Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    I have been informed that the times for the hearings are:

    HUNTER ORANGE  HB-204 January 29th at 10:00am

                       and

    HUNTERS EDUCATION HB-222 January 31st at 9:30am

    These times are opposite of what I posted earlyer.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    Steve

    
    In reference to hunter-education......
    
    
    What valid reasons could you justify to delete the grandfather clause
    in not needing an NRA certificate.
    
    I know of no "real" good-reason that would hold water in a decision.
    
    Rick
    

    On the hunter orange bill, would that include waterfowl hunters if/when
    the waterfowl seasons overlap with deer season?
    
    Mark,
    

    
    re: -1
    
    Rick,
    
     A couple of thoughts come to mind:
    
     The sponsor may see this as a way to cut down on the number of hunters 
     in the woods, therefor decreasing the possibility for accidents.
     He may also be anti-hunting and is hoping that fewer animals will get
     killed because of the reduced numbers of hunters.
     He may just be trying to insure that all hunters have at least passed
     a hunter safety course.
     Last but not least, he may be using this as a way to decrease the number
     of firearms in the state. I know this one sounds a little far fetched,
     but you never know where these people get their ideas from.
    
     Steve

    Steve,
    
    Actually, I disagree with you.
    
    I think those are both excellent bills.  I look at it thus:  If I had a
    son (we had a girl on the first try), I'd make him take a hunters'
    safety course before he went in the woods with me or anyone else.  Then
    I'd buy him a nice blaze orange camo jacket for hunting not to include
    archery and duck.
    
    I think it's a royal pain in the but to have to take hunters' safety.
    But it was well worth my time.  I wish everyone in the woods near me
    had taken the same course that I had taken.  I would feel much better.
    
    But since they didn't, I wear lots of orange.  Having had deer stare
    right at me and not even see me in my orange (camo), I have no fear of
    not seeing game as a fault of my clothing.
    
    If I were to send mail to senater or congressman whoever, I'd show him
    my support.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    /brett

I totally disagree with mandatory hunter orange.  My reasoning is that
a law like that makes it too easy for some fool hunter to take a wild
leap of logic and think that if it isn't orange it must be a target.  
We have to recognize that a law like this would not require hikers or 
kids or farmers to wear orange.  I wear orange during deer season, and
like Brett said, my sons will too - but that doesn't mean it should
be a law.

I am of mixed opinion on the education bill.  The current bill requiring
either hunter ed or a prior license has been in place for nearly 30 years.
That means that a NH native will have been hunting for at least 30 years
if he has a license and hasn't had training.  I also think it would be
difficult to implement the change all at once (you would need to offer
a lot more courses).  It might make sense to require a training course
every 5 years (If you are 39, you show old license, but if you are 40
you must show certificate).  This could help to keep hunters up to date
with new information as recommended practices may change over time.

    
    re: .5
    
    Brett,
    
    I have not stated my possition either way, I was just giving some ideas
    as to the reason for submiting the hunters ed. Bill.
    
    I agree that it would be nice to have well educated hunters in the
    woods, but to tell 50,000+ (guess) people they can't hunt next year
    until they take the course is rather extreme. Does anyone know how many
    hunters in the state have completed the course? I would be very curious
    to know how many of the 100,000+ hunters in this state would require
    training.
    
    Also, what will something like this do to the F&G's budget?
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    You're right; you never stated your opinion.  I interpretted your
    response in .4 to be against the bills.  I think you are just wisely
    covering all the angles.
    
    I guess I'm also conditioned these days that when I see a congress
    critter's address in a firearms related notefile to call him up and
    tactfully read him the riot act.
    
    Not everybody always agrees with me  ;-) 

    
    
    	Re What will this do to the F&G Budget?
    
    	Let's see:
    
    	Yes sir, can I help you?
    Yes I found out I need to tyake a safety course tro get a hunting tag.
    Yes sir that's right. I can sign you up right here.
    Okay let's do it.
    Fine, that's $100 for the course and $25 for the books, sign right
    here please.
    Wow ! that seems a bit high!
    Yes sir but it is for your safety as well as others.
    		Oh yes this will need re-newing in two years, at $50.
    	
    Steve

    
    O.K. fellow noters. I tried to the first number listed and after many
    rings I got an answer of "Public Protection". I asked if there was
    someone who help me with a "Proposed" Bill. The woman said no one was
    ther for that dept. today but would be here all day tomorrow (1/29).
    The reason I was calling was to get the exact reading of the Bills.
    
    In reason I totally AGREE and SUPPORT both Bills.
    
    Not to speculate until I have heard what the wording is on the Bills
    Waterfowl hunting is "Exempt" from the Blaze law, and Archers only
    "HAVE" to wear Orange during the overlap of seasons (Muzzleloader &
    Rifle/Shotgun). 
    
    Mandatory Hunter Education should be a pre-requsist! But the
    grandfather cluase will probably be upheld. There are alot of "Natives"
    and others who have been "HUNTING" for 30 years that don't even
    use Common Knowledge or Common Sense. As quoted by so many the term
    "Live Free or Die" in this state must come to the point of what is BEST
    and SAFE for all involved.
    
    Also I believe next year you will also need a Bow Hunters Education
    Certificate to get a Bow license.
    
    These courses are given by majority on a Volunteer basis with little or
    no cost involved to the student. Also there are a quite a few courses
    given during the year if your looking for one, but if your not most
    people don't even notice the offering.
    
                                                             Guy
    

Guy,

One more time, I strongly disagree on the mandatory hunter orange.  If you
are for this law, you must also be in favor of mandatory seat belt laws,
mandatory helmet laws, airbags required in all cars, etc.  These and the
orange law are all examples of the government deciding it knows best what
is good for you.  The person who goes out in the woods during deer season
without orange is taking a risk, and it's a risk I don't take, but I
believe that it is that persons right to take that risk if he/she decides
to.  It makes no sense to me that a person going out in the woods with 
a gun should be required to wear orange when a person going out in the 
same woods to collect wreath making material isn't.  The non-hunter may
not even be aware that hunting season is open or realize there is a risk.
The uninformed non-hunter may be at greater risk BECAUSE of mandatory
orange for hunters.  I think that hunter orange laws actually make hunting 
season more dangerous for non-hunters.  The rule of making sure of 
your target and what is beyond is the key to safety.  The responsibility
rests squarely on the person holding the gun.

I agree that there are probably old-time natives who that shouldn't be
hunting.  What I was trying to get at is that a very large percentage 
of hunters (80%?) HAS taken hunter safety courses.  I took one in order
to get my first NH hunting license in 1963 - but I would have a heck of
a time locating proof of that.  I also took Driver Training in 1963 and
wouldn't be able to prove that either.  I took a Bow Hunters Education
course a couple of years ago - I do still have the card to prove that.
Volunteer instructors or not, there might not be enough qualified
instructors to quickly train EVERY hunter in the state.  

    I would think all states back east would have both these laws. Colorado
    has both laws, except archery hunters *currently* do not have to wear
    orange. I thought all mid-west laws where based on what the east and
    west coast are doing.
    
    I don't see where wearing orange is going to increase non-hunter
    kill/shooting rates. I would think more hunters get shot by hunters
    than non-hunter by hunters. And yes I'm for helmet laws and seat belt
    laws, at least until everyone using such has the insurance to cover
    the damage they do to others or themselves, SO I DON'T PAY FOR IT IN
    TAXES !!!!!!!!!!! But, this is for the SOAPBOX.
    
    Hunter Ed. is also a great idea, IMHO. I would like to see more than
    the standard hunters ed. course. Like how to identify game species
    and demo basic gun handeling. Colorado requires anyone hunting in
    the state to have a hunter ed. certifcate, no matter what state
    you come from. I think also that you must have 12 hours of hunters
    ed. to get a cert., it's a two day class here.
    
    if you don't have it - it's about time you do.
    Mark

	If I am allowed to express my opinion on an NH matter -
	being a complete outsider - I would say on account of 
	both laws: they sure sound like the right thing to do!

	It is one of my pet issues that we need more hunters
	education. We cannot have too much safety (we certainly
	don't at the moment!) and it is far better that we clean
	up our own act than have the anti's use lack of safety
	against us. I can see the problem of the old-timers, but
	I don't see why this special problem should stop a law
	which otherwise makes sense, it has to start sometime.
	Granted it may be a bit of an out-lay to take the course, 
	but people normally come out of these courses content with 
	what they were taught, and often surprised at what they never 
	thought about.

	Hunters orange: why not? It is a step in the direction of
	more safety without any terrible drawbacks - much like
	using seatbelts IMHO, and I have gotten pretty used to 
	those by now, would not like to go far without as a matter
	of fact. Cause more accidents involving non-hunters? I
	don't see the immediate logic here, and besides the safety
	course is probably the best measure here, which brings us
	back to square 1.

							- Mike

    	Re. 6- I took my hunter safety course in N.H. in 1975 so I could
    get my hunting license at age 16. But at the time one could still get a
    hunting license at age 18 without a hunter safety course. I think it
    was a year or 2 later that hunter safety became mandatory without proof
    of a previous license. I have always thought mandatory hunter safety
    courses was a good idea. But with the current law in place only
    residents are required to need a hunter safety course. A non-resident
    can purchase a license even though he/she came from a state with no
    hunter safety requirements as long as they had previous license from
    that state. I probably sound like I am on a soapbox here. I think the
    hunter safety course requirement is a good idea. 
    	As far as the hunter orange requirement bill goes I tend to
    disagree. During the firearms season I do wear orange but I would like
    to keep that as my preference not a mandatory law. I have had deer
    practically come right up to me wearing orange. I don't think the
    colors make that much difference to deer but some people might just
    think that if it isn't orange it is okay to shoot. Which would put
    non-hunters in a great deal of jeapardy.
    	Back to the hunter safety course I took it only cost me a dollar
    back in '75 and I think because of inflation it is now 2 dollars. 
    							bret

    I'll put my $.02 worth in too. I think hunter orange is a good idea.
    I have walked out into a medow and had a herd of ~13 deer walk within
    20 feet of me in plain view. Deer are color blind. But once I moved
    enough for them to detect it they were out of there quicker than
    grease lightning. As far as hunters shooting something because
    it isn't wearing Blaze orange, Here in Colorado we have point
    restrictions and seperate doe and cow tags. The fines are extreme
    like around $1000. and God help you if you shoot a moose. If you do
    commit a violation and don't turn yourself in the fines increase 40X
    example was this kid who shot 2 moose thinking they were elk. His dad
    reported it and the fines were about $3500. the article said that if
    they didn't turn themselves in and the DOW caught them the fines would
    have been aroun $130K. 
    
    Here in Colorado, if memory serves me right, Camo blaze orange is
    unacceptible to meet the 500sq in requirement. Some of you other colo
    hunters can clarify this. as for hunter safety, colorado has the law
    if you were born in 1949 or later you need a hunter safety course.
    I took one when I was a boy scout back in 1965 back in PA. when I came
    here the DOW took my old card and issued me a new colo hunter safety
    card. No questions asked. I think its agood idea..... I intend on 
    attending one again when I sign my wife up. It doesn't hurt to have a
    refresher course. I don't believe it should be required to take a
    refresher course and you shouldn't have to continuously keep paying
    annual renewal fees, etc. That sound more like the political beuracrcy
    trying to milk the already overtaxed hunter. In Colorado we pay extra
    taxes on hunting,camping and fishing gear. It isn't readily noticable
    but it is built into the cost ot he stuff.
    
    When we get our hunting or fishing licenses here we pay an additional
    $.25 on each license for search and rescue. This is like an insurance
    policy for getting lost which it seems to happen somewhat here in the
    rockies. 
    
    JC 

    RE .10   <alot of natives hunting for 30 years that don't use
    common-sense> 	
    		ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!
    
    	I've had hunting licenses in MA and ME for decades.  I wanted my
    son (age 11) to learn gun safety proper like and we signed up for
    a hunter safety course early spring.  While it was a total of 16
    hours of instruction (dragged from time to time), it was free, I 
    feel good about what my son learned & I learned a few things too.
    
    re  blaze orange
    
    	I hate wearing it but I wouldn't think of not wearing it.
    While deer are color blind, if you've ever seen a black and white
    photograph of hunters in the woods, blaze orange appears 'whiter'
    than anything an animal is used to seeing in nature.
    

    
    re .11
    
              Please do not take what I said as "Flaming" you in any sense.
    I am all for and will fight for the right of Freedom of Choice. And on
    certain issues there is a time and a place to do that. The issue at
    hand is long over due and fought over. I personally do not wear a seat
    belt unless the law requires it, and when I a motorcycle I'm not
    always wearing my helmet. The govenrment DID NOT start this issue, the
    F&G Dept. voted (6-2?) in favor of a mandatory limit of Blaze during
    the firearm season for deer. Hunting,Guns,and Shooting Sports are all
    under intense pressure to be banned. With all the negative publicity
    that has happened in the past two years surrounding these pleasures,
    in my opinion and it seems most others that this bill "IF" passed would
    be very easy to live with. All the data proves that when a state has a
    "Blaze Law" the amount of accidents decrease, and with that decrease so
    does the publicity of how "Trigger Happy" we supposedly are.
    
    
                                                          Guy
    

    
    + re .17
    
                If you call the F&G Dept. in the state that you took your
    Hunters Safety course in, you may be surprised to find out that they
    have transfered all those space consuming records to Mirco Fiche. Here
    in N.H. that is the case, and I took my course in 1974 and still have
    my original, but while at there office I got a duplicate for myself and
    my younger brother for $1 each.
    
                                                            Guy
    

    First let me qualify my position by stating that I never enter the
    woods without hunter orange.  Even during bunny season after the New
    Year.
    
    Having said that, I oppose the first proposal and support the second.
    
    Proposal 1: I'm of the opinion that this will cause people to have the 
    attitude that "if it ain't got orange, I'm gonna shoot".
    
    Proposal 2: Hunter safety courses should not only be mandatory, but
    they should throw out the grandfather clause.  How many times have we
    heard the guy who shoots another hunter claim, "I've been a life-long
    hunter, blah, blah, blah."
    
    Mark.

    
    I'm not sure what the law makers are trying to accomplish here.
    The accident rate is very low in NH and half the accidents are self
    inflicted.
    
    Hunters saftey course? How about $20 licence for those who have taken
    the course and $60 for those who haven't. This is in addition to
    existing laws that require a saftey course or previous licence.
    
    Hunters Orange? I wear it. I wouldn't want to be required to. It won't
    stop the 'sound shooters' from taking their blind shots, and it will
    interfer with the waterfowl and bow hunters.
    
    Good practice doesn't always make good law ....
    
    Doug

 I guess I'll be one to disagree.

 I don't believe that teaching hunter safety to someone who has been hunting
for 30 years is going to give us any net gain at all. If they have learned bad 
habits in 30 years, a few hours of training is not going to undo them. The only
way to really make a difference in the behavior of the older hunters is via
peer pressure (not that this is infallible). I do believe in the idea of
hunter safety for new hunters, however. The days when dad and uncle could teach
junior how to be a safe hunter in the uncrowded woods are gone forever in NH,
I suspect. Note that my opposition to this measure in no way is influenced
by parochial interests; I have taken hunter safety and everyone I hunt with
has taken hunter safety. I just don't see the value in making the older hunters
sit through a course given the strain it will put on the teaching facilities
and the increased costs associated. "Sorry, you're on a 5 year waiting list
for hunter safety classes, Mr. Richardson..." I would support making anyone
under the age of __ produce a hunter safety certificate, regardless of whether
they've hunted before or not. Maybe we can break some bad habits by nipping 
them in the bud in the younger folks who have not thoroughly ingrained them.

 I completely disagree with the idea of mandatory hunter safety orange. You
do not hurt others when you venture into the crowded woods without it. You
_may_ be endangering yourself. I am loathe to impose rules for people's "own
good." The government does not always know best. While I have habitually
worn orange while deer hunting, I do not support a law that mandates such.
I subscribe to the argument that if all hunters must wear orange, some hunters
will feel "if it ain't orange, you kin shoot." Hikers and nature lovers should
not be in mortal fear when the enter the woods in November. They ought not
be required to wear hunter orange either. What is really required is that
hunters identify their targets (and what's behind them.) This "I mistook him
for a deer" stuff has to stop, and it won't just because hunters wear orange.
It is highly unfortunate that people are injured and killed in the woods each
year- the people responsible must be held accountable! I believe that the
recent case in NH where a man was found guilty of a felony for killing another
hunter will do more to promote safety than hunter orange laws will. When all
hunters realize that they WILL pay when they fail to identify their targets,
then we will see far fewer slobs. I don't think mandatory orange is the right
tack to use.

 I don't agree with supporting laws under the guise of appeasing anti-hunters.
They are never placated. They want to ban our sport. They will use any means
necessary to make inroads towards this end. What will be next? No hunting on
weekends (due to the increased hunter density)? Oh, that won't start out
statewide, only WMU M. But it will spread.

 We must remain vigilant against allowing the anti-hunters to control our ranks 
for us. It is our job to police our own. We have not done a good enough job,
though on the whole, we are pretty safe. My aim is for zero injuries and zero
deaths. And all of us should work together to keep our sport clean. If we allow
the antis to do this for us, the sport will be squeaky clean, because it will
not exist.

 The Doctah

    Whats the big deal about wearing hunter orange?  I would never enter
    the woods during deer season with out it.  Too me it just makes for
    common sense.  I've had deer with in several feet of me while I sat 
    there glowing like a pumpkin.  I've also spooked deer while I was
    dressed in full camo during bow season.  I don't think orange vs camo
    makes nearly as much of a difference as  does movement.  
     Re: hunter safety courses.
    I like the idea of making everyone take the course.  Can't see where it
    would hurt.
    
    Jeff  

    
    I would not think of going into the woods without orange, with the
    exception of duck/goose hunting. Though I don't bow or muzzleloader
    hunt, I don't see a reason they shouldn't wear it also.  This is 
    not to say I am in favor of mandatory orange, I am not. If you 
    want to be stupid (in my opinion) and not wear it go for it.
    
    As for mandatory hunter education, I am for it, it may reduce alot
    of the self inflicted accidents that are caused by assanine gun
    handling.  The problem with removing the grandfather clause would
    be the logistics of getting enough courses available before the 
    fall.  I totally agree with needing one to get your first license.
    The part of the current law I don't like is that you can get a 
    NH license if you have a valid license from your home state (
    for non-residents obviously). Not all states have hunter safety
    requirements, so there are ways around it.  You should have either
    a last years NH license, or a hunter safety certificate from your home
    state.
    
    Just my opinion
    
    --Bob
    

     
     Hunter Orange-yes
     Safety Course-yes

    Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with either.  I usually wear
    orange if I'm hunting anyplace there might be others deer hunting.
    
    However, it does seem like the manadory hunter orange goes against
    the NH tradition of "Live Free or Die".  Afterall, we don't require
    motor cyclist to wear helmets.
    
    Mark,
    

    
    re:.11 and .21  ditto!!!  very well said!
    
    I guess I have my reservations about MANDATORY hunter safety programs,
    not so much with the idea of having them but with how they will be
    managed...  Waiting lists, additional fees, renewals, etc...  This
    new law to help save us from ourselves business dosn't cut it with
    me...  it's like the new gun laws we bitch about, theres already a ton
    of them on the books already... Do people actually flunk a hunter
    safety course???  oh, there may be the occasional one, but i'm willing
    to bet that everyone that take it passes.  Is this really helping?? 
    Will someone who has been breaking rules for years be changed overnight
    by taking the course??  It's just another obstacle we have to overcome
    to get out and hunt.  I'm all for the safety course, but don't like the
    idea of it being MANDATORY...  or RENEWED...  this reeks of politics.
    
    The mandatory blaze orange deal is the same....  Help save us from
    ourselves...  I agree with a few of the other noters "oh, its not
    ornage so i can shoot"  What about hikers and anyone else who wants to
    be in the woods?  are they unsafe cause their not wearing it?  I can
    hear a few people thinking "if their that stupid to be in the woods
    during the hunting season then..."  Identification of the target is the
    most important issue, not orange.
    
    Other states have no mandatory orange laws, how does the number of
    accidents compare to those states that do?  In VT, theres no orange
    laws, very few of the guys in our camp wear it (some wear a hat, others
    a day pack/fanny pack, one wears a vest, some none at all) And it's
    only been in the last few years that any of us have resorted to it. 
    None of us have been shot or shot at in over 35 years of hunting there.
    
    People think Orange is like a suit of armor, it's not, accidents can
    and will happen.  God forbid the day when someone gets killed cause he
    wasn't wearing it and the guy gets off because of it.
    
    Fra  

    
    I'm from VT and hope you keep your mandatory orange laws down there.
    I don't like those laws for reasons mentioned...absolute - positive -
    indentification of target has to be #1.  For this same reason I don't
    like any sex deer seasons (with rifle).
    
    By the way I have never worn orange.  I usually hunt where the hunters
    are very few and far between...and even if I'm in a heavily hunted area
    I would rather be hidden from the whackos than sitting out in the open
    like a neon lamp, just asking to be scoped by some fool who thinks his
    scope is a damn telescope.
    
    Kevin
    
    

    re: .26  Fra, I believe that there are only 6 states that don't have
    mandatory hunter orange laws, with N.H. being one of them. I am not
    sure about any others, except Vermont. I completely agree about this
    mandatory hunter orange bill, it puts alot of non-hunters at alot of
    risk, but still think there should be a mandatory hunter safety course
    for ALL hunters, with the lone exceptions being a grandfather clause
    that goes back to about 1976. I thoroughly enjoyed the course I took
    and learned alot from it. Not only did I learn about being safety
    conscious with the respect to other people (hunters and non-hunters)
    but also to myself, such as first aid and things like that. At the end
    of the course one of the instructors told a story about how a hunter
    had shot and killed his hunting partner (thought his friend was a deer)
    and how bad this person felt afterward. As it turned out the instructor
    was the hunter that fired a shot. This guy cried his heart out to us
    kids in this group. I believe this is the reason he became an
    instructor. But back to the point of this reply, I firmly believe that
    mandatory hunter safety has to start somewhere in N.H. Why not now?
    								bret

    I guess when I associate anything with the word MANDATORY I get
    nervous.  This implies laws, and with laws comes alot of beuracratic
    Bull$hit...  For starters, I would like to know how they plan on 
    accomodating 100K+ hunters in this course between now and Sept.  And
    should this be feasible, what about $$$ and renewals (more $$$) and 
    big brother telling you your on a waiting list because the courses are
    full till January 92... etc... 
    
    I don't have any better ideas, and know we need some form of education, 
    but this mandatory/must do it today/all at once/or tomorrow we will all 
    kill ourselves accidentally method is not the right way to go about it, 
    IMHO.
    
    I firmly believe the course will and does provide much needed education
    for many, but will it convert known violators?  I doubt it... 
    Ignorance is bliss.
    
    Fra

>I firmly believe that mandatory hunter safety has to start somewhere in N.H.

 I believe that mandatory hunter safety for new hunters makes alot of sense.
I don't believe we'll see any net gain without the grandfather clause in
terms of safety. I think we'll see a net loss in terms of license revenue
read monies available for habitat protection, law enforcement, etc because
the financial and logistical impact would be considerable.

 We've been averaging 1 or 2 deaths over the past few years out of how many tens
of thousands of hunters. Do we really expect any improvement? If not, then
what's the point? We're introducing a big pain in the butt, with only a
potential political gain. It seems like the law of diminishing returns is
in effect here.

 If you make it so that the old timers that have been hunting for years have to
pay for and sit through a hunter safety class, you are going to create
some pretty hard feelings in alot of people. Besides, alot of the old timers
that are perfectly safe hunters are illiterate. Well, you're can't pass the
written test if you can't read or write, so where does this leave them?
Many of these same people rely on hunting to provide food for their families
in a cost effective manner. There are hidden implications in all of this.

 Another point is that why should someone have to go through 6 weeks of
training for two hours every thursday night if they can already pass the test
when they get there? Why isn't the law written such that you only need to
actually take the course if you don't pass the test? I mean, they'll allow you 
to drive a 2000lb vehicle on public streets without taking organized training
if you can pass the test. Which is the more potentially dangerous activity?

 The Doctah

    
    
         Well since I dont live in NH anymore I guess my sayso dont mean
    beans, but to me I am kinda undecided on the issues of hunter ed &
    hunter orange. 
       If you stop and think about it probably 60% of the people out
    hunting have taken a hunter ed course in the last 5 years, whether it
    was taken in NH or another state. as far as generating money for the
    state the only money the state gets from it is from the federal pay to
    the state that is generated by * VOLONTEER * instructors.
        The average cost of the course is $2.00 and that is used to pay the
    electric at the place of the class. the average course is 12-16 hrs
    heck thats not alot of time. plus the knowledge you can receive from
    the class is worth it, anybody that says they wont learn anything is
    only fooling themselves.
         EX: how many of you knew a safety on a gun can be reversed for 
    left handed shooters? 
        A gunshop owner in a very reputable shop in NH was quite suprised
    when I walked up with a shotgun and asked him to put LEFT HAND SAFETY
    on the sale tag. and after a discussion I was told he did not know that
    could be done, now what would happen to the person who was taught by
    grandpa that you push the safety to the right to put it on, they will
    be very lucky if they dont shoot themself or someone else.
    
        I whole heartedly agree that hunter safety or ethics is your own
    personal responsibility, but you gotta watch for everyone else too.
    
    
          As far as hunter orange goes, I grew up in PA and I have always 
    worn it even for small game  I would rather be seen walking through the
    woods than having my family see me laying in a casket!!!!!    How many
    times have you been setting in the woods and havent seen a human around
    for hours anly to have someone stand up 50-70 yrds away and walk away?
    why didnt you see them? maybe they had on the old red checks or green
    checks, now what would of happened if a deer had walked between you and
    the other guy? believe me you will see flourecent orange alot quicker
    that red plaid. but its just my opinion.
    
    
                                               Safe hunting to all
    
                                                          Lee
    

    Steve, do you have any information on any of the other pending bills?
    I think you posted a complete list in FIREARMS.  The three I'm
    interested in are:
    	HB0685 Relative to blinds for taking or watching wildlife - J HOAR
      
        HB1048 Relative to opening and closing of deer season - B FORD
    
        HB1054 Relative to hunting of pheasant - R THERIAULT
    
    
    
    Thanks,
    Mark
    

    re .30 Unfortunately, a lot of those 'old-timers' who've been
    hunting a long time are the most ignorant, unsafe, or set in their 
    ways. It doesn't do much good to send a kid through a hunter-
    safety course, then a week later dad takes him road-hunting,
    or on a drive in posted land. Two weeks later, that kid's
    hunting habits are as bad as any 'old-timers'. I realize this 
    is an extreme example, but a lot of minor things get perpetuated
    because of 'grand-fathering.' 
    
    Dana
    
    PS 'Scary' is when a 60-year-old who's been hunting since I was
    in diapers, or longer, tests his safety by pulling the trigger.
    I say to _hell_ with grand-father clauses.

    
    re:.32
    
    Mark,
    
      I don't have any information on other Bills at this time. The process
      for submitting Bills to the Legislature goes something like this:
    
      A Legislator gets an idea and submits a brief explanation of what
      they hope to accomplish to a group of people in the State House who's
      job it is to write the text. I don't know what their actual title is.
      This is how the list of proposed legislation gets put together.
    
      When the actual text of the proposed legislation has been completed
      it then gets sceduled for hearings with the appropriate committee.
      As you can see by the posted dates of the two Bills we are talking
      about in this note, they really don't give much time between posting
      and hearings. 
    
      By looking at the numbers of the three bills you are asking about,
      I'd guess that it will be a little while before they get posted.
    
      Now, if it wasn't for the watchful eye of GO-NH, some of these Bills
      could slip by very easily without any public opinion what so ever.
      That is why thousands of people recieved their Minute-Man alerts
      today informing them about the Hunters Ed. Bill.
    
      Steve
    
      
        
      

    Mass has no requirement for "Hunter Safety Class", amazing as it is.
    When was the last fatality in Mass do to a "Hunting accident"?

    No one has really answered the question, "Does anyone fail the test?".

    I'll be perfectly honest, I have not taken the course, but I do plan
    to. Just for the purpose of being able to get an out of state license,
    not that I am planing any trips in the future. I just want it available 
    if the situation arises. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even think
    of taking the course. If there was a test you could take, I most likely
    would have a long time ago.

    Rich

    re .35 A couple years ago a non-hunter was fatally shot by a
    hunter, in Mass. 

>    re .30 Unfortunately, a lot of those 'old-timers' who've been
>    hunting a long time are the most ignorant, unsafe, or set in their 
>    ways.

 Dana-

 Do you think that such a person is going to change their ways because the
state forces them to take a course? I don't.

>    re .35 A couple years ago a non-hunter was fatally shot by a
>    hunter, in Mass. 

 You mean it's been a couple of years since the last hunting related fatality
in Mass? And there's no mandatory hunter safety? Hmmmm.

 The Doctah

    
    There were a couple this year in MA, I seem to recall a boy getting 
    shot while playing with a friend out in back of his house (this may
    have been NH), also wasn't a hunter down the cape killed by a 
    person in his party?
    
    --Bob
    

    Yes, there was a hunter killed on the cape.  
    
    Jeff

    
    In response to the question, "Has anyone ever flunked a Hunter 
    Safety Course"? ..... I think we're missing the point of what the
    course is all about.... Granted the course I took (in Mass.) was
    in 1970, but the idea of the course was to bring about an awareness
    of the correct and incorrect things to do while handling a firearm,
    and while hunting.... If a person learned ANYTHING throughout the
    duration of the class, you passed !!! 
    
    There was some discussion during the 1990 hunting season about Fort
    Devens being opened for hunting for a limited period of time to John
    Q Public, however, it was noted by more than one person, that in order 
    to gain access to the base hunting areas, a Hunter Safety Certificate
    was required.
    
    Just as an FYI, there are three courses coming up in the near future
    in the Fitchburg area... One in Westminster in April, Pepperell
    in February, and Ayer in February. 

  
    dave

    re .35
    
              When I took my course back in 1974 (NH) we had about 30
    students in the class. At that time the the students were all young
    kids. The minimum age to attend the course was 14 by the time the class
    was scheduled. This allowed that student upon passing the requirements
    of the course to hunt with an adult (Over 21) with his/her own firearm
    within a reasonable distance and maintaining visual contact. This
    student would follow the set rules of F&G bag limits and if that
    student shot a deer a hand written tag would be used and checked by a
    local game warden. At the end of our course you had to take a written
    test, practicle test (show the use of safe gun handling), and the final
    part was to shoot 10 shots (.22) at a target for range safety. Of all
    the students everyone passed the written,practicle, and one student
    failed the range safety. We were shooting into an indoor trap with 8
    targets hung across, this youngster was was shooting target 5 from left
    to right when suddenly the clothes pin on target 3 exploded. His
    shooting was stopped and that target was checked for hole count. His
    target (#5) had three holes in it and target #3 had 12. So he failed
    the course and had to go back the next year.
    
                                                              Guy
     

    In the class I took there were about 200 people enrolled in the class
    and about 20 failed. I took mine at Camp Carpenter in Manchester. The
    only reason I took the class was so I could get my license at the age
    of 16 not just to carery a firearm and hunt with my dad. The laws had
    stated (I believe at the time) that a minor could hunt within an arms
    length of another hunter of at least the age of 21 while carrying a
    firearm regardless of taking a hunter safety course or not. I was 15
    when I took mine. A couple of years later they changed the laws so
    everyone after a certain date would have to take a hunter safety course
    to buy a hunting license in N.H. or have a previous hunting license. It
    has seemed to me over the years that this law has been kind of
    discriminatory between N.H. residents and non-residents. My reason
    being is that the only way a resident could get a license was by taking
    a course while a non-resident from a state that did not have this
    requirement just had to show his/her license from that state, which
    they bought over the counter without taking this course. But if they
    like hunting here that much I seriously doubt that having to take the
    course will stop them. I am sure that most will comply. And it really
    isn't all that much time or money. I kind of doubt we would lose much
    money to Fish and Game. Probably less than 1%. Just my $.02.........
    							Bret

    One other thing I forgot to add. I believe this law is still in effect.
    No one without a license but being a minor can carry a firearm while
    hunting being more than arms length away from someone at least 21 years
    of age, regardless of taking a hunter safety course. My dad started
    taking me hunting when I was 10 years old, I always carried a firearm,
    came across many Game Wardens and never anything was mentioned about me
    carrying a firearm. But  I vaguely remember my dad asking a Game Warden
    about that law I had previously mentioned and it seems to me that I am
    pretty close. Of course this was quite some time ago. 
    								bret

    RE: "IF A PERSON LEARNED ANYTHING DURING THE CLASS YOU PASSED"
    
    If I was missing the point i still am... this to me makes no sense
    whatsoever... you still end up with losers in the woods! period!
    
    If people are only taking it for the sake of meeting a requirement 
    then the instructors are wasting their time and effort.  Make em pass a
    test and you'll get a whole new breed of hunter out there.
    
    Fra
    
    
    

    
    When I took my test in MA (about 1979 or so) you had to have 
    perfect attendance (I believe 6 2 hour sessions) and then pass
    a written test with 70% correct. Don't know if anyone failed or
    not.  THere was no practical section, just the written test.
    
    As for minors hunting, I believe the rule now is that you can carry
    your own gun and must be within the vision of the 21+
    person you are with at all times. (Some place I hunt, that could
    be arms distance though:-) ).  I could be wrong, but this is how
    my cousin and Uncle hunted for a couple years, the warden we ran 
    into in the woods never said a word after checking licenses.
    
    --Bob
    

    	re    students failing	-  as mentioned previously, perfect
    attendance is required, and I know the class was ALOT smaller at
    the end.  Maybe some of those who dropped found it too tough?
    	I know a few in the class struggled, but always 1 of the
    instructors would tutor them 1 on 1 during breaks so they indeed
    learn the material.  As I said before, I might be one of those
    'old-timers' talked about here, but I felt the course was great,
    especially for my son.

    re. 44- Fra,
       It is realistic to think we will always have losers in the woods but
    maybe with this course we may have alot less, and maybe not. There is
    only one way to find out. And it won't be immediatly that we will find
    out either, it will take time. The only immediate way to stop all of
    these accidents would be to stop hunting altogether, which none of us
    would like to see, especially me. Maybe making the course mandatory
    would get some anti's off of our backs. The more they keep pressing the
    more we have to counter. Bedsides, say even one life was saved because
    one hunter that went through the course and thought before he pulled
    the trigger because he remembered something from the course, wouldn't
    it be worth it? The same goes for the money that this may either cost
    the state F&G or hunters, wouldn't it be worth it if it saved someone?
    I have come acrossa few hunters that seemed unsafe that never had
    hunter safety. Then again I have come across a couple that had the
    course that seemed to not all safe either. I think it's worth it. I
    took the course and enjoyed it very much. I learned alot, and think
    everyone should, with a grandfather clause attached to it...........
    								bret

    re. 37
    
    > Dana-

    > Do you think that such a person is going to change their ways because the
    > state forces them to take a course? I don't.

    > The Doctah
    
    Well, Doctah, frankly I don't expect miracles. I do think that some
    of these people would at least learn a little bit about modern
    wildlife management, safety, anti-hunting sentimentt, and our
    urgent need to clean up our image. I honestly don't believe some
    of these people realize that there _is_ a problem with what they
    do out there. And maybe the peer pressure in the classroom would 
    help a bit, too.
    
    Dana

re: .40
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>>         If a person learned ANYTHING throughout the
    >>duration of the class, you passed !!! 
    
    >>dave

    
    Well Dave....  The course I took 2 years ago a just a tad tougher.!

    Out of the 35� people that took this course only 22 got thier
    license.  Now just maybe I was lucky to get into a class that had
    an instructor who truely cared, but I would rather think that the
    courses being offer today are as good as the one I took as a rule
    and not the exception.

    There was an attendance requirement, you couldn't miss more than
    four hours out of the 40 hours of instruction.  The practical part
    of the couse was mandatory, you miss it, you fail.  The written
    exam at the end of the course also had a minimun score, 80% or
    better.

    One of the evenings had a local F&G warden in attendence.  If I
    remember correctly, he said at age 16 you were no longer considered
    a minor and had to posess your own license.  Up to age 16 a minor
    could hunt with a licensed adult within reasonable sight.  The
    F&G warden made it clear that "reasonable sight" was 20-30 yards.
    Don't expect to have your hunting minor in plain sight across the
    valley and be legal.
    
    Happy safe hunting,
    Greg 
    

    Dana, I'm with you 100%.
    
    Doctah, I'd wager that a significant number of those that would qualify
    under the grandfather clause (me included) are ignorant rather than
    stubborn.
    
    Mark.

 I wish there were a way to know for sure. I think most of them think they
know better than the gummint and "have been doing it this way for forty years."
Again, my opposition to this proposed law has nothing to do with parochial
interests, as I have already passed the course. I really don't think this is
going to do anything to help. The only thing I'd change to the current law
is that I'd excise the non-resident loophole.

 The Doctah

    I think taking the courses does make a difference no matter how long
    you have been hunting. My two partners and I got both of our cert's
    out of the way last year (Archery/Hunter) and we were surprised at
    the little things that we picked up. Maybe we knew them at one time
    but forgot them or whatever (combined hunting years about 70). Also,
    i've noticed one of my partners doing things he may not have done
    in the past. example; a few weeks ago he and I went out scouting a
    new area for the fall and had to go through a barbed fence, he went
    first held the fence for me and then made sure the fence was the same
    as when we came to it. I dont think he would have done it before (I
    know, before anyone jumps WE SHOULD ALWAYS LEAVE IT THE SAME) but we
    dont, if the course did nothing else it was worth it for that.
    
    I am opposed to madatory orange for all the reasons previously stated.
    
    Jack

    Well, I haven't read all 53 replies, but in case the question
    hasn't been asked, what the hell are the people who took
    hunters safety years ago supposed to do if they don't have
    a certificate anymore. I lost mine years ago as you only needed
    it the first time you bought a license. From then on I'd just dig
    out my previous years license from my wallet. I won't be a happy
    camper if I have to take the course again....
    
    Marty

 Yer boned, pal. You'll just have to be an unhappy camper (unless you can
come up with the paperwork certifying your successful completion of
the course.)

 The Doctah

    yeah, right, if there was any record of who took the
    state sponsored course I'm sure they burned up when
    headquarters was torched a few years back...I don't
    think any records survived. I can't believe people
    could be so ignorant to pass a bill so stupid. Most
    people have taken the course, and the ones who haven't
    will be dead over the next decade or so...it's just
    a scam to inconvenience hunters...IMHO
    
    Marty

    
    re .54
    
              If you check REPLY .18 you will fing the answer to your
    question on duplicate certifacates.
    
                                                           Guy
    

    re .56:
    
    I would hazard a guess that the VAST majority of hunters in NH have NOT
    taken the course.
    
    Mark.

 Upon what would you base that guess, Mark? Actual behavior in the woods or
licensing information?

 How long has the requirement been on the books for new license holders to 
have successfully passed hunter safety? I heard someone say this started in
1972. If so, then it seems to me that a pretty good number of hunters must have
come through in the last 18 years or so. 

 Does anybody have anything approximating a real figure for the percentage of
classroom trained vs. experience trained hunters in NH?

 Maybe it would be a good idea to survey hunters who are getting their licenses
so we can get an idea for how many people this proposed law would affect.

 The Doctah

As you get older your memory tends to fade, but I remember taking a NH
Hunter Safety class in 1963 (so that I could get a license when I 
turned 16).  What I have long since forgotten is what the law was at
that time.  I think it was that in order to get a license you had
to meet one of the following requirements:

  a) Pass a hunter safety course

  b) Have previously held a hunting license

  c) Have been honorably discharged from military service

It is my vague recollection that the requirement was started no more
than a year or two before 1963.  Was the military service bit dropped
at a later time?

It is my belief that the effect of this meant that almost all NH native
hunters of my age (43) or younger have had a hunter safety course.  I
don't have any real idea what percentage of all hunters that is though.

    
    Just taking the group that I hunt with, I would say that most NH
    hunters have not taken a NH hunter safety course.  There are 7 of
    us that hunt. Only 1 has taken a NH safety course, 2 others have
    taken the MA safety course. These are the youngest 3 in the 
    group (26, 23, 22).
    
    I have an Uncle who has been hunting in NH for about 20 years of so.
    He has never taken a safety course so it was not required then.
    
    --Bob
    

    Ditto.
    
    Of the 5 or so people with whom I hunt regularly, none have taken the
    course, including me.
    
    I plan on taking a course this spring/summer.
    
    Mark.

    Thanks for the pointer to .18. I didn't realize they had
    stored microfiche records in another facility from headquarters
    before it burned. I also didn't realize that there were so many people
    who never took the course. I thought the requirment had been around
    for much longer....
    
    Marty

    Hello,
    
    	I'm usually a read only noter in this conference. Having only been
    hunting for a couple of years and never in NH. I have also never taken
    a hunters safety course. My buddy use to help teach a hunters safety
    course. So he has been teaching me the ways of the woods so to speak.
    My question is when you take a hunters safety course, isn't there a
    written test at the end of the course? If so, why couldn't the state
    make its own written test. Schedule places and times for people to
    take the test. If they pass the test, they can get a hunting license
    without having to go thru a hunter safety course.
    
    /Ron

    Cheese-- I hope not !  (re taking only written test)   Written should 
    be the one that is not required!   
    
    Picture a superliterate with a keyboard or the books, clumsy as h*** 
    with a gun in the woods!  
    
    JMHO 
    ;)

    re .64
    
              The test you take is what the state requires (NH), and the
    teachers must take the state exam to become one. There is "usually" a
    written and practical at the end of the course.
    
                                                             Guy
    

    
    
    
    RE: last few,
    
        Yes there is a written test at the end of the course. if you pay 
    attention to the class you should have no problem passing the test, the
    test questions have been made by the instructors,not the state.
       As far as the records go try talking to the instructor that taught
    the course, the cheif instructor I taught with has every students name
    and whether they passed or failed and he has been teaching since
    1963...
       There are people who dont pass the course,they can get 100% on the
    final test but that doesnt mean we have to pass them. and they are told
    that at the begining of the class.
    
    						good hunting to all
    
                                                          Lee
    

    
    	RE -1. There are people who get 100% on the test and don't pass
    cause you don't have to pass them??? 
    
    	What kind of criteria do you use? If I took YOUR course and got 100%
    on YOUR test I would expect to pass!! Your course, your test should
    show if I met the course requirements. If a 100% on YOUR test doesn't
    do it you had better change the course or the test.
    
    	Not to jump all over you but your last statment sounds A LOT like
    the stuff we hear from the local police cheif when applying for a
    pistol permit. I DON"T CARE WHAT YOU GOT ON THE SAFETY COURSE TEST NO
    PERMIT!
    
    	Just my humble opinion.
        	Steve

    re the last few...
    
    pass/fails with a 100%, different criteria between the instructor and
    the state... throw in a few gun grabbing politicians and you have one 
    of my biggest fears... 
    
    I still see no need for it nor do I want it... although, I did read in 
    the firearms file where it was defeated.
    
    Same goes for hunter orange... If I have to worry about being shot at
    while wearing a red plaid jacket in the woods during hunting season, 
    then it's time to hang up the rifle and take up golf.
    
    Fra
    
    

    All I have say after reading .67. is that this sounds like a bunch
    of crap. You get 100% and still fail? It sounds like if you don't
    particularly like someone you can fail them. Where do you instruct?
    I'll be sure to avoid it.

    Rich

    Their is more to the story than has been told so far. I have never
    taken the course but i did go to the classes with my stepson. At the
    beginning of the course the instructor made it very clear that any type
    of unruly behavior during the course would represent a bad attitude
    about hunter safety and could mean failing regardless of what your
    score was on the test. Also unsafe handling of firearms during the
    course could also be a failing grade. This is the instructors way of
    weeding out the jerks that don't belong in the woods carrying guns.
    I think this is an option that the instructor should have.
    
    I agree with you fra if i can't hunt in safety with my red jacket then
    it is time to quit hunting. Nobody should be shooting at anything
    unless they are positive of their target.
    
    Bruce

    Students have passed the written exam but have not passed the course
    because they had a bad attitude or even though they could answer
    questions on gun safty they didn't seem to want to or couldn't practice
    it when they were handleing guns either in class or at range during the
    the day that is required In N.H. that every student fire the gun...
    
    I was in the past a certified Instructor for about 7 years in N.H.
    Our course was handled by about 5 to 7 instuctors and was in the
    neigborhood of 20 hours long...
    
    It was a mix of class room instruction and practicle handleing
    of weapons... Students would be asked to demonstrate things such
    as hunting three abrest,Taking firearms out of automobiles
    and putting them back in, crossing fences etc..( with unloaded guns
    in a control situations)
    
    there were demonstrations on the values of hunter orange etc...
    
    Beleive me there is a lot of knowledge that is crammed in 20 or so 
    hours of instruction... Orinteering, first aid, guns, safty, parts 
    of guns, different guns, gun actions, sights, when to shoot,
    ethics, when not to shoot, Identify the target, chokes, rifleing,
    calibers, and many other things, the 10 commandments, it quite a course.
    
    we also taught Bow hunter safty
    
    I have never seen anyone get 100% on written test or even do very
    well on test and flunk the course....
    
    If you had a bad attitude you would be given plenty of oportunities
    to streighten out but if you just didn't care and thought you
    would still get a certificate you are mistaken...
    
    This judgement was always made by the cheif instructor..
    
    these instructors are volinteers and I have nevery seen this  autority
    abused but I would admitt that it could be...
    
    These people love hunting and are willing to give something back.
    Often times some of these students are just  to imature to be
    responsible in the woods....
    
    
    Please excuse the spellings etc.
    
    I hope this sheds some light...
    If I had the time I would have replied sooner, better, but
    unfortuunately I just don't have much time these days
    
    bear
    Bear
    
    

     Within our group of instructors in Southern Maine, the instructors get
    together and provide input on all the students one by one. Major
    concern is safe handling, both in the classroom and on the range when
    we have the students shoot.
     If a student displays a habit of unsafe handling, they fail... no two
    ways about it. I don't care what the written test scores are. 
     We find that women and younger kids are our best students. It's the
    men who have hunted/handled firearms in the past who have to learn to
    be aware of their bad habits they've developed (unknowingly) in the
    past. Just because they haven't had an "incident" doesn't make them a
    safe hunter. At the beginning of each class i ask who has hunted/shot
    in the past. When these people raise their hands, I make a mental note
    of the faces and let them know that I'll be paying them "special
    attention". For most of these people, the FIRST thing they do when they
    pick up a firearm is to put their finger on the trigger. 
     We haven't tried it in our courses yet, but I've heard of some classes
    issuing large diameter dowels during classes, complete with serial
    numbers. The dowel simulates a firearm, and one end is painted with
    flouresent paint. The students are expected to control their simulated
    muzzles at all times, and are asked to watch and speak to fellow
    students when they see unsafe conditions. Serial numbers are for when
    the student leaves his piece in the break room, or whatever.
    
    FWIW
    
    Bob
     

      I would wager to guess that a majority of gun owners (>50%) have lousy
    gun handling habits!  I work in a local firearms esablishment.  I see
    lots of people handling lots of guns several times a week.  The
    majority are not aware of where the muzzle is pointing, have there
    fingers on the trigger, and often don't check the action.  I think
    mandatory edjucation is a good idea.  I don't see how it can hurt.
    If you doubt what I'm saying, walk into a busy gun store and watch
    for awhile, count the number of times you see someone pick a gun up
    with out checking the action.
    
    Jeff

    
    
     RE: getting 100% & still failing....
    
       We have had several occasions when students have been in the class
    but didnt pay attention throught out the class, the one instance it was
    a 16 yr old boy & his girl friend the talked drew picture's and a host
    of other things in the class, I loocked up his score on the test and he
    got 88% his girlfriend 77% they were both told they would have to take
    the course again, reason; if you cant show your responsible enough
    during the class then that shows us your probably not going to be
    responsible in the woods, and us as being instructors are the ones that
    try and keep the irresponsible one from getting a license.
      Now I know that last sentence will stir up some people but if we save
    one person from being shot by an obviosly irresponsibly person then we
    have done our job. 
       
    
                                                    Lee
    
    

    I read in yesterdays paper that both bills got shot down. So no need
    for anyone to worry. Although I am elated that the hunter orange bill
    got shot down I was hoping the other one would make it. I can't
    remember what reason they gave for the hunter safety bill not passing
    but the reason the hunter orange one didn't make it was because a
    person has a right to choose what he wears and that not wearing orange
    and getting fined $500 did not seem right. I would believe that
    sometime in the future both will pop up again in the legislature. Just
    like anti-gun bills there is always someone out there who will be
    trying to get something through. 
    							bret

    
    the hunter safety one was killed because it was inexpediant to
    legislate. (sorry if I butchered that).
    
    --Bob
    

    Then why not legislate it for the season following the next?  Sounds
    like a copout to me.
    
    Mark.

 "Inexpedient to legislate" is a euphemism that can mean one of several things:
we don't think it will pass, we don't want to offend a large voting block,
we can't afford this legislation, etc. It usually doesn't mean "we can't get
this done in time to use it this season."

 The Doctah

    Thank you Mister Know-it-all.
    
    :^)
    
    Mark.

>Still waitin' for some bambi steaks

 Well, we've been in the area a couple of times now, but you're always too busy.
New York, blah blah blah, old friends, blah blah blah. At this rate, they'll
be gone by the time you can fit us into your busy schedule. :-)

 The Doctah

    NH House bill 175 has passed both the house and senate.  It will allow
    the taking of either sex pheasants.  Previously only 1 of the two bird
    limit could be a hen.  This would allow taking 2 hens.
    
    It also deletes the limit of two pheasants per licensee.  This
    concerned me so I called.  Apparently what it really does is allows
    the Fish and Game to set the bag limits in their rules, rather than
    require it be part of legislation.  They don't expect any change
    in the 2 bird bag limit.
    
    Mark,
    

    A lot of the previous replies and others in this conference have been
    on the issue of hunter safety.  The latest issue of NH Wildlife gave
    the following stats for the NH 1990 hunting season:
    
    There were 10 hunting accidents in NH last year.  1 of which was
    fatal.  The accident rate of 10 is right on target for the 10-year
    average.  Considering that more than 100,000 were licensed to hunt
    in NH, I would say those are pretty good statistics!
    
    Of the 10 accidents, 3 involved shooters in the 10 to 19-year-old age
    group and another three were in the 20 to 29 year old age group.
    Shotguns figured in 6 of the accidents, rifles in 3, and a handgun
    in one.
    
    They credited the NH hunter saftey program for the impressive
    safety record.  The program began in 1962 and was required by
    legislation in 1977.  Since 1962, approximately 80,000 students
    have successfully completed the training.
    
    Mark
    

    
    This is the best place I could find to put this, mods feel free to
    move it..
    
    The Nashua Telegraph, yesterday reported two hunting bills that will
    be considered this year...
    
    1) The annual, mandatory orange law
    
    2) This one was a new one on me, first time I have heard it proposed
       for NH
    
    	Banning hunting on Sundays.
    
    --Bob

>> Banning Hunting on Sundays


	Wonder how much money the stae would lose with no hunting
on sundays. Being from Mass hunting on sundays in NH is a real plus
for me, and I would have to think long and hard if being able to hunt
on saturdays would really be worth it. I normally only get to hunt 
weekends these days.

	I sure hope this does not fly, and I for one will try my best
to make sure it does get passed.


					Alan

>>                      <<< Note 900.84 by CHRLIE::HUSTON >>>
>>                  -< mandatory orange and no Sunday hunting >-

>>    	Banning hunting on Sundays.
    
What justification are they using for this?  For that matter, what,
if any, justification does Mass. use for banning Sunday hunting?
Is it something along the lines of blue laws? 

Just curious,

Jerry

    
    The column I saw the notices in gave no reasons for either. It was 
    a sort of "ps" to the weekly fish and game column in the Telegraph.
    
    My guess on the Sunday hunting is a combination of two things:
    
    1) Mass wanabees. Mass runaways who want to turn NH into MA
    
    2) The start to cutting down hunting.
    
    I doubt it will pass. If they do ban hunting on Sunday, they will 
    loose my hunting group. There are between 8-10 of us, 3 are from NH,
    the
    rest from MA. We have a place to stay in Vermont and are staying in NH
    for a couple of reasons including tradition. My family has hunted this
    area for 25 years or so. We (me included) are now into the third
    generation hunting this area, with #4 warming up to be ready in several
    years (I have a two year old who wants to go hunting with daddy and 
    grampy)  IF they outlaw Sundays, no doubt we will go to Vermont.
    
    --Bob
    

    re .86  The reason for no hunting on sundays comes from non-hunters,
    who else, and there reasons for this is that they want to be able to
    walk in the woods one day a week either on their own property or
    wherever and not worry about getting shot at. But what they fail t
    realize is that they virtually have (because deer season is when most
    of the states hunting takes place) is they have 48 other sundays to
    hunt. It's a start to take away some of our hunting and if it happens
    here whats next? Saturday's? Hunting on even numbered days only? 
    							Bret

    Remember when they had the assault weapon ban in the house legislature
    in N.H. a few years back? How a bunch of people from all over the
    state went to Concord to protest that bill. It's what we should all do
    about this bill when it comes to the floor. If we don't speak up
    against this we will lose our valuable time afield.
    							Bret
    
    
    IMHO

    
    
       Well I may get beat up about this but its just my opinion, FWIW,
    
       I can see the point about looseing a day of hunting time. but I was 
    raised in a state that did not allow hunting on sundays and I am now
    living in a state that does not permit gun hunting on sundays so I tend
    to live with it, and it also gives me a day to do other things besides
    set in the woods(which I do enjoy alot).
    
        My personal view of this practice is that they feel the animals are
    pushed all week long so the no hunting on sunday gives the animals a
    break from the hunting pressure, which I tend to agree with.
    
       The other point is (and believe it or not it helps us hunters) that 
    say you are out hunting sunday morning and get a nice deer, and being
    that you live in NH and are required by law that the animal(or part of
    it) is visible outside the vehicle (which I dont like at all) so now
    you are on the way to the weigh station with the tailgate down and as
    you pass by a church which is just letting out probably alot of people
    will see one of gods creatures go by in what non &  anti hunters call
    a public display of crulty to animals. and that only leads to adding
    fuel to the fire we are fighting with the anti's over.
    
       I dont feel that this change in the law is going to lead to the
    closeing of hunting all together in a state, they are trying to help 
    the animals as much as trying to balance the majority of the time for 
    the people, and if you stop and look at ALL the days available that
    seasons are open too I think you will find that there is more than just
    the 3-5 weeks of deer season!.. ie, small game, turkey,crow,groundhog,
    and other game animals.
    
        I went through almost the same scenario about 7 years ago in Pa
    when the game commission changed the spotting laws that you were only
    allowed to spotlight deer up till 11 pm the night before the opening of
    rifle season, that raised alot of dust but when you really stop and
    think about it they had a very good reason for doing that, they figure
    that the deer are pushed all day long then when darkness falls the deer
    venture out into the fields and for what to chased around by people
    with spotlights till 11 pm. holly cow give the animals a break, there 
    is really now need to out spotting them during the season.
    
     
                                                                   Lee
      

    re .90 
        Lee,
      I totally disagree with you. I have lived in N.H. all my life and
    work all week long just like most everyone else. I love to hunt and
    when I get to hunt the most is weekends. Taking away Sunday is like
    taking away half of my hunting season. N.H. has always believed in the
    separation of church and state, unlike Mass., Maine and Vermont. Also
    you do have a point about people getting out of church, but there is a
    very small number of those church people that would actually see the
    amount of tagging or deer on their way to getting tagged. Probably less
    than 1%. Also with all of the valuing differences going on are we not a
    minority now (hunters that is) and shouldn't our values be respected?
    I can't or won't let this go without a fight. Plus with all the revenue
    that Sunday hunting brings in from other surrounding states that don't
    allow it, it would be foolish to abolish it. Hunting seasons would have
    to be drastiacally changed to be able to control the herd that is now
    just getting to the point that Fish and Game likes. They want an annual
    harvest of 10,000 which is happening right now. Those 4 days would make
    a big difference. 
    							Bret

    
    I think you guys are way out of line when bringing up the issue of 
    church and state, it has nothing to do with this bill.  I feel fairly
    confident as a Catholic for 30 years (all my life) that the Church
    has nothing against hunters or hunting.  So please spare me when
    talking about driving by the church with your kill, most Christians I
    know are hunters or not anti-hunters, in fact the Christian faith helps
    reinforce the difference between all of God's creatures, man and
    animal, so in fact it very much supports the use (not abuse) of God's
    creatures.
    
    I realize you were generalizing, and was going to let it go when it was
    briefly mentioned in an earlier reply, but the part about driving by
    the church on Sunday is pure BS.  You'd have more flack when driving
    by the mall...
    
    So please back to the real reason to be against this bill, as stated
    by Mr. Macgregor which has to do with the anti's chipping away at the
    stone...IMO
    
    Kevin

    
    RE: .90  
    
    I'd believe the part about giving the animals a break from
    pressure if the bill was being sponsored by the Fish & Game,
    as was stated before, these bills are usually sponsored by antis, at
    least in NH anyway.  Besides, the deer probably get more of a break
    during the week from less hunters being out there due to work and all.
    
    If you believe this bill was sponsored on behalf of the animals well
    being, you should take a closer look at politics and hunting, kinda
    like oil and water.
    
    -Kendall

    
    as one of the ones who brought up church and state mixing, I was not
    saying it as it came across. I have heard (been told in MA) by a some
    people when arguing against this type of thing, that Sunday hunting 
    should be banned because you are out after God's creatures and they
    should not be harassed on the Lord's day.
    
    Let's not rathole this into a Christianity argument.
    
    I also don't agree with the "give them a day of rest" argument. 
    I have hunted during the week occasionally and I rarely, if ever,
    see other hunters in the woods, with the exception of opening day.
    This is in locations were I almost always see other hunters, or at
    least the trucks.
    
    As for driving by a crowded place and disgusting some people with a
    dead deer. Well its gonna happen all the time nowadays. I hunt up in
    the area around the western end of the Kangamangus highway, Loon Mt
    and Lost River. As I said before my family has hunter here for years.
    It has gone from an atomosphere of showing off a deer, to one of 
    feeling like you need to hide it. We have been yelled at and given
    the finger while at the gas station getting gas, simply because
    we had an orange vest or something else that indicates you are a
    hunter. We blamed this on the "yuppie" invasion. It seemed to coincide
    with the population boom of skiing when all the condos went up in 
    the area around Loon.
    
    Anyway, I have yet to see a good reason for closing hunting on Sunday.
    The F&G should run the show, they set the seasons. If they are the 
    sponsors of this, I would like to see a reason.
    
    --Bob
    

    I don't agree with giving them a day off.  If you have to give them a
    day off, how about Wednesday, when 95% of your hunters are working 
    there butts off. 
    
    a day off is a cop out excuse.  They are trying to chisel away your
    hunting rights.  Better stand up now while you can!!!
    
    bob
    

    
    I too was surprized at the comments about the concern of driving by a 
    church with game.  I hunt before church on sundays and I know a few 
    other men and woman in my congrgation do the same!  I agree 100% with
    the comment that your taking a much higher risk of setting people off
    when you drive by a mall.
    
    Although the game must be exposed, sportsman should do so in a manner
    that should not offend anyone anyway.
    
    My take on the no-sunday hunting is that it is for the benefit of
    non-hunters who would like to spend some time in the woods.  I can
    sympathise with this reasoning, but hunters only have the woods for
    a few weeks a year, and I'd hate to see half the time most of get to
    hunt taken away. 
    
    I'm sure the deer appreciate the day-off, but I don't think that;s the
    real intent of the law - although some F&G folks who are under the
    thumb of the antis might try and convince you of that.  
    
    -donmac

    
    re .96
    
    >My take on the no-sunday hunting is that it is for the benefit of
    >non-hunters who would like to spend some time in the woods.  I can
    >sympathise with this reasoning, but hunters only have the woods for
    >a few weeks a year, and I'd hate to see half the time most of get to
    >hunt taken away. 
    
    Hunting has proven, in NH, to be one of the safest activities you 
    can do, people believe otherwise because anytime a person is hurt
    hunting, or a non-hunter is hurt, the media makes sure you hear about 
    it for days. I believe this year, there were 3 people shot, one was
    a suicide. Out of 80,000 - 100,000 (not sure of this years number), 
    that's pretty small number.
    
    --Bob
    

    re:  Hunting is safer than driving 
    
    Late October I heard something in some thick mountain laurel, looked and
    saw something brown.  My heart started pounding.  I continued to attempt 
    to identify the target before I raised my gun.  Good thing.  It was an 
    *old* man in a brown plaid jacket, rummaging around, bent over, in the
    bushes, picking mountain laurel (which it turned out he sold for wreaths). 
    I said hello.  He was quite surprized to see me with a gun.  He asked
    if hunting season was on already and I told him that muzzleloader season 
    was well underway.  I'm sure he was more careful after that.  
    
    Anyway, if this old guy had told me that he'd like to see no-hunting on 
    sundays so he could have one day out of the week in the couple of
    months before Christmas to pick laurel, I would sympathize with him.  
    
    My point was that IMO the intention of the law was for the benefit of
    people like that old man - as opposed to the powers that be not wanting 
    folks driving by churches with dead deer.
    
    Regardless of the statistics used to support either side of the 
    how-safe-it-is non-hunters typically avoid the woods during hunting
    season.  And rightly so in my opinion. 
    
    And again, I said I sympathize with the argument, but as I stated, I
    would not support it.  Sunday's roughly amount to half my hunting
    time, and I'd like to keep it that way.
    
    -donmac

FWIW,

I don't agree with the no Sunday hunting...  I live in MA, where you 
can't hunt on Sunday, and it really hugs...  I am, and always was under 
the impression that the No Sunday hunting deal here (in MA anyways) got 
it's origin from the old mass blue laws.  And if i recall correctly, it 
is based on the church deal, about sunday being the lords day.  Sunday 
shopping was also on the blue laws, but they have since done away with
that law, and there are a whole slew of really stupid ones included in 
that list also.  As far as them giving the creatures a day off, I think 
thats just mostly gossip and the work of bambi lovers.  As far as 
allowing non-hunting folks a day to wander freely, ridiculous!!!  I just 
means we have to be all the more careful.

However, when those laws were written, there were no season dates, and 
with only a 9 day season to hunt now, (monday thru the following wednesday)
and only one weekend, It dosn't give you a whole lot of time to get out 
there if you work monday-friday.

 I'd like to see them open Sunday hunting but unfortunately, there's more 
non-hunters than hunters now, and I don't think we'd stand a chance.

SO all of you NH'ites, get off your butt's and fight to keep that extra 
day open, it can really take a hugh bite out of your yearly hunting time.

Fra

    how about opening sunday to hunting, and anybody going in the woods has
    to wear the hunter orange?  Why is it just hunters that have to wear
    it?  Hunter orange is for your safety.  With all the idiots out there,
    and believe me, there are sh$%loads of them, you have to be careful.
    
    I do not believe in church over state.  But then I live in Georgia,
    where nothing opens up until church is out at noon.  Except we get to
    hunt sunday, so na na na na na!
    
    bob
    

    
    In Sundays Nashua Telegraph, there was a list of several bills being
    filed this year, here they are (note, i doubt this is an inclusive 
    list since the now annual hunter orange bill is not mentioned)
    
    HB 1100 -- prohibit anyone from releasing wolves into NH
    
    HB 1221-L -- Prohibit taking of game on Sundays
    
    HB 1136 -- Hunters must expose carcass of deer (note: I think she had
    	the wording backwards on this one, you already have to do this, I
    	would GUESS that this is to make it so you don't have to do this.
    	Can anyone confirm this?)
    
    HB 1137 -- Permitting the use of arrows WITHOUT the name and 
    	address of the owner on them
    
    HB 1567 -- prohibit the sale and use of lead sinkers except to persons
    	with a commercial saltwater fishing license.
    
    HB 1274-FN -- Change name of Department of Fish and Game to 
    	Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources.
    
    --Bob
    

    
    
        well as a former NH resident I would hope that of these bills the
    one that needs to be accepted and people should really push for is 
    HB 1136- if in fact it is that now you wouldnt need to have part of the 
    deer showing while transporting it. this in its self is one thing we as
    hunters should not be doing.
    
      why? well as most of us are aware there are alot of people that are
    not totally for or against hunting, well if they see a blood soaked
    deer laying in the back of a truck with blood dripping out of the bed
    that can surely turn away the undecided people. and not to mention the 
    most impresionable of all the kids, especially around christmas they
    associate whitetail bucks with reindeer.
      I for one have never agreed with this law! to me it had/has no
    usefull purpose whats so ever.(IMHO) I mean they say its so that the 
    C O will be able to quickly identify that you have a deer in your
    posession? big deal if a person has an illegal deer whats the chances
    that person is gonna keep the deer visible?? not likely unless they are 
    not the smartest person going!
    
                                                         Lee
    

    Well, It sure helps the RAP program.  You see one in someones trunk now
    and you can bet its been poached and call RAP.  If they undo that, then
    who knows?
    
    When my 14yr olds Doe was strapped across the back of my car on the 500
    mile drive home from the UP, he got more thumbs up and ok signs than
    you could ever imagine.  Only one or two disqusted looks to probably
    2-300 positive ones.  When parked at the line for the Mackinac bridge,
    some hunters even came over to shake his hand.  (This doe was damn
    big).
    
    

>    When my 14yr olds Doe was strapped across the back of my car on the 500
>    mile drive home from the UP, he got more thumbs up and ok signs than
>    you could ever imagine.  Only one or two disqusted looks to probably
>    2-300 positive ones.  When parked at the line for the Mackinac bridge,
>    some hunters even came over to shake his hand.  (This doe was damn
>    big).
    

    Well, if deer hunting is popular in Michigan, it's a religion in the U.P. 
;-)


I still think having to display the animal is a poor idea.  What if I don't 
want to put sandy tarps all over my car and have blood drip on the paint?  I'd 
rather have it buried under junk in my trailer or the back of my truck.

The people who financially benefit from hunting (shopowners, etc.) won't care
how it is displayed.  Other hunters might get a kick out of seeing your deer,
but they're not the people who need to be swayed, either.

Face it - people aren't really into looking at dead things as much as live ones.
No need to push it on them from an already embattled lobby.

steve

 I think eliminating this requirement would make poaching even easier.

I know in VT, all you need to do is have a portion displayed... all I ever
leave displayed is a couple of hooves sticking out the bed of the truck, 
or out the trunk.  When I had the S10 Blazer I used to stick the deer in 
the back, close the tailgate and close the window down with the feet 
sticking out.  Hell this year I had to bowhunt in VT with a ratty 84 Tempo 
2 door with no trunk, (read: trunk would'nt open) and drove home on a 
Sunday night with two deer lying across the floor of the back seat, with 
the feet sticking out my window...  Should have seen the faces of the women 
at McDonalds drive thru window...  Priceless...!!!  ;^)

Never got a stare or any hand gestures from anyone on the highway, and I'm
covered if it needs to be displayed.

FWIW, Fra

Might as well put my $.02 worth in.

First of all, I don't see how the current law will make any difference
with poaching.  Poachers are criminals by definition, and aren't likely
to worry about breaking one more law.  Perhaps I'm missing something.

As for displaying game while transporting it, I'm against it.  There
is a big enough anti-hunting movement as it it, and the gory (to some)
display of a dead animal on someone's roof or bumper just adds fuel
to their cause.  There's also the possibility of turning someone from
non-committal to anti-hunting with just such a display.

In the Colorado _Laws_and_Regulations_ for deer, elk, antelope and
black bear, is the following passage regarding transportation of
game.

 5. Your game will have less chance to spoil and you will not hurt the
    public image of hunters if you transport your game properly.  Openly
    displayed game carcasses can be offensive, so give some consideration
    to others, and watch our image!

FWIW, there is a growing anti-hunting movement in the state, and the
Wildlife Commission is sensitive to local politics.  Regardless, I agree
with that position.  This was even discussed at length in a hunter
safety course I sat through this summer.  The instructor was very
outspoken about this, showed slides of dead animals being transported,
and made a big deal about our public image.  It was kind of an eye-opener
to me, as I had never really given the matter much consideration.

Jerry

    I also believe that the game should not be "paraded" on your vehicle.
    My buddy shot two does, and wanted me to drive my truck back with the
    tailgate down, exposing the kill.  I told him, "What's momma going to
    say to her kids as they drive behind us?"  He proceeded to shut the
    tailgate and agreed with me.
    
    I feel that not exposing your kill, and a good image, can really help
    out hunting.  We are under attack from alot of resources, and we should
    not slit our own throats with such activity.
    
    My $.01 worth.
    
    Bob