safety class should then also qualify for the same exemption as the military if that is the reasoning, wouldn't it?