Agree or Disagree?

aglore

How many of you agree or disagree that all new hunters should take a Hunter Safety Course.

I have mixed emotions on this one. I don't know if it has had any real impact on hunting accidents or not. It's not required in Alaska except in a few specific locations like before you can hunt on Millitary installations. Haven't heard of any hunting accidents in the last several years. There are firearms accidents up here, but most of those are in the small villages where people just leave their firearms buy the door of the house where anybody can access them. Don't think a Hunter Safety Course would have much impact on a situation like that.

AlleninAlaska

He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-- Thomas Paine

aglore

aglore

Igot this off another forum. Correct me if im wrong but i think this might be a good idea.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUB9AO3.html

E.Williams

I think they are warranted.Most hunters do have the sense to be safe without being told but not all do.I think they are more important for younger people.I dont think it can hurt.

Eric S. Williams

He Dog

I was required to take one to hunt on a military base. I learned some things, and it never hurts to have a safety refreasher. I am not sure I would require everyone to take one, but I would sure recommend it! In New Mexico you are required to take it if you were born after a certain date, so it is mainly aimed at younger folks. They are probably the ones most likely to learn from it and also the most likely to use what they learn. In a state where hunting roads from trucks is a way of live, that could only be good.

A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand

Boomerang

I agree

"Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as it is by the obstacles which one has overcome while trying to succeed."NRA Life Member

robsguns

Personally I think I've seen as many people that have had the course do things unsafe as I have seen from people that havent taken it. Its likely that stupid people are just going to do stupid things, no matter what you teach them, and just the opposite for smart people. Actually I'd measure that as common sense, not stupid or smart. I dont think my son or daughter need to go to a class when they've been taught by me how to be safe, but thats just me, and not everyone is raised around guns, like my children, that may want to hunt later on in life. The thing is this, the hunter's safety courses now days are mostly courses in wildlife conservation, and have very little to do with hunting safely, gun handling, how not to get lost, safe handling of the game, etc. So...its useless for my kids, because they are going to know exactly what to do about hunting, without getting their degree in wildlife management, but that will come soon enough from me also.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

Knifecollector

A hunter safety certificate is required in North Carolina before you can purchase a hunting license. They offer the course in high school,which I think is a good idea. I believe some of the kids get interested in hunting from the course, especailly some that their parents do not hunt. A good way to introduce firearms and safety.

Shootist3006

YES

and

NO

I think such courses are a good idea, I do not think that they should be required.

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

texshooter

I AGREE 100 %. I was a Texas Hunter Safety Instructor in the 80's and early 90's. We all know that not all people do benefit from any kind of safety class, but if I only helped prevent 1 incident, it was worth it. Some of my best students were women.

I might add, Where I work, a safety violation can cost you your job, if you live to tell it...

ONE RIOT - ONE RANGER

Iconoclast

I absolutely agree that it should be required. I taught the course for several years. Since it became mandatory about 30 years ago, the number of accidents per capita has declined significantly. As robsguns said, it doesn't prevent dumb people from doing dumb things, but there's no doubt in my mind that it does help. One side benefit I saw was parents who were 'grandfathered' because they had received licenses before the law went into effect were coming in w/ their kids and would tell us they found the course useful & informative for themselves.

I would distinguish this from a requirement of taking a course before owning a firearm on the basis that hunting is a privilege while ownership is a Constitutional (and basic) *right.*



Edited by - Iconoclast on 08/19/2002 20:13:18

lokdok1

Maybe I'm a little jaded, but somebody shot right at me back in 84,and I overheard another group of hunters talking about "sound shots" while eating lunch in a diner. A hunter safety course NEVER HURT NOBODY.

Bartman

William81

In Illinois you must complete a hunter's safety program to receive your first hunting licence. It reinforced what my son was taught by me. I believe it is a good idea for most.

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals....

offeror

I don't know many hunters who haven't gone out and learned it from more experienced people. It's fine to say everybody should take a course, but there's isn't an "accredited" course everywhere. Hunters have been learning from their dads for a long time and doing pretty well. If you want to learn to hunt and don't know anybody, then it's time to hire a teacher. You don't just wander out into the woods. It's a good way to shoot yourself, or get shot by another hunter.

- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Alpine

I agree they should be required. If a person does not learn from the class then that is an entirely differant problem. There are many fine programs out there to pick from. Some are better than others. But any program is better than none.
Also I believe that hunter safety statistics have shown that with more hunter education, hunter accidents rates go down.

"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."

Edited by - Alpine on 08/19/2002 21:26:24

4wheeler

Yes if it could be done in the right manner but like everything else it could become a money thing.I am a firm believer that common sense cannot be taught.I have not taken a safety course but I know not to take sound shots(this is unbelieveable to me that this even occurs)I always know what I shoot at.I am not expert on guns and may never be but I handle them safely and treat every gun like it is loaded,always.

"It was like that when I got here".

Rembrandt

I've been teaching Hunter Education for nearly 20 years, never made a penny at it, it's all done by volunteers. We average about 250 students each year, about 20% are women. Statistics don't lie....states that have implemented the program have seen hunting accidents significantly reduced. Hunter Ed programs are about 10-15% firearms and the rest deals with ethics, first aid, survival, wildlife identification, game laws, etc. We also do live firing of rifles & shotguns as well as dressing game animals....courses usually run about 10-12 hours. You're not going to teach new habits in that short of time....but for a lot of students this will be the only education many will ever get........my answer, YES!, I agree it should be manditory.




Edited by - Rembrandt on 08/19/2002 21:59:26

4wheeler

Rembrandt,you should be proud of that achievement.Virginia now has a law that all new hunters must take a hunter safety course,most of the time it is taught at school.It has been law, a number of years.
If all states could get dedicated people like yourself and not turn it into a political agenda then I am 100% for hunder education!

"It was like that when I got here".

Edited by - 4wheeler on 08/19/2002 22:13:14

drl50

The men and women on forums like this are usually the best trainers in firearms use around. Safety and marksmanship. Sending your sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends to a gun safety course would probably be less thorough than your own training. But, for every one of our "trainees", there are a dozen new hunters climbing fences with their safety off and pointing their shotgun at the dog (or worse) as they unload it. I feel sorry for em when they're berated in the field and its because their Dad doesn't hunt and no-one told em, but you can't let em kill somebody. I'd rather see the ones we train get trained again, than the others not get trained at all. Hell, I knew how to drive when I took driver's ed, but i learned some new stuff. (that was 1965 by the way).

Duty Honor Country

Iconoclast

4wheeler & offeror, I cannot speak to all jurisdictions, but as far as I know, all Hunter Safety courses are taught by volunteers. In the ones I taught, we not only provided all the props & time, but even the ammo for the live firing. Before it became mandatory here, the course was conducted under the aegis of the NRA and afterwards only the sponsoring agency changed - same content, same people. The course fee as of the last I knew (I had to stop because of schedule conflicts) here was $10 to cover the course materials and even that was waived if we knew the person couldn't afford it (one of the advantages of a local, volunteer operation). At least in NH, we have one coordinator operating out of the F&G department and the local C.O.s do some supervising, contribute some class time (especially in regard to the game laws).

Varmintmist

Agree, like was stated before, it cant hurt. If the kids/new hunters dont listen, or as more likely happens (IMHO) are retaught by slob hunters, that is another issue.

Those people who see nothing but grey areas, no black and white, are lost in the fog.

robsguns

The trend of opinion here seems to be that the kids, and first time hunters should go. I'm not trying to buck the system here, but I still believe that it being a requirement for ALL NEW hunters to attend is wrong. Just because I've never had a license doenst mean that I cant handle a gun safely, even as a prelegal hunter I could handle one safely. My kids and a lot of my adult friends are the same way. Just because someone has never had a license of their own doesnt mean that they dont know their way around the woods, and how to dress an animal, again, my kids do at age 6&7, as do a lot of my friends who havent had a license. I've actually known several of my friends who could not go with me because they couldnt attend a REQUIRED safety class prior to the season, most of them Marines, who should have been allowed to get a license anyway, they are sure as heck safe with a weapon, and would be with an experienced hunter anyway. I dont like anything that prevents new hunters from being able to participate in my sport with me, just because of a technicality. The government will waive just about anything if it suits them but not a safety course for my 30 year old friends, Marines, SNCO's who are qualafied range safety officers?? Come on!!! So the answer for me is still no, not all new hunters should be required. Ok, I'll shut up now.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

aglore

I could not participate in a Colorado Elk hunt last year because I was born a couple years later than the cut-off date for not having to have a Hunter Safety Certificate. The Hunter Safety course was not available to me before going to Colorado either. I have hunted since I was about 9-10 years old. Have never shot at any target that I could not identify. Respect private property and would not cross over somebodies fence to hunt without first asking permission. I worked for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as a fisheries and wildlife Technician so I do have some knowledge of wildlife conservation. I have taken big game with 139 different firearm/cartridge combinations and I think that sort of qualifies me as to where to put each shot. I have never lost an animal. But I would take a Hunter Safety Course if it was offered on a regular basis in my area. My daughter took it but after her first hunt with me. My oldest son also took it but once again after his first hunt with me. My two youngest sons have not taken but both hunt with me whenever school does not interfere, but I would strongly recommend that they do if for no other reason than to be ready to hunt in a state that does require it.

AlleninAlaska

He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-- Thomas Paine

gruntled

I like the idea but I think a DD-214 should be accepted in lieu of the training. Kalif has some clutzy test & video you have to take to buy a gun but even here they accept the DD-214 instead.

Iconoclast

Ryan & Allen, I have *no doubt at all* that you both are *more* qualified to be in the field than 99% of the people that teach the course, to say nothing of the 'average' hunter. OTOH, how do you craft a law to cover every possible contingency, including individuals who are not residents? For every individual such as yourselves, there are hundreds, if not thousands, whose expertise varies from awful to good. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that in general this training is a positive thing. How much of a bureaucracy / manual will be needed to fairly quantify the license applicants who are exempt from such a requirement? If memory serves, it was enough of a headache establishing national standards to allow reciprocity in recognition of course completion.

robsguns

Iconoclast,
I dont know how to go about it fairly. I just dont think it should be a requirement for ALL new hunters. I can think of a few common sense exemptions off the top of my head though. People over the age of 30 for example, that have served 8 years in the military, that can prove they've passed some type of safety training with a weapon, and it shouldnt take 8 years, but I'm just throwing that out there. I wouldnt exempt the Air Force though, I was in the AF and I know for a fact they dont teach squat, or didnt when I was in. I'd have an Airman prove hes safe to me. Basically what I'm getting at is this, the real point behind hunters safety is nothing more than a lot of people, for good reason, trying to ensure we dont have gun injuries, all the other reasons are secondary, and really pointless fluff for the politician types. If someone can go before someone and safely demonstrate safe handling techniques and recite a few safety rules, thats all I ask. The class, and even passing the demonstrations phase to be exempt isnt going to ensure they put anything they learned, or already knew, to use when it comes to hunting anyway. Seeing people drive is enough to convince me of that. Me, I climb fences, or go between the wire with my gun all the time, dont really care what anyone else thinks about it, I can do it safely, and always will. I jump ditches, climb trees, etc., all with a loaded gun. I do it safely. An unloaded gun is useless. A weapons safety instructor might have a coronary if he went hunting with me. But, ya know what, there is a safe way to do anything, if it has to be done that way. The point here is this, there are safer hunters than me, and more unsafe hunters than me. So long as they dont point a gun at me, shoot at unknown targets, or become careless of where their bullet might land besides the intended target, I'd go with them. I might have to smack them a few times to get their attention now and then if the muzzle starts to wander, but then I could say the same of the way people drive too. Given a choice of going with a hunter with a certificate that I dont know, or a guy I do know, who doesnt have one, I'll go with the guy I know. I'd go with pretty much all of the regulars on this board, just cause I feel as if I know them. Like idsman75, he was exactly what I knew he'd be when he came here, we shot and I had no care in the world about him handling my guns, perfect soldier. Reputation means more than certification to me. Allen, no question, I'd trust him with my life. The hunters safety instructors here, same thing, but I bet they were that way long before the classes ever existed. Then there are those you just know you wouldnt go with, even if they have the card, Judge Dread, no way in hades, Grand Whiz, he might shoot my black friend I bring along, nah, the card doesnt mean much to me. Mine doesnt mean anything, you think I remember what I sat through in a class in 1976? I dont remember what I had to eat yesterday. No disrespect to anyone's opinion on this, this is just mine.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

aglore

Gee Ryan, you sure know how to humble a person. Thank you. There are probably only 10 or less people on most forums I post on that I would not go hunting with. I feel that I would at least have to give the vast majority at least the chance wether they had a Certificate or not. Right about the time that I handed them my firearm to look at or they to hand me their's to look at and they didn't open the action and stick their finger in the chamber to make sure it was unloaded, I would have an idea of what sort of person I was with as far as firearm safety goes.

AlleninAlaska

He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-- Thomas Paine

alledan

IO agree!

twins

I do not believe it is so much about hunting safety as firearms safety and common sense. It was required when I was in Jr high. I don't think it hurts.

salzo

Make a "hunter safety" EXAM mandatory. If you pass the test, you do not have to take the course. If you fail, you have to tke the course until you can pass the test.

"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison

ccasey612

Good one Salzo.

If you will blame gun makers for every shooting then blame car maker for every car accident.

Boomerang

Dang, a nationally recognized hunting exam is a good idea! Did I just say that? I would not be opposed to that if it were administered by a hunting oriented organization (e.g. the NRA, DU) and not another inflated government agency.

Boomer

"Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as it is by the obstacles which one has overcome while trying to succeed."NRA Life Member

4GodandCountry

I guess I feel it is a parents responsability to teach their children firearms skills, safety and hunting ethics. There are people who were not raised around guns and hunting and later become involved in the sport that need to be taught though. If I was to introduce a new hunter/shooter to the sport I would feel responsible to teach them how to handle a weapon safely and hunting ethics. However, if a person decides to get into the sport it is ultimately their own responsibility to make sure they know what the need to know.

When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....

Nighthawk

Just my 2 cents,If they have good parents I feel its their responsibility to teach their children about fire arms safety.I feel it needs to be done over and over,not just a four hour class.Hands on with immediate parential control of the weapon is the first step.I have a soon to be 5yr old Nephew who when I first took him to shoot a 22 Rifle,I got an old toy he no longer played with.And with my help we finally hit and destroyed it.I done that to show him the power of a Rifle.I hope it stays with him,but everyday almost he wants to go shoot Guns.

Rugster


Toujours Pret

tajjn

I would agree. Can you ever have enough firearms training? Took a safty course to hunt at Fort Knox, there was a guy there that not only could not hit a barn if he was in it, but pointed the gun twice at the instructor, some people need more training than others.

Alpine

No matter how safe you think you are, no matter how long you have hunted without accident, can you really say that you would not benefit from a hunter safety course? Would you not go simply because you think you could derive no benefit from the class?
I went back and took the class with both my sons, and my wife, when they took the class. And it helped me answer any questions they had after the class.
On construction sites, a weekly safety meeting is held, even though most people working construction have been doing so for years. Why?
Because the numbers show that with increased education the rate of accidents go down.
Simply put: you can never have to much safety training.

"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."

salzo

BOOMERANG- As far as the exam, I think we would still have to adhere to the constitution. Since the constitution does not authorize a "federal" hunter safety exam, I would expect that any safety exams, SHOULD be done at the state or local level. No FEDERAL exams, 'cause the Federal government does not have the authority to require or offer such things.

"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison

robsguns

Alpine,
No I wouldnt go to a gun safety class, or hunters safety class, even if it was free, during spare time, and taught by a nude super model. Its a waste of my time. Can I learn something new every day? Sure I can. Do I have the potential to learn something new about safety or need to have safety reiterated to me about guns? No. If I dont know it by now, which I do, I shouldnt be allowed to shoot a gun. Repeating the class is like going back to drivers education, worthless. The only thing you can benefit from is learning new laws, and that has nothing to do with safety. For that all you need to do is read the Hunting Handbook laws that are handed out in every state each year. My time is valuable, I spend it hunting, not listening to someone else talk about it, or gun safety. Most of my spare time is spent learing new things about guns, if I'm not actually hunting, thats why I am here a lot. If you dont have the time to hunt, you want to learn new things, not have someone telling you stuff you already know, at least thats how I feel. Honing my skills handling a gun in a course of fire, now thats worth while. An instructor teaching me how to shoot more accurately, faster, in a defensive posture, thats cool, but having to sit through safety lectures, no.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

Rembrandt

Quote Salzo: "Make a "hunter safety" EXAM mandatory. If you pass the test, you do not have to take the course. If you fail, you have to tke the course until you can pass the test."

There is a test that you can take to do this....have given it to a number of hunters that didn't realize Colorado had a 1948 birth date deadline.

He Dog

Ryan, respectfully I will disagree on two points, but note that since you are in the military and presumably do handle rifles frequently it may not apply in the same way. First, the course I took, taught by volunteers was under the auspices of New Mexico Game and Fish. They did not teach conservation, or wildlife management at all, excepting the ethics of takeing what you kill and not leaveing wounded animals out there. They may not all be the same however. Two, I have ridden motorcycles for over 35 years and have taken the riding course more than once. Always helps to have someone objective take a look at the habits you have fallen into and point them out for your consideration. Also, things change. The laws change and the equipment changes. I know you are not saying you are not capable of learning, so you seem be saying there is nothing you don't know. That said, I think most folks could benefit from OR ADD TO such a course.

A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand

robsguns

He Dog,
Well, I wouldnt say nothing I dont know all inclusive, but nothing I dont know that would apply to safe gun handling, yes. Its not that hard, so I mastered it rather easily.
One of my Marine friends here in Ft. Wood couldnt go till he took the course, there are others as well, but this particular friend I take his word at face value. He said the course here in MO had little to do with guns, and a lot to do with conservation, so I guess New Mexico has a class thats a lot better, as far as teaching safety goes.
Glad to hear one state has a good course anyway.
Motorcycle courses? I took a tough one in Michigan, wouldnt want to take that again either. The riding course was difficult enough that they told you from the start to use their little 250 Hondas or you wouldnt be able to negotiate the obstacles, they were right, lots of people learned that the first time out. You might be able to learn something from a course like that. Driving a car on the other hand, whats their to forget? Applying what you learn is the thing. Again, I'd like to take a defensive evading and eluding course like the Secret Service has, or something similar, but not just another driver's ed. class. I figured out how to use the signal already.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC