Wash. House approves limits on young hunters

[tdelarm]

I post this here because I believe we can learn from what's happening outside our state and that this can help us as Alaskan hunters in remembering to stay on top of these types of issues.

I brought this up a while back. Here's a follow up to what is basically a response to a young hunter finding himself in a situation of making a bad decision. All the more reason we need to promote education in our state whenever the opportunity presents itself.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...yndication=rss

OLYMPIA, Wash. —
Hunters under age 14 would need adult supervision on public land under a bill that's been approved by the state House.
The bill originally would have required supervision on private land too. But the House eliminated that provision before passing the bill Tuesday night on a 70-26 vote. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Current law allows anyone to hunt alone, so long as they have passed a state-certified safety course. The supervision bill is one of several proposed after a hiker was accidentally shot by a young hunter in Skagit County last year.

[strangerinastrangeland]

I guess Im not 'educated' properly in most states to qualify to hunt....:rolleyes:

Im all for education of the next generation, and all it entails. I start with my own kids, then arm the nephews and neices, then I work on my friends and their kids.....

Give a kid a gun and the proper knowlage to use them and someday you will have a "Citizen"

[maynardsct]

Here Here on that. My kids have all grown knowing how and when it was OK to pick up the guns. I'm probably a criminal because they weren't locked away because I didn't want them to be a mysteriuos thing hidden away. That causes allot of temptation, and they knew that if they wanted to handle a gun come ask dad and we will drag them all out. I now have some very safe hunters in my house!! Have a new daughter in-law from New Jersey and it is so funny to see her start a brand new hobby here. She is amazed that we can just carry a gun out the door and not worry about getting in trouble. She is game though!! Already had a couple lessons with the 22s and let her pop off a couple 357 rounds the other day and she loves it!! Whole new life style for her. We now have one more "Citizen" up here in Alaska!!

[Sollybug]

Well, didnt one kid shoot another kid recently in Juneau while rabbit hunting? I mean it might not be that bad of an idea.

[twodux]

ironic

The ironic thing is, the kid who's accidental shooting caused this legislation wouldn't have been covered by it. He was 14. The other irony is, most accidental shooting deaths while hunting are from hunters in their 20's not teens and tweens.

While I'm all for proper training and supervision, I'm not sure this new law accomplishes much except to make the legislature look like they accomplished something.

[mdhunter]

The ironic thing is, the kid who's accidental shooting caused this legislation wouldn't have been covered by it. He was 14. The other irony is, most accidental shooting deaths while hunting are from hunters in their 20's not teens and tweens.

While I'm all for proper training and supervision, I'm not sure this new law accomplishes much except to make the legislature look like they accomplished something.

Not unlike most gun control legislation...I know this isn't strictly gun control legislation, but the premise is the same...

[Akres]

I have no statistical data to back me up on this, but most of the accidental shootings I hear of are in homes and not in the field. This would lead me to believe that it happens most often to kids playing with guns at home and not hunters. I truly believe kids from hunting families play with guns less often, but that is only because of my observations of those close to me. I don't have association with those that don't hunt, so it is all very mysterious to me on that aspect and have to rely on the slanted media to report to me about how they act.

[HereDuckyDucky]

The ironic thing is, the kid who's accidental shooting caused this legislation wouldn't have been covered by it. He was 14. The other irony is, most accidental shooting deaths while hunting are from hunters in their 20's not teens and tweens.

While I'm all for proper training and supervision, I'm not sure this new law accomplishes much except to make the legislature look like they accomplished something.

As a WA resident who has followed this closely, I believe you're right on the money. Most anyone who is under 16 is going to be hunting under supervision.

Why?

Because they can't drive themselves to go hunting.

This law is just a little treat for people who got up in arms over rare, yet tragic incident. First time in 25 years a non-hunter was involved in a hunting-related shooting incident - just happened to be a fatality.

WA only averages 10 or so hunting-related shooting incidents per year, rarely resulting in a homicide, and almost never involving a minor.

It's guys who shoot other hunts while pushing pheasants or guys who shoot themselves because they were careless where they laid their guns.

All in all, this is a MUCH BETTER law than the ones they were proposing earlier in the year. It's better because it appeases the criers while at the same time doesn't actually change anything.

RW

[dakin120]

A large part of the problem...

It's better because it appeases the criers

A large part of our problems is the "appeasement" mentality that seems to pervade society today. I'm not sure if I'm reading your post (quoted above), however it seems that your ok with "appeasement" style of legislation (and social mindset). If this is truely a rare (it is definately tragic) instance, then why is it even being considered for legislation?

[dakin120]

Age of accountability...

I'm not sure if I'm accurate on this presumption either, however I don't believe that any freedom set forth in the constitution was attached or presupposed by/with any age of accountability. The legislation mentioned in this post would appear (to me) to violate the constitutional rights of those minors. Do constitutional rights apply to those who cannot vote? Please correct me if I'm wrong here, I'd appreciate it.

[HereDuckyDucky]

A large part of our problems is the "appeasement" mentality that seems to pervade society today. I'm not sure if I'm reading your post (quoted above), however it seems that your ok with "appeasement" style of legislation (and social mindset). If this is truely a rare (it is definately tragic) instance, then why is it even being considered for legislation?

I understand completely what you're saying, so please let me explain a bit.

My opinion is that the rules were fine as is. The incident was an anomaly, an outlier, a tragic and rare phenomenon.

With that said, the WDFW was going to change something, no matter what. I don't think anyone had any question as to whether or not that was true.

Their initial proposals were extreme:

-minimum age for hunting
-limited access on public lands (meaning restricting hunting on public lands)
-much shorter seasons to accommodate hikers

With that in mind, this new legislation - requiring kids under 14 to have supervision - is an acceptable compromise (even if it doesn't really accomplish anything).

As I said before, 99% of these kids were hunting under supervision anyway because in WA you have to drive to you hunting area 99% of the time.

I also think a law like this affects WA differently than a state like AK. I imagine that there are many areas in AK where hunting from your home is a common practice. In WA, that type of possibility is slim to none, so Washington hunters don't see this legislation as a real infringement upon their rights. In fact, I've heard many who think that it's a good thing because it promotes the mentoring of young hunters, etc.

The hunting culture in WA is nowhere near what it is in AK (sadly). Most families don't hunt, and the ones that do tend not to treat it as a priority. So most kids don't get great guidance from a young age. In light of that, legislation that requires supervision for 8th graders and younger is not necessarily a bad thing for WA. I just wish it hadn't come about as a reaction to such a rare occurrence.

I believe if this would have been proposed under normal conditions, it would be taken differently by most folks.

But, to reiterate, I don't think we needed any change because we're already supervising that age group, and I hate it when the government feels the need to take control of a situation that doesn't lack it.

RW