Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    My reason for entering the base note has to do with what I call
    "slob" hunting.  
    
  - This weekend, I personally spoke with 3! hunters who shot deer with
    a muzzleloader, and after spending a half-day searching for the
    wounded deer, gave up and continued hunting.  2 of these 3 actually
    shot and killed another deer during the same weekend.  This means
    that 3 people were potentially responsible for the deaths of 5 deer.
    
  - My note in the Anti-Hunting note describes some very disturbing
    figures about losses due to crippling shots...birds that are never
    retrieved, but die anyhow.

  - I spoke with a bowhunter Saturday (one of the bozos who shot and
    lost a deer) who said he lost a doe that he shot with an arrow,
    but eventually killed a spikehorn on another day.  
    
    Hunter education is something we take for granted.  I admit that
    I've never taken a course on Hunter Safety, and have used the
    grandfather clause to purchase my license every year.  Observing
    hunter safety, ethics and laws are all extremely vital to the long
    term health of the sport of hunting.
    
    We'll never remove all the slobs from the woods, but I'd venture
    a guess that many of the un-ethical practices are unintentional
    and due to ignorance of the laws and common courtesy.
    
    Mandatory training would go a long way to remove this ignorance.
    
    Comments?
    
    Mark.
    
    Mark.

    
       Mark,
    
        While I agree that there are folks in the woods hunting who have no
    business there, I always have trouble with the word "mandatory". It
    translates into "Law" which must be created and then enforced. It also
    provides for state encroachment into the act by stipulating state
    agencies (eventually) that will train. Then it's simply a matter of
    raising the prices of the training either to solve a revenue problem
    or under pressure form anti hunting groups until it is not affordable.
    
                              Mike
    

    what makes you think that some hunters will change their ways. i have
    been hunting for years and when i lived in n.h. i use to hunt on
    massabesic lake for ducks. i use to see the same hunters year after
    year hunting the lake and shooting ducks or geese and let them just
    swim away cripple and never try to get them. i use to question these
    guys and they always have the same excuse that it was to much trouble
    to chase them. now you have to realize that these guys have been
    hunters for years. so i realy don't feel that a mandatory hunting
    course would change these guys or any other hunters that are only out
    there to shoot things that move. i have been a hunter and fisherman for
    the past 29 years and what ever i shoot or catch i always retrieve it
    and take home to eat.

    
    Mark,
    
    You state some very valid points. I believe the hunter safty course
    should be enhanced to include more woodsmanship or should I say more
    ethics towards the game you hunt. The course stresses the fact of
    firearm safty and should not be any less, but ethics seem to be
    declining year after year.
    
    The NRA course is "Mandatory" in order to purchase a hunting lic., I
    feel more insight of actual hunting should be taught as well.
    
    There are to many people today that buy a Lic. Orange coat, gun, or
    hire a guide every year and call themselves "hunter".
    
    Rick
    

  

    OK I hear you Mark but, I can imagine that even the best shot will
 wound/miss his game occasionally. So whats acceptable if you wound your
 game should you track and track and track for days or one day or 4 hours or
 six hours. Maybe he's going to stay ahead of you forever. I've never had
 this encounter so I wonder at what point do you draw the line, I'd like to
 know so I stay on the right side.

 I met someone last year in Pittsburgh NH who shot and wounded a nice Doe at 
 4pm or so and was unable to track it and gave up around 8pm but went back the
 next morning and did find her dead and bloated severly. He tagged her and 
 turned her in and threw her away (bloating rot). That was very sportsman like!
 so I guess were not all bad.  

    
    
    RE:5
    
    There's exceptions like you have noted. I think what Mark is trying to
    express is that there is a declining mood with lots of, not most of,
    hunters that need to be aware of what is right at the time.
    
    To many hunters give-up because they don't know how to track, only if it's
    spelled out to them in red on white snow will they put forth the
    effort, and this is wrong.
    
    Rick
    

    
    A few comments from Ontario.
    
    Here the HUNTER SAFETY COURSE (maybe a new title is needed) is 
    MANDATORY. The course if fairly thorough. Firearm safety is constantly
    stressed with an entire section on gun and people safety. Hunter ethics
    are discussed and a fairly indepth section on identification (of game).
    The course also touches on survival tactics: hypothermia, gashes,
    broken limbs etc. The course only sets the ground work. To get your
    certificate there is a 100 question multiple choice and a practical
    test held at a local sportsman club. The test is fairy indepth. A lot
    of questions on id and 'regs'. The practical is not very forgiving.
    You were allowed a couple of minor goofs like handing the gun to
    another person with the breach closed. However, if you didn't know
    were the safety was or even looked like you were pointing it near 
    someone you were gone. Even if you carried your gun wrong walking
    in line or single file you were gone and back to square one.
    
    You CANNOT obtain a license without having taken the course. For the
    'Grandfather' clause you spoke of, if the previous license is beyond
    a certain date you must take the course. ie  *NO ONE* hunts (legally)
    without having taken the course.
    
    CONS??
    
    You can still get a FAC (Firearms Acquistition Certificate) without
    taking the course. Hmmmmm (This is currently being evaluated)
    
    You can still buy a bow and bow hunt with taking the standard course.
    Of which there is virtually no content in the course. Mandatory bow
    course I understand is emminent.
    
    No course renewal. Let's say you don't pick up a gun for 10 years. 
    Are you still 'safe'?
    
    Re .3   Does it work?
    
    Yes and no. You certainly no doubt trim some chaffe. At the very least
    you have to learn something to pass the course. However whether you 
    apply it, or go anyway regardless of license I expect is an issue.
    I think if there is going to be a course, it should be repeated at some
    interval. IMHO, the course may not help, but can't hurt!
    
    just another 2cents.		/ Andrew /
    
    

    Good points, on both side of the coin.
    
    Larry, Rick basically iterated my point in .6.  The majority of
    people out there make every effort to observe the game laws and
    codes of ethics.  And I strongly agree that the slobs out there
    will always be slobs.
    
    However, I'd venture a guess that a large percentage of us out in
    the woods are making honest mistakes.  My goal is to educate those
    of us who are ignorant of sound and safe hunting practices.  Also,
    I would hope that such courses would raise the awareness that WE
    have a responsibility to remove the slobs from the woods.
    
    Mark.

    
    RE: 8
    
    Mark,
    
    < Your "GOAL" is to educate ............>
    
    What's your plan on how to incorporate the idea into the NRA course??
    
    Rick
    
    

    Mark, I think that is a very good idea, especially if the course is
    expanded to include more on "ethics" as suggested in one of the
    replies.  While it will not eliminate slobs from the woods, it would
    likely reduce them.  For example, those duck "hunters" on Massabesic
    (sp?) may change their outlook if they spent a few hours really
    understanding the problems our duck population is facing.  They may
    not change all at once, but if a few of them change this year, then
    maybe they will change a few of the others next year.
    
    A good example of this is from some of the articles in WILDFOWL about
    duck hunting by the people in rural Luisianna (sp).  Basically, their
    culture includes a lot of living off the land and they have taken their
    abundant duck population for granted for generations.  Through some
    persistent educational work from some commited game officers, many
    of them are taking a different attitude.
    
    Mark,
    

 Doing away with the grandfather clause in many cases would be very helpful. 
Many times when I see slobs they are not young and inexperienced, but have taken
many deer and are seasoned (but ignorant.) My initial inclination, however, is 
to balk at the idea of making the really seasoned woodsmen who may perhaps know
more about hunting and safety than the instructors take a course. Perhaps
a good compromise is making them take a test and only making them take the 
course if they fail. Not that this is foolproof, mind you... I don't like
the idea of making _everybody_ go through the course because we have 
(ostensibly, anyway) a few bad apples. I've never liked the idea of punishing 
the many for the sins of the few.

 On the other hand, I think it is important to clean up our collective act. I
am ashamed of the behavior of many so called hunters. Instead of making it
mandatory that every n years you must go through the refresher, I'd make it
so that if you haven't held a license in n years, you have to go through a
refresher. That way people who hadn't hunted in a while (5 years, perhaps) would
become refreshed without having to go to a whole bunch of classes. I think if 
you are hunting every year, you probably remember everything that's important.

 Another possibility is to give a discount on license fees for those who have
taken refresher courses within the last m years (3 perhaps) to encourage people
to stay current. Encouragement generally works better than "You must..."

 I would also say that anyone who is caught willfully violating game laws
automatically lose their hunting privileges in EVERY state for 2 years and
be required to take a hunter education course before they can get another 
license. A subsequent infraction ought to include jail time. One current
problem is that game laws are not taken seriously because they are rarely
prosecuted vigorously and usually do not have the teeth in them that is
required to dissuade the slobs. We need to remedy that situation as well.

 The Doctah

    Good point on the test, Doctah.  That way people who are up on the
    laws and practice sound woodmanship would not have to take the course,
    assuming they passed the test.
    
    I also believe that many people, myself included, would be enlightened
    by how much we *don't* know.
    
    Mark_who's_registering_for_the_course_prior_to_next_season.

    
    There is a need to remove the less ethical hunter from the woods.
    Ethics is something that most are born with not trained to have.  Some
    education may help some, education would definitely benefit
    upcoming/future hunters.  Making a course 'mandantory' for someone who
    has been out 'hunting' is not, I believe, going to change the out look
    of the individual.  The person will merely be attempting
    to satisfy a requirement which allows them to go out and do what they
    have done before.  I do believe that first time hunters, regardless of
    age should be required to attend a training course.  I say this for no
    other reason execpt that in todays society not many first time hunters 
    have the benefit of being taught properly by peers/parents, because they 
    are too busy or just don't have anyone to coach them.  Again there are 
    execptions to this also. So for the first time hunter
    or the hunter who has not hunted in some 'x' number of years then a
    training course wouldn't hurt.  It would train the untrained and
    re-skill others.  However if it is believed that making a course
    mandatory it would remove the less desireable elements from the woods,
    then it is like believing that all lawyers abide by the law, there are
    no crooked cops, all priest are holy, and accountants never make
    mistakes.  All the latter have had years of training to reach the
    positions they attain, and still there is always the abusers.
    
    Cheers
    Leonard
    

    I think the question is what percentage of "slobs" are that way 
    out of ignorance and what percentage do it out of malice.  I believe
    a fair number behave that way out of ignorace and are trainable, though
    not 100%.  If we believe there is nothing that can be done about the
    slobs out there, we better enjoy our hunting seasons now, because they
    will stop soon.
    
    RE: 10, why would it be such an imposition to have old time hunters
    take a course, especially one that included more on ethics and game
    management?  I would think that most ethical hunters out there would
    be willing to do that to help educate the others.
    
    Mark,
    

>    RE: 10, why would it be such an imposition to have old time hunters
>    take a course, especially one that included more on ethics and game
>    management?  I would think that most ethical hunters out there would
>    be willing to do that to help educate the others.
 
 Consider this parallel: you are 50 years old and have been driving for 34
years. In addition to the 2.1 million miles you have driven on public roads, you
have also driven race cars professionally for 27 years. You have never had an 
accident. You have never gotten a citation. Someone comes along and decides that
everyone must now take driver's education over again if they haven't taken
it before; no grandfathering. The emphasis of the course will be on safety
and courtesy.

 Please explain what you expect this expert to get out of it. I really don't
see a net gain here. Of course, I am also loathe to impose mandatory this and
that when it is not clear that there will be positive results; I have found 
that encouraging works 100 times better than forcing. To me, making such a
thing mandatory, especially when it's going to cost, is nothing less than
taxing. To make hunter education mandatory says to me that someone feels that
it is impossible to be a safe and courteous hunter unless you take hunter 
education first. I know this is not true. I would much rather encourage people
do take hunter safety on their own, or only require it if a) you have never
had a license before b) if you haven't held a license in 5 years, c) if you
have been cited for an infraction of game laws, etc. To require all hunters
who haven't had hunter safety take it supposes that most hunters are not
safe. That's a scary thought.

 The Doctah

    If requiring all hunters to take a saftey course implies that they are
    not safe; grandfathering implies that everyone who has hunted once IS
    safe.
    
    As I said earlier, I would like to see the course include more than
    safety.  It should include ethics and game management to help to
    explain why the game laws are the way they are and what they try to
    accomplish.  I think many oldtime experts would learn something in
    that.
    
    But even if the oldtime expert gained nothing as an individual, he
    would benefit by sharing the woods with more saftey knowledagle
    individuals.
    
    Thinking about it, maybe a retest of driving skills wouldn't be
    such a bad idea either.  It would probably take 1/2 the Mass
    drivers off the road!  :-)
    
    Mark
    

    re. 15  I agree with your a) b) & c) requirements for having to take
    a "Hunter Safety Course".
    
    Two friends of mine (in Mass.) have bought shotguns and licenses to
    hunt in Mass within the past 2 years.  They call me up to go hunting 
    with them and THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN SEASON!!!!!! Not only that,
    they have no idea of bag limits, identifying different types of ducks,
    they didn't even know how to determine the difference between does & 
    bucks.  I think this is utterly ridiculous to be able to happen, maybe
    the state should regulate the issuing of licenses.   This really scares
    me!  Anyone can buy a shotgun, buy a hunting license and go into the
    woods and shoot with NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER!!! Can you believe
    this?!?!?
    
    Erik

    I think a hunter safety course is a good idea, but you can bet if it
    becomes mandatory you'll see the fee triple. Then of course this will
    be justified because now the instructor needs liability insurance and 
    don't forget mandatory insurance for the hunter while we're at it as
    well. OH, and how bout an inspection sticker for your bow and firearms 
    as well.This will of course be followed by registry of hunter safety 
    bureaus and the fees to support them as well. 
    
    Gee ! Good jobs at good wages.
    
    Jim

	I cannot agree more with the idea of more education.
	It is all needed: safety, ethics, game management...
	As hunters we are the only ones who can clean up our 
	act in the woods, and it is badly needed, IMHO.

	Mandatory? All right if you don't like mandatory
	courses, then compromise and require that a test
	is taken every so often (every 3 years?). If you
	fail - well then you are probably in need of the
	course anyway.

	Are we as hunters just to accept all the things which
	we know are wrong (poor safety, bad ethics). If we
	try and clean up our own act we will have MUCH better
	cards on our hands when it comes to debating whether
	hunting should still be allowed. Besides, nice way to
	get hold of people and convince them that there is
	something to fight for :-).

	Good initiative!


						- Mike

    I'm somewhat late in this discussion, but in case anyone is reading the
    follow-on replies, here's my 2 cents.  I'm a Certified Hunter Safety
    Instructor in Massachusetts, and for all the time, and it's indeed
    many, many hours, I don't make a single penny.  Expanding the course,
    or making it mandatory for everyone isn't going to increase the bank
    account of this state, although we could use it!  For new hunters, one
    must either take a Hunter Safety course, or spend a year hunting with
    someone 18 years or older, one gun, one bag limit.  Unfortunately, MA
    is one of only a handful of states that do not make it mandatory for
    all first time hunters to have the course under their belt.
    
    The effectiveness of these courses was something I had questions about,
    but do to much hard work and effort by the state directors and
    volunteers, significant improvements have been made in this state's
    program.  I've been hunting for over twenty five years, and took the
    course myself just five years ago.  I was surprised at what I didn't
    know or how I could improve my own actions.  It struck me so much that
    I felt I had to do my part to get out and become part of the solution
    to improve things for future assurance of safe hunting and as good a
    reputation as possible for the hunter.  Do these courses guarantee
    every hunter will be absolutely safe and project the right image? No,
    but they sure play an important part in trying to provide the right
    education toward that end.
    
    With all the pressure and emotion around hunting, we need to educate
    not only those new to the sport, but also those who have hunted for
    years and are the seasoned veterans.  We need to draw on those time
    tested hunters.  If we don't take a position to do the right thing for
    the sport and the future generations of hunters, we've lost a truly
    great past time.  Debate if you will the need for mandatory courses,
    but my feeling is that the time is right for on going education efforts
    to keep our ranks safe and informed.  Nothing else in our society stays
    still from a learning perspective, neither should the protection of our
    sport.
    
    

    re .20:
    
    Excellent note!
    
    Mark.

    Well put, Vin.
    
    I was in that course with you and I will admit that it was well worth
    while.  (I'm taking baby birthing classes now and what a waste of time)
    
    The thing I remembered from that class was the guy who went fishing,
    fell in the river, got lost and subsequently died of hypothermia after
    wandering around for a few hours.  The course taught me to 1) sit down
    and admit that you are lost.  Stop moving until you get your ducks in a
    row.  2) Get warm at all costs.  If you don't get warm, you will lose
    brain power as body temp goes down.
    
    When I got lost last year, I remembered everything I saw in that course.
    Had I not, I might still be out in the Mount Rainier Wilderness today.
    I'm quite serious.
    
    I remember the other things they taught like making stills in the
    dessert.  I remember not to use a red hankerchief to wipe ones mouth
    when calling turkey.  And I remember Jack Lorenz's talk on semi-autos
    for which he used his 45 full auto for an example :-)
    
    If you havne't ever had a course and have some free time on your hands,
    you might take on for the fun of it.  You're bound to learn something
    and you're likely to meet some friends.
    
    /brett