|
Post by firstwd on Mar 24, 2022 19:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 24, 2022 22:40:18 GMT -5
When I took my kids it was a 40 minute trip each way, two days. The instructor was great, but didn’t teach them any more than what I had already taught them. My daughter still has never hunted, but I didn’t want to have to do it again if she decided to. I’m not saying that the hunter ed requirement is bad, but it probably does prevent some kids from hunting. Some parents either don’t have the time, or the desire. My dad is obsessed with fishing, but has never hunted a day in his life. Some parents aren’t willing to go through the process. I was lucky enough that I didn’t have to so I was able to go without it. But yet the parents have days and days on end to spend taking their kids to grammar school and high school sports? I don't see the problem. The problem is where the parents priorities are. How many kids will use the sports in their life when they are adults?
|
|
mgf
Junior Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by mgf on Mar 25, 2022 4:16:36 GMT -5
I don't think there's a problem here that needs to be solved...other than the fact that some people are just always looking for a way to push somebody else around.
If I were going to be hunted I'd prefer that the hunter was a lousy hunter and a rotten marksman...so I could get away. If you want to do the critters a favor teach people how to do it wrong.
When I took my kids through the hunter safety course the class was more about general outdoor safety than hunting. Maybe hikers should be required to buy a license and take the course. They're more often the ones who get in trouble and it's about time they help pay the bills the way we do.
Keep punishing hunters and hunter numbers will dwindle even faster.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 25, 2022 5:45:05 GMT -5
When I took my kids it was a 40 minute trip each way, two days. The instructor was great, but didn’t teach them any more than what I had already taught them. My daughter still has never hunted, but I didn’t want to have to do it again if she decided to. I’m not saying that the hunter ed requirement is bad, but it probably does prevent some kids from hunting. Some parents either don’t have the time, or the desire. My dad is obsessed with fishing, but has never hunted a day in his life. Some parents aren’t willing to go through the process. I was lucky enough that I didn’t have to so I was able to go without it. That isn't a hunter ed issue. Hunter Ed isn't going away. Just look at other states, some cut off dates are back in the 40s. Personally, I would like to see the limit of 3 apprentice licenses for youth eliminated and let anyone under 18 have one. At the age of 18, if you have already used 3 or more apprentice licenses, hunter ed would be required.That change would defiantly help and moving classes back to schools would also help...there has or had to be a problem or the apprentice licenses would of never happened. Hunter Ed is a answer looking for a problem IMO.... Just look at all the past and Older hunters that hunted and never had it forced on them! I personally don't remember any more accidents then vs now.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 25, 2022 6:14:55 GMT -5
When I took my kids it was a 40 minute trip each way, two days. The instructor was great, but didn’t teach them any more than what I had already taught them. My daughter still has never hunted, but I didn’t want to have to do it again if she decided to. I’m not saying that the hunter ed requirement is bad, but it probably does prevent some kids from hunting. Some parents either don’t have the time, or the desire. My dad is obsessed with fishing, but has never hunted a day in his life. Some parents aren’t willing to go through the process. I was lucky enough that I didn’t have to so I was able to go without it. But yet the parents have days and days on end to spend taking their kids to grammar school and high school sports? I don't see the problem. The problem is where the parents priorities are. How many kids will use the sports in their life when they are adults? "grammar school and high school sports" can also be done from about any home......Hunting and shooting require special spots and equipment that most don't have. Big difference IMO
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 25, 2022 6:58:47 GMT -5
I've never taken hunter ed because I haven't had to, but if Indiana required that all hunters had to take the course, I feel the vast majority of hunters would do so. I just think most would take the online course so as to avoid sitting in a classroom for two days. IMO, hunter ed isn't the biggest problem this state (and most others) has when it comes to hunting. The biggest problem is a lack of places to hunt.
And hunter ed isn't going to change that...
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 25, 2022 7:22:48 GMT -5
I generally think Hunter's Ed is a good thing. I've taken it 3 times now and don't think I really learned much any of the times, but that's because I had gun safety drilled into my head long before I first took the course (as a 9 year old I think).
Where I think the course is valuable is people who are completely new to hunting and firearms. The most unsafe people I've seen handle a firearm are adult-onset hunters. They would really benefit more from the in-person class than online IMO. I won't go so far as to say in-person should be required, but do think it would be beneficial.
I agree that the unlimited youth apprentice license is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 25, 2022 7:32:11 GMT -5
I generally think Hunter's Ed is a good thing. I've taken it 3 times now and don't think I really learned much any of the times, but that's because I had gun safety drilled into my head long before I first took the course (as a 9 year old I think). Where I think the course is valuable is people who are completely new to hunting and firearms. The most unsafe people I've seen handle a firearm are adult-onset hunters. They would really benefit more from the in-person class than online IMO. I won't go so far as to say in-person should be required, but do think it would be beneficial. I agree that the unlimited youth apprentice license is a good idea. Why have you taken it three times?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 25, 2022 8:44:27 GMT -5
I've never taken hunter ed because I haven't had to, but if Indiana required that all hunters had to take the course, I feel the vast majority of hunters would do so. I just think most would take the online course so as to avoid sitting in a classroom for two days. IMO, hunter ed isn't the biggest problem this state (and most others) has when it comes to hunting. The biggest problem is a lack of places to hunt. And hunter ed isn't going to change that... That very true on the access on places to hunt but that not a easy problem to fix also…. Some will refuse to pay to hunt and some will refuse to hunt public land. Some times it the choices one makes that limit them to NOT hunting IMO! BTW….. if you’re hunting your own land no Hunter Ed or license is required…. So not hunters would need Hunters Ed!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 25, 2022 8:46:38 GMT -5
Yep… age restrictions and of course you need internet access!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 25, 2022 9:04:52 GMT -5
I've never taken hunter ed because I haven't had to, but if Indiana required that all hunters had to take the course, I feel the vast majority of hunters would do so. I just think most would take the online course so as to avoid sitting in a classroom for two days. IMO, hunter ed isn't the biggest problem this state (and most others) has when it comes to hunting. The biggest problem is a lack of places to hunt. And hunter ed isn't going to change that... That very true on the access on places to hunt but that not a easy problem to fix also…. Some will refuse to pay to hunt and some will refuse to hunt public land. Some times it the choices one makes that limit them to NOT hunting IMO! As "pay to play" has become more commonplace, I would imagine it's more likely the cost factor that keeps people from going that route and less that hunters are unwilling to pay for access. Sometimes, "paying to play" doesn't get you what you hope for as keeping people off the lease can be a giant pain in the rear end (been there done that). As far as public land goes, I guess that would depend upon how far one is willing to drive and how crowded with hunters that any particular piece of public land is, as factors in the decision to go the public land route or not. As you said, it's not an easy issue to fix.
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 25, 2022 9:09:40 GMT -5
I generally think Hunter's Ed is a good thing. I've taken it 3 times now and don't think I really learned much any of the times, but that's because I had gun safety drilled into my head long before I first took the course (as a 9 year old I think). Where I think the course is valuable is people who are completely new to hunting and firearms. The most unsafe people I've seen handle a firearm are adult-onset hunters. They would really benefit more from the in-person class than online IMO. I won't go so far as to say in-person should be required, but do think it would be beneficial. I agree that the unlimited youth apprentice license is a good idea. Why have you taken it three times? In-person for myself as a kid, in-person with my own kids (not a registered student, but still sat through the whole thing), and online through Arizona G&F because they don't recognize other states Hunter's Ed for their big-game draw.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 25, 2022 9:25:23 GMT -5
That very true on the access on places to hunt but that not a easy problem to fix also…. Some will refuse to pay to hunt and some will refuse to hunt public land. Some times it the choices one makes that limit them to NOT hunting IMO! As "pay to play" has become more commonplace, I would imagine it's more likely the cost factor that keeps people from going that route and less that hunters are unwilling to pay for access. Sometimes, "paying to play" doesn't get you what you hope for as keeping people off the lease can be a giant pain in the rear end (been there done that). As far as public land goes, I guess that would depend upon how far one is willing to drive and how crowded with hunters that any particular piece of public land is, as factors in the decision to go the public land route or not. As you said, it's not an easy issue to fix. Yep… it’s a matter of how bad you want to hunt or how easy you just give up! Everyone makes their own personal choices! Maybe the Democrats can come up with a way to give everyone a FREE place to hunt undisturbed!
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Mar 25, 2022 9:41:49 GMT -5
From what I have seen of questions asked on forums and ASK the C.O. maybe a reading competency level should be required.
A shooting test would be a logistical nightmare. Would I have to qualify with the weapons used in each season or just the weapons I choose to hunt with? Would there be endorsements on my license? How about moving targets? It is a good idea in many ways but in the end I do not think it would work.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Mar 25, 2022 11:18:23 GMT -5
What makes you guys think the hunter ed requirement prevents kids from hunting? In my county there is typically only one time per year to get hands on hunter ed training, it's not well advertised, and it takes a full Saturday and Sunday for the kid and usually an parent or relative accompanying them. Big time commitment and someone has to drive them there and typically attend with them. Swimming is probably more dangerous, but we don't require swimming ed to jump in the pool.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 25, 2022 12:16:49 GMT -5
But yet the parents have days and days on end to spend taking their kids to grammar school and high school sports? I don't see the problem. The problem is where the parents priorities are. How many kids will use the sports in their life when they are adults? "grammar school and high school sports" can also be done from about any home......Hunting and shooting require special spots and equipment that most don't have. Big difference IMO The issue in the post wasn't the equipment but the time it took to go to the hunting education class. That's aples vs. oranges in your example. My point was that the time to take a child to the hunting education class pales in comparison to the time that parents spend taking and spending with their kids in sports. So to me, that excuse of not having the time doesn't fly.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 25, 2022 12:20:21 GMT -5
From what I have seen of questions asked on forums and ASK the C.O. maybe a reading competency level should be required. A shooting test would be a logistical nightmare. Would I have to qualify with the weapons used in each season or just the weapons I choose to hunt with? Would there be endorsements on my license? How about moving targets? It is a good idea in many ways but in the end I do not think it would work. If it isn't a logistical nightmare in those countries, why should it be one here? Yes, they have to qualify with every weapon they want to use. It all boils down to limiting the weekend warriors that don't respect the animal enough to get familiar with their weapon of choice and to practice with it enough to be proficient to ensure a clean kill 99.5% of the time with it vs. the people that think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 25, 2022 12:23:39 GMT -5
What makes you guys think the hunter ed requirement prevents kids from hunting? In my county there is typically only one time per year to get hands on hunter ed training, it's not well advertised, and it takes a full Saturday and Sunday for the kid and usually an parent or relative accompanying them. Big time commitment and someone has to drive them there and typically attend with them. Swimming is probably more dangerous, but we don't require swimming ed to jump in the pool. One weekend of the year for a lifetime of hunting for the kid - I think that's a worthy trade-off. I bet that in 100% of the time it's the parent that doesn't have the time vs. the kid. Take swimming in your example. You don't take a kid that has never been swimming and toss them into the deep end of the pool, or have them jump off of the boat out in the middle of the lake do you? I bet not and that they spend hours and days learning to swim.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 25, 2022 12:26:25 GMT -5
As "pay to play" has become more commonplace, I would imagine it's more likely the cost factor that keeps people from going that route and less that hunters are unwilling to pay for access. Sometimes, "paying to play" doesn't get you what you hope for as keeping people off the lease can be a giant pain in the rear end (been there done that). As far as public land goes, I guess that would depend upon how far one is willing to drive and how crowded with hunters that any particular piece of public land is, as factors in the decision to go the public land route or not. As you said, it's not an easy issue to fix. Yep… it’s a matter of how bad you want to hunt or how easy you just give up! Everyone makes their own personal choices! Maybe the Democrats can come up with a way to give everyone a FREE place to hunt undisturbed! They have free fishing days. a free place to hunt would be the state owned land, correct? Do you have to pay to access that area? A free hunting day would be nice though, but I could see where they should require a licensed hunter to take that person under their wing for that day vs. letting someone loose with a gun with no training out in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by treetop on Mar 25, 2022 14:13:25 GMT -5
I took the class many years ago because I couldn’t get a tag out west with out it born to late
The first day was class room the second day we did get to handle and shoot a handgun a rifle and a shotgun they did do a little bit on what to do after the shot as far as the handling of your game also.
I honestly thought it was a good class didn’t really learn much as I was already probably 15 years older than anyone else taking it and it was definitely aimed at them but for a younger kid I think it would be beneficial but maybe that was just our teacher
|
|