# Bill proposes 1 year hunting without hunter safety.



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I like this idea!

*Learning the hunt*
John Odermann The Dickinson Press
Published Thursday, December 04, 2008

Sen. Aaron Krauter, (D-Regent) hopes to make hunter recruitment in North Dakota a little easier.

Krauter plans to pre-file a bill in the N.D. legislature, which would allow an individual who has never hunted before to experience the sport without taking hunter safety.

As it currently stands, if an individual born after 1961 wishes to hunt in North Dakota, they must first have completed a required hunter education course before applying for a license.

The proposed legislation seeks to change that ... for one year.

"Here's a chance where someone who has never taken hunter safety, born after '61 and who is 16 years or older can get an apprentice license to upland game or deer hunt," Krauter said.

According to the bill, an individual, if qualified, would be issued an Apprentice Hunter Validation and could purchase an upland game and deer license. The AHV would be valid for only one year during the individual's lifetime.

The individual would be required to hunt with someone 18 years of age or older who has held a hunting license before and completed the hunter safety course.

"That way you can see, 'Hey I like it.' And then you're going to be fired up and you're going to go get hunters safety, you're going to get your license and you're going to do everything the right way," Krauter said.

Following the year they are issued the AHV, if the individual wishes to pursue the hunting hobby, they would have to take the hunter safety course to be able to acquire future licenses.

Krauter believes the bill will receive broad support and is confident that it will pass. Krauter has already tracked down enough co-sponsors for the bill; Sen. Stan Lyson, (R-Williston) and Reps. Duane DeKray, (R-Pettibone), Chuck Damschen, (R-Hampden) and James Kerzman, (D-Mott) will co-sponsor the bill and Krauter is still looking for one more Senate co-sponsor.

Game and Fish Director Terry Steinwand said while he hasn't seen the exact wording of Krauter's bill, he supports apprenticeship hunting in theory.

"In concept we absolutely support it," Steinwand said. "We were planning on submitting a bill like that. If Aaron wants to do it, then heck yes we're going to support it."

Steinwand said there could be some problems that arise in regards to the deer licensing, which is a lottery license being issued to those who hold the AVH's, but any issues can hopefully be worked out.

After the bill is passed, the way the license are issued would be left up to the Game and Fish just like with any other licensing, Krauter said.

Steinwand said the prospects of apprenticeship hunting is especially valuable now as the state and nation becomes more urbanized and individuals don't have the same opportunities to hunt while growing up as they once did.

"We're trying to create a more even playing field and say, 'Hey look how much fun it can be.' It is a nice wholesome activity, it is something that is a culture in North Dakota," Steinwand said.

Krauter is confident the program would be a success after looking at the success in other states, like Michigan, which has a similar program.

"They do this in other states and it's that way to spark that enthusiasm to get out there and hunt," Krauter said.


----------



## MrSafety (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob.........I'd heard MN was considering the same sort of thing...........I'm a bit undecided..........maybe skeptical that it will create a bunch of new "enthusiasm." Just curious......how does it "level the playing field?" To me it's more than just getting people to take up hunting......seems like if hunting/fishing weren't part of your heritage the odds were definately lower people would start up........and I think there are bigger issues like land access that keep "potential" hunters out of the mix. Just my :2cents:


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Not having firearm safety certs seems like a piss poor excuse for people not hunting in my opinion.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

USAlx50 said:


> Not having firearm safety certs seems like a piss poor excuse for people not hunting in my opinion.


I couldn't agree more. It sounds like trying to tap in on some more oil field revenue and a scary excuse for all the jack arse righands to carry firearms around out here, I dont like it. I thought kids could hunt without one as long as they were accompanied by a parent or guardian or adult, as long as they counted only for the adults limit. I am sure it was brought up with good intentions but wow are you serious.... :eyeroll:


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Or perhaps if they would invest in maybe some online available classes with an onsite final test and shooting requirement then it would be easier to obtain. The reason for the lack of available classes to obtain a hunters safety certificate is because of the man hours it takes and a location to host the classes.

I feel allowing people without proper knowledge into the field carrying a firearm to be a very very bad decision.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

Maybe I have jumped the gun here, its a great idea, but are they going to factor in everyone who will be able to get a hunting license then. I think GNF should address a few other issues as well, but hey the theory behind it is solid, but like previously stated, I dont need an 18 yr punk rig hand that knocked off for the day driving down prairie roads blazin at every dang bird that jumps up and now to be licensed for it so its legal. I say this because it happens already illegally so oif they just put some more hoops up to get this license I think I would go for it.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Speaking as a guy who feels we should always be introducing new people to the sport, I dont like it.

As a society we are always trying to make everything "easier". Why not make someone earn the right to purchase a license and carry a firearm.

And if a person wanst to "try" hunting before taking a Safety course, what ever happened to just going along with someone and laying in the decoys for ducks or geese or walking a slough for pheasants and just watching.

IMO, this is the proper way to approach it ..to see if someone has the interest. Not sending them a field with a loaded gun and zero knowledge.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The individual would be required to hunt with someone 18 years of age or older who has held a hunting license before and completed the hunter safety course.


So I wouldn't be qualified to take them out.. that's bogus!! I took hunter safety in HS as a mini course before it was a law so we didn't get certified. So tell me how the ones with the most time/experience at hunting could not be qualified to mentor?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I'm sure the G/O's are going to love this bill too. Look at all the new clients they can bring in who will not need the safety cert. :eyeroll:

I say if people want to hunt they should take the course. Either that or just tag along and don't hunt and see how you like it.

As someone esle said access is the bigger issue in my opinion! :wink:


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

hell we might as well let them drive without a license also. just to see if they like it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

This has got to qualify as the most boneheaded idea of the year. :eyeroll:

While were at it lets let doctors practice medicine for just one year without a license. Or let some kids get behind the wheel for "just one year" without drivers training.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> This has got to qualify as the most boneheaded idea of the year. :eyeroll:


 :withstupid:


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

You are taking an extremely short sided approach to this. From my experience the people who are going to wildly drive around blaze shells out of truck windows and chase things with vehicles ect. already have licenses. They from my experience are ND farm kids, and some adults as well.

I like the bill, however, I would like the bill to have one stipulation. You have to be a resident (or qualify as one ex. student in college) of the state to get a license. I have many times had people excited to go but they explained they didn't have a license and could'nt.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

At first, I believed this was a great idea, but now I have some reservations after reading the responses. However, I still believe this has some serious validity.

I agree with comments like buckseye that "older" or experienced hunters can serve as great mentors. Those that question then why we don't let people without a license drive for a year - we do, it is called a driving permit. To get a driving permit, it doesn't require you to take classes, it just requires you to pass a test.

Why not do something similar with the hunting. Have available literature to read and an abbreviated test that an individual would have to take before getting an apprenticeship license.

I do feel an idea like this would encourage more people to get out an hunt. I have known many many guys that never took hunters safety that would love to get out just once to see what it was like before investing in the classes, equipment, etc.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This is not a bad idea and from the sounds of some of the comments, it appears to be that some are afraid of more competition. This idea was discussed at the Advisory meeting as a concept. No bill was drafted at the time. Some of the Hunter Safety people where not happy about it, but the bottom line is the current law provides a lot of road blocks in getting new people involved out hunting.

If people feel it it perfectly fine for a 6-8 year old to hunt with a parent or guardian which is the law today, why not allow someone to take out a 16-or 36 year old who has never hunted before in the very same settings.

Recently a friend of mine got married and his new wife was interested in hunting with him but unsure if she would like it or not. But work schedules and kids schedules made it very hard for her to attend a HS course. Now this is just one example. My daughter has a couple friends who would have liked to go hunting with me to see what it was about. This change would have allowed me to take them and give them an opportunity to do some shooting to see if they liked it or not.

The big thing here is that it is only good for one year. If the interest is there they will seek and obtain the HS training. Since the entire focus of the HS is not all about gun safety and handling but also on ethics and proper ID of game, supervised hunting situations with a mentor is a safe and responsible way to introduce people into the sport.

For those that go and do not pick up on it, they also are less likely to have a negative attitude towards hunting. Something we as hunters need to think about.

It is not going to make being afield any more dangerous and it is not going to create a influx of pressure on your hunting areas either.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

One more thought, on this, for those who are opposing it, what is your opinion of special youth seasons?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

One thing im gathering from the replies in favor of this idea is that one has to be actually shooting to appreciate and enjoy the hunt. IMO this is kind of the problem with hunting as a whole in this day and age.

Whats wrong with just taking someone along who's interested? Do they have to actually shoot? Take em out, let them see if its even something they MAY be interested in. If they are, they take hunter safety and participate fully. Pretty simple in my view.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> One more thought, on this, for those who are opposing it, what is your opinion of special youth seasons?


All for em!


----------



## Scott LeDuc (Aug 4, 2008)

Does anyone here remember anything from their hunter safety course? Honestly, can you remember one specific thing? I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T TAKE THE COURSE, but the majority of us learned safety, ethics, etc from our mentor (dad, mom, friend)

This bill would theoretically introduce more people to hunting which will help the greater good!

We are facing a larger problem with the loss of interest in hunting. That is allowing the anti's a greater foot hold on eliminating hunting all together.

I think it's a good law with a timelimit and with the constraints of staying in your home state....


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

bareback take a 17 kid and get them up at 3 AM and have them hump decoys into a field. Then have them sit and watch as you and others get to shoot. My bet not much chance they will want to get excited to go along or even think about getting a HS Cert for the next year. I am in full agreement that shooting something is not necessary for me to have a good hunt, however one has to quantify what expectations are for those who are starting out.

My youngest daughter loves to go along on hunts but does not care to shoot, but she is an exception. Just as is the case if one would go to Canada for a waterfowl hunt for 8 days. If you went up and saw tons of birds and never fired a shot would you go the next year or the year after that?

Part of hunting is the taking of game and without the chance of doing so, I doubt a majority of people would ever venture out. There is nothing wrong with that nor the expectation of it being part of what drives a person to hunt.

Sorry, but this is a good idea and one that has been used in other states with good success and very few mishaps by the participants.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I still would not be able to take my own son out anyway, I was born before 1961!!!  

I don't like it anyway. Need all the ins and outs of gun safety before they are shooting IMHO.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> I don't like it anyway. Need all the ins and outs of gun safety before they are shooting IMHO.


I agree 100%. Giving someone a chance to use a gun that has never shot one is only going to create more accidents!!

I am all for youth hunts but if an adult wants to get his/her hunting liscense they should go about it the proper way. My girlfriend (who at the time had 3 summer school classes-16 credits, work full-time, dog to take care of and me sometimes..... 8) ) still got it done last summer. Alot of work for her but where there is a will there is a way. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

The real reason hunting is going down the drain is because alot of GUYS here are not getting their WOMEN involved. Make it a family tradtion and it stays that way! Plus you are spending quality time with the people you love. I hunt with all kinds of guys from this website and I cannot tell you one of them (besides myself) that spent one day hunting with their GF or wife! That is where the problem inlies!
I can tell you I had one week (total) of sitting in my blind next to the woman I love!

How many of you can say that?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> bareback take a 17 kid and get them up at 3 AM and have them hump decoys into a field. Then have them sit and watch as you and others get to shoot. My bet not much chance they will want to get excited to go along or even think about getting a HS Cert for the next year. I am in full agreement that shooting something is not necessary for me to have a good hunt, however one has to quantify what expectations are for those who are starting out.


Ron, I had an absolutely spectacular post all written up, but when I hit submit my internet connection kicked me off. It would have completely brought you over to my way of thinking on this matter. :lol: Im so full of it.

anyway........

You do bring up a point with your 17 year old story. But, that is considering that person has had some sort of firearms familiarization. And its pretty easy to tell that kid "hey, did that look fun?, well you get your hunters safety done and next time you can partake".

Take a 17 year old with NO firearm experience, stick him in the field in the dark, throw a plethera of information at him, how to load/unload the weapon, how the hunts gonna happen, what to do, when to do it, and throw in some firearm safety. Thats alot of info to absorb. And im sorry, but giving a person a run-down with the weapon a day or two in advance is not weapons familiarization. This type of scenario has all the makings of a bad situation, and I for one would be uncomfortable in this situation. If your going to go to the lengths of properly teaching the safety aspect, how to operate the weapon and perhaps with some live shooting at a range involved, you might as well just enroll the person in hunters safety.

There is nothing more dangerous than a weapon in the hands of someone who has not had experience with that weapon. And you would only compound this with the added excitement and adrenaline of the hunt.

Its no secret that MOST kids around these parts have had plenty of firearm experience LONG before they go to hunters safety. But not all have. IMO this aspect needs to be instilled in a person LONG before they take a weapon afield. Safety and the safe handling of a firearm needs to become second nature before the hunt. This comes from experience and instruction. Theres just to many other things going on during the hunt. And lets face it, if a person has had this type of firearm experience, they most likely already come from a hunting family. And like I said earlier, if your going to go to the lengths of instilling this level of safety in them, you might as well just enroll them in HS.



> My youngest daughter loves to go along on hunts but does not care to shoot, but she is an exception. Just as is the case if one would go to Canada for a waterfowl hunt for 8 days. If you went up and saw tons of birds and never fired a shot would you go the next year or the year after that?


Yes I would. But im crazy like that.

I maintain, if a person is going to make hunting a part of their life, than getting them in the field, whether they shoot or not, is enough. Its apparent that your daughter has made hunting a part of her life, without shooting or needing to shoot. This is rare indeed.

I tagged along with my dad and his friends LONG before I ever got to carry a weapon and fully participate in the taking of game. Those years of tagging along made me want to do it THAT MUCH MORE! I looked forward to my first actual hunt far more than I looked forward to touching my first boob!

I just dont see something like this recruiting any significant numbers.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

-This is absolutely ridicilious. I can't even believe some of you would think this is a great idea. What a complete dumba$$ idea. Why not just take this person with to experience the hunt, if they feel they want to take it further, well your going to need hunters safety education. I've always felt very strongly about hunter safety education, I still think everyone should be required to have it before hunting no matter if your were born before a certain date-


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> bareback take a 17 kid and get them up at 3 AM and have them hump decoys into a field. Then have them sit and watch as you and others get to shoot. My bet not much chance they will want to get excited to go along or even think about getting a HS Cert for the next year. I am in full agreement that shooting something is not necessary for me to have a good hunt, however one has to quantify what expectations are for those who are starting out.
> 
> My youngest daughter loves to go along on hunts but does not care to shoot, but she is an exception. Just as is the case if one would go to Canada for a waterfowl hunt for 8 days. If you went up and saw tons of birds and never fired a shot would you go the next year or the year after that?
> 
> ...


-Ron I can't disagree with more. This honestly to me just goes to show how lazy much of our youth as gotten. If they want to experience the hunt first hand and take game, get certified with hunter education! Hunter safety courses are not rocket science, but it provides a person with a solid platform to build their safety skills further. What the hell happened to working for something you want in life!? I wanted to hunt, I went to hunter's safety courses. I wanted a new bow when I was young, I mowed grass all day. I think many of us worked hard for what we've got, but for so many youth today it seems like they want everything handed to them.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

> Does anyone here remember anything from their hunter safety course? Honestly, can you remember one specific thing? I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T TAKE THE COURSE, but the majority of us learned safety, ethics, etc from our mentor (dad, mom, friend)


Based on what I have witnessed during deer gun season, not much! :eyeroll:



> This bill would theoretically introduce more people to hunting which will help the greater good!
> 
> We are facing a larger problem with the loss of interest in hunting. That is allowing the anti's a greater foot hold on eliminating hunting all together.


I think the greater threat is a growing lack of access! I think about how access has been restricted just within the last 20 years. Where will these people be hunting in another five or ten years? Without access hunting will keep declining with or without recruitment! :-?

I still do not see why people can not tag along and experiance the hunt before they have to kill something. I surely did when I was a boy. I think that is how most of us got the bug! :wink:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> I think the greater threat is a growing lack of access! I think about how access has been restricted just within the last 20 years. Where will these people be hunting in another five or ten years? Without access hunting will keep declining with or without recruitment! :-?


Theres a nail, and you hit it!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> What the hell happened to working for something you want in life!? I wanted to hunt, I went to hunter's safety courses. I wanted a new bow when I was young, I mowed grass all day. I think many of us worked hard for what we've got, but for so many youth today it seems like they want everything handed to them.


Exactamundo!

Our "instant gratification" society. I blame the liberals. :lol:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> bareback take a 17 kid and get them up at 3 AM and have them hump decoys into a field. Then have them sit and watch as you and others get to shoot. My bet not much chance they will want to get excited to go along or even think about getting a HS Cert for the next year. I am in full agreement that shooting something is not necessary for me to have a good hunt, however one has to quantify what expectations are for those who are starting out.
> 
> My youngest daughter loves to go along on hunts but does not care to shoot, but she is an exception. Just as is the case if one would go to Canada for a waterfowl hunt for 8 days. If you went up and saw tons of birds and never fired a shot would you go the next year or the year after that?
> 
> ...


Ron,

Why couldn't that 17 year old meet you in the field after the setup?

What other states do this and where can I find this info?


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

--Definitely agree, access will be the major factor why numbers will decline--


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

I think it's a crazy myself your giving this opportunity to people that have little or no firearms experience. I don't specifically recall what I learned in hunter safety but I know the safe ways to handle and carry a gun. what a safe shot is and isn't, how to look beyond the target and so on (actually I recall more than I thought). Point is I didn't learn it from my dad because he didn't hunt. He put me in hunter safety when I was 12 even though he didn't hunt. I didn't learn any of this from friends when we were younger and out hunting because I learned it BEFORE I went hunting. I think it's nuts to turn people loose even with a babysitter with no instruction. You give someone a rifle and tell them be careful what you aim at because that bullet goes a long ways, who knows what the newbie considers a long ways. I sure don't want him or her to find out at my or someone elses expense.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

You guys are realing not seeing the problem. Get women involved and the majority of what this topic is about will eliminate itself! The best thing we can all do is introduce the great outdoors to our significant other! Bottom Line!

How many here have hunted with their wife or GF?


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Im not sure about others hunter's safety classes but I learned a lot when I was an impressionable 12 YO. I used to look forward to going to classes when I was a kid. The way I was taught with lots of examples of mishaps and ways they could have been prevented wouldn't have been explained as clearly by my dad. You learn a ton of different safe ways to handle/carry guns, and how to safely use every kind of action available. I really just dont see a "mentor" hammering it out for 5 hours with someone new to guns nearly as effectively as a firearm safety instructor who has been trained to teach these things.

All it takes is one slip..


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Maverick said:


> You guys are realing not seeing the problem. Get women involved and the majority of what this topic is about will eliminate itself! The best thing we can all do is introduce the great outdoors to our significant other! Bottom Line!
> 
> How many here have hunted with their wife or GF?


Seriously, find me a hottie that wants to go hunting and Id be happy to accomedate her.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> You guys are realing not seeing the problem. Get women involved and the majority of what this topic is about will eliminate itself! The best thing we can all do is introduce the great outdoors to our significant other! Bottom Line!
> 
> How many here have hunted with their wife or GF?


Just took the new GF out this weekend. She whumped a poochie from 30 yards with the benelli.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

USAlx50 said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are realing not seeing the problem. Get women involved and the majority of what this topic is about will eliminate itself! The best thing we can all do is introduce the great outdoors to our significant other! Bottom Line!
> ...


Women are what you make of them. Don't tell me you can't teach a hottie how to hunt. Proof is in the pudding and I have learned through experience that half the time they just want to be with you, unless you make hunting no fun for them!
Hotties hunt too!!! You just have to give them a chance!

Get women into it or watch it die......IMHO!!!!!


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't mind the idea.

I don't think it will do all that much for hunter recruitment. But I can see a few people taking advantage of it and that is good. Any time a new hunter spends in the field is good in my eyes.

I also don't think the hunter safety course is as such a big deal as some make it out to be. Really, it's common sense to know what you are shooting at, don't point the gun at people, look beyond your target, ect. DON'T GET ME WRONG, THE COURSE IS NECESSARY. But I don't think it is all that crucial to someone's daughter wanting to go out with her Dad once a year, or whatever the situation may be. Those of you that make it sound like Armegedon is here if you hunt without the course, don't forget about the thousands of people born after 1961 hunting away. Yeap, that would be your parents and grandparents, and probably a lot of you.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

AdamFisk said:


> I don't mind the idea.
> 
> I don't think it will do all that much for hunter recruitment. But I can see a few people taking advantage of it and that is good. Any time a new hunter spends in the field is good in my eyes.
> 
> I also don't think the hunter safety course is as such a big deal as some make it out to be. Really, it's common sense to know what you are shooting at, don't point the gun at people, look beyond your target, ect. DON'T GET ME WRONG, THE COURSE IS NECESSARY. But I don't think it is all that crucial to someone's daughter wanting to go out with her Dad once a year, or whatever the situation may be. Those of you that make it sound like Armegedon is here if you hunt without the course, don't forget about the thousands of people born after 1961 hunting away. Yeap, that would be your parents and grandparents, and probably a lot of you.


--Yeah, well once a sloppy law like this gets passed, then it runs it course and snowballs. Why start now?


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

bretts said:


> AdamFisk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind the idea.
> ...


Brett, what if Lindsay wanted to go shoot some pheasants with you this weekend but couldn't because the next hunter safety course is a month away? How would you feel then?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm old and got my hunter safety from my dad... A failing grade was not what we got if we failed, we were not allowed out there until deemed safe by our fathers. Our safety wasn't left up to some government test or idea. Old school was a good way.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are realing not seeing the problem. Get women involved and the majority of what this topic is about will eliminate itself! The best thing we can all do is introduce the great outdoors to our significant other! Bottom Line!
> ...


.......and that's where you are keeping tradition alive! :beer: 
Not enough of us even ask if they want to go with, and that's where tradition ends!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I agree with ya Mav. But I didnt introduce her to nothing, shes already been doing it for years.

But your absolutely right, sometimes its not even they want to actually hunt, their chicks and their into that "quality time" thing. But, get em out, and maybe, JUST MAYYYYBE, theyll decide its something they really want to give a go. (That is, if your lucky) :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Haha you guys don't really want them a along do you?? Maybe once in a while but everytime, that would probably finish off most marriages. :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> bretts wrote:
> What the hell happened to working for something you want in life!? I wanted to hunt, I went to hunter's safety courses. I wanted a new bow when I was young, I mowed grass all day. I think many of us worked hard for what we've got, but for so many youth today it seems like they want everything handed to them.


bretts you ever Curled, or skydived or a bunch of other activities that many do that other do not!

I guess the first time I wanted to learn about Curling I should have gotten a job saved my money and moved to a place where they had curling. Instead in college a friend of mine was in a Curling league and took me a long and got me on the ice that night.

While I know it did not involve firearms the point of exposure is the same. Someone who knew about an activity was able to introduce it to me. You I bet grew up in a home or had family that hunted. You never probably never had a time when hunting was not on your agenda from little on.

Back when I was involved in fast pitch softball the league players ran a fall instructional league where people who had an interest could come and play with mentor around to teach basics in hitting,pitching,fielding etc...

They saw the press of other activities cutting into the number of people playing this sport. It was a recruitment tool that actually worked. I have not heard a single argument that does not sound like someone worried about competition. Mav gets it and a few others do as well.!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Quote:
> bretts wrote:
> What the hell happened to working for something you want in life!? I wanted to hunt, I went to hunter's safety courses. I wanted a new bow when I was young, I mowed grass all day. I think many of us worked hard for what we've got, but for so many youth today it seems like they want everything handed to them.


Amen Bretts!!

I didn't read back to see what made you write that but I couldn't agree more. Thank God there are a few ambitious youth left.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> I have not heard a single argument that does not sound like someone worried about competition. Mav gets it and a few others do as well.!


Really? Because most of the arguments that ive heard stems from a safety issue. This isnt curling or softball. This is hunting! A sport which utilizes a potentially deadly tool. A sport in which a mistake could mean someone ending up in a body bag. Its a bit scary to see such a cavalier attitude towards something as important as safety. :eyeroll: Seriously Ron, it sounds as if your willing to let some of the safety aspect slide just to get a few other people interested in hunting.

I am ALL FOR getting new people involved in our sport, or obsession for me. But, if were going to get them in, we need to get them in right. Which means taking the proper precautions and steps to make them safe for everybody else thats out there. In my mind, hunting isnt something you just one day decide to do than immediately do it. You need to lay the proper foundation for safe and proper usage of a firearm. This takes time. Take them along without them shooting, lay the groundwork. This may take a little more effort on your part (instead of making them set decoys at 4 AM, maybe let them sleep in the truck till its time to blind up).

I have a problem with your average 8, 9, 10, 12 year olds carrying hi-power deer rifles around, just as I have a problem with people of any age carrying firearms around without receiving the proper degree of instruction for their safe use. Not to say that instruction helps everybody, there are plenty of people out there that have had HS that I wont go withing ten miles of with a loaded weapon, but the attempt was made, not everybody can be taught.

Look at how much *****ing about the slob hunters that goes on here during gun season. THESE are they guys that are going to be out there "teaching" these johnny come lately's the proper use of a firearm and how to hunt! :eyeroll:

In a perfect world it may be a good idea, but reality is far from perfect.


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

As a hunter safety instructor, I think this is one of the WORST ideas ever. I have taken/introduced several people to hunting without them shooting and yes, they liked it. They took the course and now hunt. That is the way it should be.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

bareback are you saying that you support gun control laws that would require someone to go through a state or Fed determined course in order to own a gun?

I guess I am missing the safety risk in this since the person cannot simply go hunting and be afield without a mentor. Once again your argument sounds more like OH NO!!!!!! another hunter is afield and that may mean less for me!

I am in my 40's and was the sole mentor for at least 10 girls and guys that where just starting to hunt. Each and everyone of them went through HS but it was my constant watch on them on gun handling, reminder of being aware of what is behind the target. Not taking shots that where unethical etc.... that has made them safe hunters today as well as mentors themselves. My cousin and his friend are just a few years younger than I and I started doing this when I was in high school.

You are putting way to much faith in how HS affects people. I think it has a bigger impact on girls and women than on boys and young men. However the influence of a mentor afield has a lot greater affect upon them especially on safety and ethics.

Kid back home was an outlaw in regards to his handling of guns and what he would shoot at. Signs,old buildings just about anything was a target for him. He had been through hunters safety and it made no never mind. Then he wanted to hunt with others and they told him what the ground rules where and stood by them. He turned out OK, and today I trust him to teach others about safety and also ethics. Funny thing is that the people who straighten him out where properly mentored.

So I ask you this, which is more safe. A person who goes through the training and is of legal age to hunt alone and does or someone who has not been through HS but is afield with a mentor who is taking the time and effort to introduce a person to the sport of hunting!

I realize I will not change your mind, but I do know that unless the bill gets "Hogged" and changed from its present forum, it has the support of my Reps and Sen as well as at least 20 others in the Leg that I know. This is a good idea and a great proposal for getting people introduced to hunting and all the spin about safety is really people worried about losing some turf area to a newbie!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> bareback are you saying that you support gun control laws that would require someone to go through a state or Fed determined course in order to own a gun?


Negative. Ownership, and usage in the home for self defense are far different than in the field with MANY other people out and about.



> I guess I am missing the safety risk in this since the person cannot simply go hunting and be afield without a mentor. Once again your argument sounds more like OH NO!!!!!! another hunter is afield and that may mean less for me!
> 
> I am in my 40's and was the sole mentor for at least 10 girls and guys that where just starting to hunt. Each and everyone of them went through HS but it was my constant watch on them on gun handling, reminder of being aware of what is behind the target. Not taking shots that where unethical etc.... that has made them safe hunters today as well as mentors themselves. My cousin and his friend are just a few years younger than I and I started doing this when I was in high school.


Again, negative. Its not about less for me. Your comparing your mentorship to what SHOULD happen. In which case id be all for it. But I know in reality, theres going to be alot of "heres a gun, kill something" going on. Theres alot of slobs out there, their going to be "mentoring" too.



> You are putting way to much faith in how HS affects people. I think it has a bigger impact on girls and women than on boys and young men. However the influence of a mentor afield has a lot greater affect upon them especially on safety and ethics.
> 
> Kid back home was an outlaw in regards to his handling of guns and what he would shoot at. Signs,old buildings just about anything was a target for him. He had been through hunters safety and it made no never mind. Then he wanted to hunt with others and they told him what the ground rules where and stood by them. He turned out OK, and today I trust him to teach others about safety and also ethics. Funny thing is that the people who straighten him out where properly mentored.
> 
> So I ask you this, which is more safe. A person who goes through the training and is of legal age to hunt alone and does or someone who has not been through HS but is afield with a mentor who is taking the time and effort to introduce a person to the sport of hunting!


As I stated in my last post. HS doesnt help everybody, just as drivers Ed doesnt help everybody. I know this, but you have to make that effort. Mentoring (who that person decides to hunt with after HS) has alot to do with it. But, you teach a person (away from his/her "crowd") the proper usage, and they may go back to their group and perhaps set them straight. Ive seen kids, fresh out of HS, call guys out on unsafe practices. Why? They learned it in HS.



> I realize I will not change your mind, but I do know that unless the bill gets "Hogged" and changed from its present forum, it has the support of my Reps and Sen as well as at least 20 others in the Leg that I know. This is a good idea and a great proposal for getting people introduced to hunting and all the spin about safety is really people worried about losing some turf area to a newbie!


Getting "hogged" is quite a possibility, it seems they like to do that. And I really do disagree with the "losing turf". That is the least of my worries with something like this. Sure for some it may be their underlying fear, but I think with most its a safety issue.

I just dont see why they HAVE to shoot. I really dont. Theres so much more to hunting than the shot. The "shot" is probably less than 1% of the overall hunt. Something like this I think puts to much emphasis on the wrong aspect of our sport. I always hear about "trophy hunting" and how to many guys are hung up on "limits" and "kill kill kill". Well this in a way perpetuates that mentality. I think taking a person out a few times, teaching them the other aspects of the hunt before letting them actually shoot is a much better way to create a "hunter". As this idea was originally stated, all I see it doing is creating more "shooters", of which we have plenty.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

--Ron, the safety issue is huge here. I just feel strongly that we need to set the right example right off the bat. Let's not get sloppy here! Yeah, it's great expose them to the great outdoors, I would imagine once they see those wings cupped and set into decoys, or watch that buck come straight across that crp to rattling that their going to crave the privledge to hunt that animal no matter what it takes, and it's going to take a little work! I don't disagree with you that we need to get more youth introduced to the outdoors, but I do disagree that this is the correct way to introduce them--


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah I guess you are right, the safety factor is really the key here! Tell that to the kid who's Dad who had hunters safety shot him in 07 or the family of the 12 year old that shot his brother that had recently been through hunters safety but the Dad was in the truck instead of in the field with him.

Or the guy that got shot this past weekend in MN because of someone who had been through hunters safety left his shotgun unattended and loaded where a dog could step on it.

Your safety argument is not valid.

I had a conversation with a HS instructor concerning this issue. I pointed out I thought ND to be a bit overboard when a person who is in the military cannot buy a license in this state without HS. His response is that they teach them to shoot people. My response is they teach them the safe handling of a weapon and to avoid shooting targets that they do not intend to.

Do not take my position as being against safety nor as a slam against HS, because it is not. My position is that anyone who is willing to take someone afield that is not overly familiar with a firearm is going to be very aware of what is taking place and be instructing that person on all of the things you guys are so concerned about.

ND has been a pretty safe place to hunt with not a lot of accidents until recent years as hunter numbers increased. It is however still a very safe thing to do in this state and our wide open spaces are a great place for such a program to work successfully!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Yeah I guess you are right, the safety factor is really the key here! Tell that to the kid who's Dad who had hunters safety shot him in 07 or the family of the 12 year old that shot his brother that had recently been through hunters safety but the Dad was in the truck instead of in the field with him.
> 
> Or the guy that got shot this past weekend in MN because of someone who had been through hunters safety left his shotgun unattended and loaded where a dog could step on it.
> 
> Your safety argument is not valid.


Its not? What about all the accidents that could have been, but werent because the persons involved had received proper firearm instruction through HS or perhaps by joining others in the field WITHOUT worrying about their own weapon and observing others handling weapons? You dont hear about those do you. Im willing to bet these "almosts" far outnumber the ones that happened.



> Do not take my position as being against safety nor as a slam against HS, because it is not. My position is that anyone who is willing to take someone afield that is not overly familiar with a firearm is going to be very aware of what is taking place and be instructing that person on all of the things you guys are so concerned about.


Again, I think this is somewhat "wishful thinking". For every case like you describe there could very easily be another "heres a gun, kill something" scenario out there.



> ND has been a pretty safe place to hunt with not a lot of accidents until recent years as hunter numbers increased. It is however still a very safe thing to do in this state and our wide open spaces are a great place for such a program to work successfully!


Wait a tick! If hunter numbers have increased why do we need to make special exemptions to recruit more?


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Why would people be worried about "competition" from people without an outdoors background enough to go through HS, and must also be with a mentor?


----------



## JayHelfrich (Dec 8, 2008)

cgreeny said:


> I couldn't agree more. It sounds like trying to tap in on some more oil field revenue and a scary excuse for all the jack arse righands to carry firearms around out here, I dont like it. I thought kids could hunt without one as long as they were accompanied by a parent or guardian or adult, as long as they counted only for the adults limit. I am sure it was brought up with good intentions but wow are you serious.... :eyeroll:
> 
> I dont need an 18 yr punk rig hand that knocked off for the day driving down prairie roads blazin at every dang bird that jumps up and now to be licensed for it so its legal


Good sir,

I do not know you but I would like to inform you that as a person who works in the oil field I take offence to your statements. I am a non resident working in your state, paying your sales taxes, buying supplies from your stores, paying non resident fee's for the opportunity to hunt and fish in your fine state, and following your fish and game rules to the letter of the law. I have spent more money in North Dakota this year on hunting and fishing supples than I have in my own state or online. I have spent hundreds of dollars at local mom and pop shops and enjoied every minute of it. I have seen what it is like when people disrespect the F&G laws of my own state of Montana and would never do that to your state.

Please do not group all people in the oil field together because there are some sportsmen who have jobs in the oil field that understand and respect the laws of your state.

Jay


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with Ron. 

I don't see a problem with doing this.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Yeah I guess you are right, the safety factor is really the key here! Tell that to the kid who's Dad who had hunters safety shot him in 07 or the family of the 12 year old that shot his brother that had recently been through hunters safety but the Dad was in the truck instead of in the field with him.
> 
> Or the guy that got shot this past weekend in MN because of someone who had been through hunters safety left his shotgun unattended and loaded where a dog could step on it.
> 
> ...


Ron,

You don't think more of these incedences will happen when we allow people who have no HS? What makes you so sure that these so called "mentors" are going to be watching more closely?

And as far as your last statement, that hunter numbers have increased, then why are we even considering this bill? I mean from your own admission it does not appear that ND has a hunter recruitment problem.

I repeat that access is the key to hunter numbers, without it hunters will eventually leave the sport. What happens when these new hunters that you want to bring into the sport can no longer find a place to hunt? Do you really think they will continue to hunt if they keep getting turned down for access or have to settle for hunting shoulder to shoulder on what little public land ND has to offer?

Yeah, it's great that we get more people and especially more youths involved in our sport. I am just concerned more with access in order to retain the people we have and these new folks.

Also you stated in an earlier post that other states are doing this with success. I would like to know what states and where you are getting those stats.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

If we are interested in getting younger kids out into the field, how about lowering the age of hunter safety to about 10 years old. Then give the ones that passed one free year to hunt without a license. I'd rather have a 10 year old next to me with a gun after having HS than an older person next to me without the class.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

These issues absolutley fascinate me. A lot of the folks posting on this issue look at the way ND does it, see the results and think that the safety record ND has is because of the way that they do Hunters Safety and age of hunting.

I would make an arguent that much of the record is in spite of the rules.

Your telling me that a 16year old hunting with a mentor is going to be more dangerous than and 8 year old out with his dad??? Assume both are hunting ducks, which situation is more risky?? And yet because the 8 year old out with dad is traditional in ND, it cant be bad, but this new thing... whoa, we bettered hold on!!!!

If you go back and read the threads on here talking last time about lowering the hunting age you will hear this same line of rhetoric. "It cant be safe", or "You all are just scared of more competition". In reality what most are saying is that they either embrace change as healthy and can think outside the box, or they value tradition above all else and see little value in accomodating others.

To me it is just fascinating to listen to. ithink it is an awesome change. My ten year old got to harvest a mule deer doe with me standing at his shoulder this year, and my twelve year old has taken both a muley and whitetail, with three more to go. And I would sit beside either of them on a stand before I would sit with a lot of thirty year olds. I kept telling my 10 year old son who normally has real problems with patience to take the shot, and when he finally did, he looked up at me and told me he just wasn't comfortable yet, and he would take the shot when he knew where the bullet was going to hit. Basiclaly, "Back off dad!!!"

So much for wisdom coming only with age and training. Of course he has been in 4-H BB gun for 3 years, but without HS, I mean how could he possibly be safe?

I think those of opposing this are being silly, and i say way to go Aaron, wish I could have voted for you!!!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Tom,

You are assuming that all will be as safe as you were with your kids. You must also think about the worst mentors possible when deciding if this is a good thing or not.


----------



## Scott LeDuc (Aug 4, 2008)

Yeah I guess you are right, the safety factor is really the key here! Tell that to the kid who's Dad who had hunters safety shot him in 07 or the family of the 12 year old that shot his brother that had recently been through hunters safety but the Dad was in the truck instead of in the field with him.

Bingo - Ron you hit the nail on the head with your quote!

This boils down to a trade off.. Are we willing to forsake some 'potential' loss of safety knowledge for the 'potential' increase in hunters? I say yes, earlier someone was arguing that our biggest problem is land access. Get more hunters out there and you will have more people lobbying for land access! You will also have more people (mentors) teaching safety to the younger or more inexperienced.

This is a forward thinking bill that in the long run could benefit us


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

But I believe we need to manage to a reasonable level, not cater to the least common denominator. If you want to go that way, we could all be hunting with sticks and clubs. That woul dbe the safest.

Face it. When you look at the rest of the country, ND has more space for hunting than 90 % of the others. Hunter density is extremely low. Yet we are more restrictive than many other places. Make sense??? The five years I lived in ND I could count on one hand the number of times I weas in a position for a hunter that I was not hunting with to hurt me. Probably less than three times. And each year I harvested way more than average amounts of game on land that was either public or unposted.

That is the experiance that makes me say safety is being oversold. If you are not comfortable with a memeber of your own hunting party, then it is your responsiblity to make the call and go on your own. Gotta go.

T


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

This bill is not enough in my opinion. States like Pennsylvania and South Dakota have hunting mentor programs that have been sucessful. The safety idea comes with the licensed and HS trained mentor not carrying their own gun and always keeping the youth hunter within arms reach. I have been hunting pheasants with my 7 year old all season (on my own land). I don't carry my gun when he has his and he has not fired a shot all season at a pheasant. He did shoot a dove off the wing this year.

I think kids are just like adults in respect to their abilities, some are ready when others are not. But I think kids are much more capable, with an adult supervising and TEACHING not just criticizing, of doing more than we expect.

My son has been walking with a bb gun since he was two years old. At 2 he could do 2 miles before he tired out. I be most of your kids could do it too if you allowed them to. Hunting is more than killing and watching your child get excited about the dragon flys or catching grasshoppers while your waiting for a dove to fly by is as much fun as pulling the trigger. 
Once when he was 5 we were sitting in a two man treestand in ND during gun season. A big buck was running toward us from his side and he could see it but I couldn't due to the tree trunk in the way. He whispered theres a big buck. As it got to 15 yards and stopped I still couldn't see it and he couldn't take it anymore and yelled "Dad theres a big buck right there shoot it" well of course it spooked and I missed the shot when it came around my side. We still laugh about that two years later. Yes I likely would have gotten that wall hanger if I was alone but I have a much warmer memory with the way it worked out.

Hunting has gotten so competetive I think if some of the great hunters out there mentored a kid they would get back that to the basics that hooked them in the beginning.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

I'd like all who think that we don't need HS be ready to explain your logic to the family who lost a family member to an inexperienced hunter who didn't have any safety training and made a mistake. I know that mistakes are made by expereinced hunters as well, so you don't have to go there.

I'm not ready to sacrifice safety for the sake of a handful of new hunters at an earlier age.

tsodak, I'm sure that you and other dedicated hunters do a great job with your kids. Your kids aren't the ones that become a statistic.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

tsodak said:


> If you are not comfortable with a memeber of your own hunting party, then it is your responsiblity to make the call and go on your own. Gotta go.
> 
> T


You are absolutely correct. But im not worried about the guys in my hunting party. Im VERY picky about who I go afield with. Im worried about the guy in the other party. Will they be that guy that took a green as grass rookie out and said "heres a gun, kill something" without the proper degree of instruction? Possibly.

Swift,

You to are correct. Not all kids are at the same level, just as not all adults are. There are 8 year olds out there that im sure id rather share a hunt with, that are far safer than some 40 year olds.

Ken, Ron, and all the others that support this. I think your believeing that all these "mentoring" scenarios will shake out as they would perhaps if you were conducting them. i.e. the proper degree of instruction and familiarization BEFORE the hunt. And I think I may perhaps be leaning the other way, that there will be oodles of guys out there just slapping a firearm in a rookies hands and saying lets go huntin. When in reality there will be some of both. Personaly, I dont think its worth the risk. There will be positive outcomes of something like this, but there will also be negatives. In my mind, the risks dont outweight the benefits as I just dont see something like this bringing in significant numbers. (But according to Ron, hunter numbers are up in ND).

Perhaps if it were re-written. Maybe with some sort of online, abbreviated HS "class" and quiz or something that would be required to receive the certificate.

Those of you in favor of it. Would you still be in favor of it if it was written that the mentor was not allowed to carry a firearm afield in order to give all possible attention to the apprentice?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Here is a question for you Bareback, The ND state constitution has an amendment that ND residents have the RIGHT to hunt. Nowhere does it say they must have a HS class. So is the states requirement for hunter safety infringing on the rights of people to hunt. Also not everyone needs HS. So is the Dec 1, 1949 birthdate in essence age discrimination?

Now that said I am an NHEA instructor. I believe that hunter ed is an excellent thing. I also think that students that have been exposed to guns and hunting prior to taking the class understand the teachings and do better on the written and practicle parts of the test. The NHEA test is too difficult for people under age 12 to comprehend and answer. The test would need to be rewritten to a 3rd grade level for kids to be able to understand and pass it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tom good to see you have been getting out with your kids! Am am pretty much done with this subject until the bill in its final draft is put forward. But as Sen Tom Fisher said one day. ND suffers from the *Custer Syndrome. *

*Before Custer left to do battle with the Indians he told everyone not to do anything until he got back!!!!!!!!!!*

Hunter numbers have increased but much of the overall increase is a result of the increase in deer tags and upland populations. With the change in the landscape the fair weather hunters will go away just as they did in the 80's prior to CRP returning to the landscape. I am a waterfowl hunter and we lost a generation of waterfowlers because of the dry conditions. We face the same thing with upland and deer and also once again waterfowl.

Programs and work that has taken place with the increase will either go away or be cut back. With fewer people afield, the Leg is less likely to be on the side of the sportsman even more than they are now.

I have been hunting for well over 35 years from before HS was needed. During that time the average age of hunters has risen at a rate faster than at any other time. Just like the age of farmers in this state. People who live in the urban areas are not picking up the sport just like before. But we have less and less people in the rural area who have kids where recruitment remains strong. So it boils down to what is your vision of the future. For myself I do not worry, for my kids and grandkids I do.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Ron you are correct. But lets not stop recruiting until we can get more kids involved to. This bill can be the first step.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

swift said:


> Here is a question for you Bareback, The ND state constitution has an amendment that ND residents have the RIGHT to hunt. Nowhere does it say they must have a HS class. So is the states requirement for hunter safety infringing on the rights of people to hunt. Also not everyone needs HS. So is the Dec 1, 1949 birthdate in essence age discrimination?


Requiring HS to hunt only infringes on a persons "right" to hunt if that person is prevented from taking HS.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Swift you are right, and this bill provides a couple other things as well that many do not see. I have a couple of youths that wanted to go hunting and I agreed to take them. However the parents where not excited in letting the kids go. If I could have taken one or both parents out prior I think we would have faced less opposition. Now I realize that they do not need to shoot to go along, but by putting a shotgun in their hand and having me teaching them on proper gun handling and safety before the kids went would have eased a few fears.

I got one of the fathers to go to the trap range with me and that helped, but the kid is now dependent upon me or another to get out hunting. If we could have gotten the Dad or Mom excited it would open up the door for both of them and a win win situation would occur.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> I am a waterfowl hunter and we lost a generation of waterfowlers because of the dry conditions.


Id agree with you Ron, but than we'd both be wrong. I grew up during the drought of the 80's, and so did all the other late twenty/early 30 years olds, the SAME people that right now make up the BULK of waterfowlers in this state!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Bareback the waterfowler generation that were lost are the 40 and 50 year olds. The saddest part is generally this is the age when you can afford to do the most in your life. Now they have the money and no desire to go because of the politics of the early 1980's. You 20 and 30 year-olds are hunting in the best of the good old days. You don't know what driving 120 miles round trip from Minot to Underwood to shoot one Canada goose. Many thought I was crazy for that. I'd venture to bet the 20 somethings can't remember being thrilled to kill a fork-horned whiteltail buck because after three seasons it was the first buck you saw. Those days were hard on recruitment and retention of hunters the only thing that helped was the vast amounts of unposted land. Now the hunters numbers are down, largely due to access issues.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

swift said:


> Now the hunters numbers are down, largely due to access issues.


Bingo we have a winner! :lol:

Look, I'm 35 years old, I started hunting when I was about 8 or 10 which would have been around 1982 or so. Believe me game was scarce back then but you could hunt just about every where. Kids would take off after school and head out to the nearest slough and shoot a few ducks. My first few deer seasons were spent walking a lot of sloughs and trees, seeing few deer, but enjoying every minute with hardly a posted sign anywhere. Now you need to spend more time finding a place to hunt and making contacts with landowners to insure a place to hunt then actually hunting.

We need to spend more time and effort on creating access rather then keep worrying about bringing in new hunters. It's like "Field of Dreams", build it and they will come. Open up the land, and the hunters will show up! PLOTS is a great program, but IMO we need a more perminate solution.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

swift said:


> Bareback the waterfowler generation that were lost are the 40 and 50 year olds. The saddest part is generally this is the age when you can afford to do the most in your life.


So even though we lost the 40-50 year old generation of waterfowlers (my fathers generation along with the rest of us late 20/early 30 year olds fathers) we STILL have a waterfowling group which is today strongly dominated by late 20/early 30 year olds. I dont see how losing that generation hurt waterfowling as a whole as my generation STILL got involved in waterfowling regardless if our fathers quite. FYI-My father quite waterfowling in the early 80's when I was just a pup, and yet, I STILL got involved in waterfowling to an obssessive level.



> Now the hunters numbers are down, largely due to access issues.


Come on guys, what is it? One guys states hunter numbers are up, the other says there down. Is it access issues causing the decrease in numbers of not being exposed to it?

I think its access issues that would decrease numbers (in ND I dont think numbers are down, but if they were it would be due to lack of access).

So tell me, if access is the reason for the decrease in numbers, how will something like this proposed bill help? Does it have a secret access clause that were not being told about? Will these "apprentice hunters" be given free reign on land the rest of us arent privy to?


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

dblkluk said:


> Speaking as a guy who feels we should always be introducing new people to the sport, I dont like it.
> 
> As a society we are always trying to make everything "easier". Why not make someone earn the right to purchase a license and carry a firearm.
> 
> ...


I agree, we cannot just abandon rules and give out the big red easy button on this matter. I have thought about it, and I think I went hunting with my dad for years before I ever shot and ever had my hunter safety, I still loved it, so this bull about how if someone has to do a little hard work but cant shoot they wont like it, well they may not like it anyways then..... I do see why they want to increase numbers, was it maybe all the duck hunters from out of state that cancelled their trip this fall have a bit to do with it, just maybe. I am scared more than anything about this bill, just because they are with someone who is 18 or over and has a hunter safety doesnt do jack for me when that kid is swinging a gun all over the place, accidents do happen, I just dont want to be in favor of a bill to potentially increase them. just my thoughts guys.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

ND Res hunter numbers are off from what they use to be in regards to waterfowl hunters. They are almost half of what they use to be with about the same population level.

Upland hunters rise and fall with pheasant populations and also have seen an increase in NR use. Deer have increased some, but much of that is due in large part to the expansion of the herd. Swift like myself remember well the days of having to decide if you wanted a doe or buck tag for the year knowing that to hunt odds where better of getting a doe tag. We did not even have an option of a second choice. Back then if you where not drawn for your choice you got your money back and an option of applying for any unused tags left across the state.

Now most units have excess doe tags left after the draw and this availability has increased those who participate but even the G&F admit that those numbers are skewed a bit because of the people who apply for wives and other family members to obtain a buck tag even though party hunting is not legal.

So while overall hunting license issued are up it is not from Res increases and with the change of the landscape we should be looking at ways to retain and recruit hunters to bolster our positions.

You are not going to see much opposition to this from what I have heard in Bismarck and especially if the G&F endorse the change!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> You are not going to see much opposition to this from what I have heard in Bismarck and especially if the G&F endorse the change!


We'll see. The same was said of the "high-fence" issue.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are not going to see much opposition to this from what I have heard in Bismarck and especially if the G&F endorse the change!
> ...


Well isnt that good to see the GNF playing follow the leader, I remember when Hoven had the whole damn state damn near phone in on the early pheasant opener, I believe the NDGNF endorsed that idea too..... NO BRAINS, NO HEADACHES. Sorry about this issue Ron, I just do not see this as a good tool for hunter recruitment. DBLK would agree, its a privilege to be able to hunt, not a right. I would say whats next, are we going to allow 20 yr olds to go into the bars for a year, you know just to try that out too, you know to see if they like it.... :eyeroll:


----------



## HuntingGeek (Oct 12, 2007)

I am a HS instructor and can tell you that I am 100% in favor of this bill. The youth today aren't lazy, they are really busy. There are many more options than ever before to create conflicts. There's football, basketball, band, homework and 100 other school activities available. In addition they have cell phones, 100 tv channels, video games, internet chat rooms to occupy their free time. It used to be just cars and girls that were the distraction. Almost every year I hear of a student that would like to go hunting with his buddies family to try it because he has heard so much about it. When they hear about the time committment to get the class they say, they have conflicts and nevermind. These are the youths that we are missing out on because it just isn't a priority. The ones that come to class are the ones who have already been out hunting and know they like it and are willing to miss a football practice or 2 in order to get certified. If they can get out and try it once or twice then they now become one of the ones that are willing to rearrange their priorities to get certified.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I think a Hunter Mentor Program would be a good middle ground on the issue. I think introducing a hunter of any age should be like introducing a young child. Keep it fun and interesting, while educational.

I think HuntingGeek has made a very valid point, young kids have so much more things to do nowadays.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

HuntingGeek said:


> I am a HS instructor and can tell you that I am 100% in favor of this bill. The youth today aren't lazy, they are really busy. There are many more options than ever before to create conflicts. There's football, basketball, band, homework and 100 other school activities available. In addition they have cell phones, 100 tv channels, video games, internet chat rooms to occupy their free time. It used to be just cars and girls that were the distraction. Almost every year I hear of a student that would like to go hunting with his buddies family to try it because he has heard so much about it. When they hear about the time committment to get the class they say, they have conflicts and nevermind. These are the youths that we are missing out on because it just isn't a priority. The ones that come to class are the ones who have already been out hunting and know they like it and are willing to miss a football practice or 2 in order to get certified. If they can get out and try it once or twice then they now become one of the ones that are willing to rearrange their priorities to get certified.


Can I ask you, is it legal to go out with a guardian or parent and hunt with them as long as no law was broken or limits exceeded. I think if a kid wanted to try this I would be in favor, but to just give out a license to a kid to see if he likes it well I dont understand it, so what if the kid likes it and then next year realizes he has to study and take a test to hunt? Dollars to dollars that kid will be too busy again as you said. I agree we are missing out on alot of kids by not promoting hunting and the outdoors, but I think making a free pass for their first year is the right idea.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Kids today do whatever it takes to get the keys to the car and party with their friends. Tell them they can have the car to go to hunter safety and the buildings would be full. Nothing has really changed.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

I agree with Buckseye. I didnt shoot a firearm for many years before I had my hunter safety or right before. So basically its kids have more choices to make, you can't make them go can you or can you. I played football, Hockey and all kinds of other activities and still lovd to hunt so that isnt a valid excuse in my book. I have 2 brothers that hunt a little here and there but not like me all the time, so I like the idea buckseye has, give them the keys to drive to class and it would be full I bet.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I like the idea.

I had the lack of a hunters' safety course derail a hunting outing with a friend of mine, who's an extremely trustworthy adult. I was hoping he'd enjoy the outing and I'd get another hunting buddy out of the deal, but while he didn't mind getting up early with me and going out for the day, it wasn't enough of a priority for him to where he was going to get certified... I think that's what this proposition is about.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

So if there is ever an accident and a kid shoots someone then who does it fall on, the adult or the kid?????? Promoting hunting is good but lacking in safety is a bad idea in my opinion, but to each his own, I hope everything works out in the end, and I would love to see more kids in the field, I am not a giant A-hole who thinks all the birds are his. Enough of me beating on this thread, :beer:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

So what if there was a minimum age of 18, or 21 on this, so it was used to take adults out hunting who have not had the chance for hunter ed???

Change anyones mind???


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Did anyone other than Tom and a few others read the article???



> Here's a chance where someone who has never taken hunter safety, born after '61 and who is 16 years or older can get an apprentice license to *upland game or deer hunt*," Krauter said.


This is what it is all about.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I for one would be much more in favor of it if it were just upland and waterfowl, not deer. My god, stick a hi-power in the hands of a person thats possibly had little or no experience with one? :eyeroll: Thats just asking for trouble.

I would also be more in favor of it if there was at least some sort of "test". An online certification process that at the very least touches on basic firearm safety. Or something to that effect.

I just dont trust alot of guys out there themselves, let alone trust them to teach a newbie safe practices.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I have to say that I am beside myself with trying to understand why this is such a topic for debate. I honestly believe that the entire concept of this plan is ludacris to say the least and a short-cut of doing it right. We all know what happens when short-cuts are taken and now we through guns into the equation too?????

Just plain ridiculous. A class that could save lives and takes very little of your time and is a one shot for a life time is being traded for instant gratification. don't we already have enough of that for our youth?


----------



## DelSnavely (Oct 17, 2007)

Sounds to me like we should call this "The Dick Cheney "Hunting Bill" Bill"... :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

My daughter took "Firearm Safety" at 11 years. She got the second highest score in the class and was the youngest one in the class. This is something my kids were being tought before they could READ, just because I hunt and have guns in the house!

Hunter Safety = "Watch where you're going and don't step in that hole".

Firearm Safety = "Check the chamber to make sure your gun isn't loaded BEFORE you clean it, and look BEHIND your target before you shoot"...

Not a chance in Hell I would vote for this!!!


----------



## HARRY2 (Jul 26, 2004)

I think it is a great idea, as far as the people worried about a bunch of unsafe people running around with guns. Noting to worry about it says they must be with a hunter who has passed the course.

Just because a person has not hunted before does not mean they have never had firearms before. My brother shoots all the time but has just never hunted.


----------



## Uncle Omar (Jul 8, 2008)

Lots of interesting (and relevant) comments here ... so ... I'll add a few of mine ...

My first Hunter Safety Course card is almost 50 years old ... that was obviously prior to the ND G&F courses started ... but this year, for whatever reason, I decided to take the "new" course (new to me, even tho I was once certified as an instructor, about 30 years ago, the Deparment had no trace of me ... )

Sure, I passed, and I was not surprised to be reminded of a lot of things I'd known before, but sorta forgot about ... (I was even asked by the Instructor to teach part of the class ... Brownie Points, I guess ... )

I also took two grandkids hunting this year, for their first times ever ...

My spouse has hunted deer with me for the past several years, and she tagged a moose this year, and she allowed me to drive her around in that pursuit ...

On the negative side, I was less than 100 percent comfortable with the "safety" practices of one of the grandkids ... I'll be working on that, since his chances of much opportunity @ home are somewhat slim, merely because of job conflicts of both parents ...

Another bad item: I've seen guys that are HS Instructors make some moves that are questionable ... either as to safety, or ethics ... and their kids/students are learning from that behavior ...

I also know "hunters" who learned their slob behavior from their dads ... and they continue to "hunt" that way ... basically, it's mostly examples of "if you don't get caught, it's OK" type stuff ... but that's only a hint of what they're like when afield ...

I think the "apprentice" idea has some potential, but the apparent version so far will need some tweaking ...

I also think that ACCESS is a more important issue ... where I used to see almost no posting, is now virtually 100 percent posted ... that doesn't necessarily mean one can't gain access, but it's a lot more complicated than it used to be ...

Safety first, and the apprentice idea has some flaws in it, as to that respect ... imho ...


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

You see this happen and dollars to donuts you see the number of hunting accidents among first year hunters go up. Is that something you want to risk in favor of recruitment? I'd rather have less hunters in the long haul than a thousand "experimental" hunters in the ranks each year who present a heightened safety risk to themselves and others. One year in the field without the safety course is one too many.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It will be interesting to see what ND Hunter Ed thinks of this bill. Wonder if the sponsors talked to ND Hunter Ed first?
Some of the bill sponsors are from SW ND, the most commercialized hunting area of the state. If the real goal was to recruit new hunters perhaps this bill's sponsors could work on opening access instead.... :lol: 
Especially since USFW published that exauhative study on hunter retention that showed the primary reason for dwindling hunter numbers was lack of access. Go figure.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Word on the street is that Senator Aaron Krauter is actively involved with the Cannonball Corporation. He is even listed on this site as a licensed guide for them: http://www.ndpgoa.com/memberlist.htm

I can see some possible alterior motives in this bill. If the bill passes, those clients of Cannonball could simply hunt with their Cannonball guide "mentor" without having to get their hunter safety certificate.

I am a hunter safety instructor and one of my fellow instructors was contacted this fall to do a last-minute course for an out of state hunter that wanted to do some sharptail hunting. The bad part was that fellow didn't have a hunter safety certificate. This bill would certainly fix that.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

It doesnt suprise me in the least, try to boost your own industry, like Rude said do we honestly need to give shortcuts here too, BIG RED EASY BUTTON. I like the concept of recruiting new hunters but too just hand out licenses without a HSC is a scary idea, hell even people with their HS still have accidents now, I understand that some have handled guns all their life but never hunted, big deal take a few hours a night and take the course, its not hard, I guess I look at it like this, if you dont have time to ake a simple course then why should you just be handed a license that others had to take the course to obtain. IF you dont have that much time then maybe you are also too busy for a hunting license too.


----------



## Scott LeDuc (Aug 4, 2008)

For those that are against this bill what are your suggetions to increase the hunter numbers out there? Again, I think that is a much bigger problem in the long run.... I hear the argument that access is the biggest problem but realize if you had more hunters/lobbyist that would probably lead to more access.

By the way Greeny, I though you were done "pounding" this thread??

Just messen with you.....


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

Scott LeDuc said:


> For those that are against this bill what are your suggetions to increase the hunter numbers out there? Again, I think that is a much bigger problem in the long run.... I hear the argument that access is the biggest problem but realize if you had more hunters/lobbyist that would probably lead to more access.
> 
> By the way Greeny, I though you were done "pounding" this thread??
> 
> Just messen with you.....


Sorry trying to keep to my word. Access is more of a problem than any other issue. No more "pounding " out of me.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I was all for this bill until now. My eyes have been open to the rouse Mr Krauter is trying to pull. He is not a friend of hunters he is a business man that targets hunters. And is much more of a cause of diminshing numbers of hunters than help the numbers grow. With his legislative efforts to have a posted state, seperate hunting rights from landownership, and now get more untrained clients for his cannonball escapade. The people in his district should see that he has turned on them and is truely representing out of state concerns with this bill.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Scott LeDuc said:


> For those that are against this bill what are your suggetions to increase the hunter numbers out there? Again, I think that is a much bigger problem in the long run.... I hear the argument that access is the biggest problem but realize if you had more hunters/lobbyist that would probably lead to more access.
> 
> By the way Greeny, I though you were done "pounding" this thread??
> 
> Just messen with you.....


Scott,

Again, increase access and you will increase hunter numbers. Guaranteed!


----------

