Make it Mandatory

[Pathfinder76]

[QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711452][QUOTE=Salavee;4711445]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Adding some training/basic proficiency to hunter ED is not a horrible idea and mostly I believe it would be a good experience for new hunters. Where the issue lies is there is also a good number of hunters these days who don’t hunt with a firearm and never will.

Either way a one time deal/added training to hunter ED is not crazy but I don’t want to see it become a yearly thing

Unfortunately though this doesn’t solve the dumb people making dumb choices which in my opinion is the real problem.

Who is going to pay for it? Where are you going to do it? Who runs it? Again. When we get to that stage hunting will have become the European model here.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

Well that’s what you’re asking of others right here on this thread. No?

If thats what you gleaned from my comments on this thread , you missed by a mile or so. Do you have a take on the subject .. or are you just in your usual
"nit pick" mode?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Salavee

If thats what you gleaned from my comments on this thread , you missed by a mile or so. Do you have a take on the subject .. or are you just in your usual
"nit pick" mode?

I have no use for more hoops, more legislation, or more dictatorship. That’s my take.

[Pathfinder76]

But I’m certainly not worried about passing your shooting exam.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

But I’m certainly not worried about passing your shooting exam.

I hope not . After seeing all your gigantic pics, I think you could pass, but bring lots of ammo... just in case.

[Smoky buck]

[QUOTE=Pathfinder76;4711455][QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711452]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Who is going to pay for it? Where are you going to do it? Who runs it? Again. When we get to that stage hunting will have become the European model here.

As I said a yearly proficiency test like many European countries I don’t agree with

Adding a small amount of shooting to hunters ED a lot of new hunters that are not from a hunting family and don’t have a mentor would benefit from it and appreciate it. There is a big increase in this kind of new hunters and have heard them say many times they wish there was more to the course that could help prepare them.

Sadly there is no other way to handle increased cost is add it to the course fee’s. Really without truly breaking it down any cost increase amounts would be just speculation but it likely wouldn’t be overly crazy to have a range day.

I would bet a lot of the present instructors would be capable with some shooting basics. A good portion are already pal instructors and have firearms experience. The real question is if they would be willing and the only way to know that is if they are consulted on the issue

As much as I see this as beneficial to some new hunters I also don’t think it would make a big change to people making poor choices. I also see complications because there is as I stated a lot of hunters who are archery only

I am just open minded enough to see there is benefit to making new hunters more prepared but I also view the real problem as idiots who make poor choices

[Salavee]

[QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711467][QUOTE=Pathfinder76;4711455][QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711452]

As I said a yearly proficiency test like many European countries I don’t agree with

Adding a small amount of shooting to hunters ED a lot of new hunters that are not from a hunting family and don’t have a mentor would benefit from it and appreciate it. There is a big increase in this kind of new hunters and have heard them say many times they wish there was more to the course that could help prepare them.

Sadly there is no other way to handle increased cost is add it to the course fee’s. Really without truly breaking it down any cost increase amounts would be just speculation but it likely wouldn’t be overly crazy to have a range day.

I would bet a lot of the present instructors would be capable with some shooting basics. A good portion are already pal instructors and have firearms experience. The real question is if they would be willing and the only way to know that is if they are consulted on the issue

As much as I see this as beneficial to some new hunters I also don’t think it would make a big change to people making poor choices. I also see complications because there is as I stated a lot of hunters who are archery only

I am just open minded enough to see there is benefit to making new hunters more prepared but I also view the real problem as idiots who make poor choices[/QUOTE


I agree.. Some of the issues are hunting and hunting preparation issues not gun handling and shooting related, I would be nice to see some of the hunting shortfalls we all see, handled by an extended Hunter Ed course. Easy enough to do... if the Instuctors were interested..
Archery could, and should, be included in all of this as well.

[trapperdodge]

The Euros hunt moose with dogs. A high percentage of opportunities are while the moose is running ahead of the dogs.

[catnthehat]

[QUOTE=Smoky buck;4711454]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I guess I must be a crappy hunter lol

I take time to practice but I wouldn’t call myself a gun nut.

Just because a person does not shoot in competitions does not make them a lousy hunting shot or a lousy hunter, however because they do does not automatically make them a great hunter or a great hunting shot .
I really think the these things cannot be defined in an absolute way .
Gun nutz and competitors can be hunters and hunters can be competitors can be gun nutz , but all three are distinctly different .
Cat

[Smoky buck]

[QUOTE=catnthehat;4711486]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Just because a person does not shoot in competitions does not make them a lousy hunting shot or a lousy hunter, however because they do does not automatically make them a great hunter or a great hunting shot .
I really think the these things cannot be defined in an absolute way .
Gun nutz and competitors can be hunters and hunters can be competitors can be gun nutz , but all three are distinctly different .
Cat

Just poking fun and agree with this post

[DirtShooter]

Originally Posted by Dick284

I think we should have a rule that if you want to rant or gripe, on the forum you should know how to compose a proper sentence and use punctuation and capital letters in the correct place. Maybe we should have a breathalyzer attached to our internet keyboards as well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, I believe is the proper saying here………

The sarcasm light has been lit……….

Too many old guys for that to become a rule.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by DirtShooter

Too many old guys for that to become a rule.

UH OH.. I see Dick has a comma in the wrong place.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

But I’m certainly not worried about passing your shooting exam.

Hitting a target and killing an animal are two totally different concepts. Bring lots of ammo to kill your animal.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Hitting a target and killing an animal are two totally different concepts. Bring lots of ammo to kill your animal.

Thanks for the tip. I would never have known.

Do we get to shoot at live animals for this test? Cool.

[Pathfinder76]

Again, how do we do this logistically?

[Dick284]

How could more regulations solve anything, especially if the government is involved?

Enjoy your stroll down that road to damnation!

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder76

Again, how do we do this logistically?

Not super complicated add a range day to hunter ED set out guidelines

Anything else is merely assessing cost, consulting the present list of hunter ED instructors and ranges to organize access. A lot more complicated things are already being achieved. Fact of the matter is this could be as simple or as complicated as the guidelines decided on make it.

Really the only argument that is logical when it comes to opposing something like this is if it would benefit new hunters or not. Will it actually make a difference in the long run. If you don’t see it as useful or that is wouldn’t make a difference I can respect that. If you think everything is fine by your personal standards that is also a fair statement

Logistics is far less complicated than you are making it out to be and not a valid argument.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Dick284

How could more regulations solve anything, especially if the government is involved?

Enjoy your stroll down that road to damnation!

Not regulation but offering added training to the one time hunter ED I don’t see as a horrible idea

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Not super complicated add a range day to hunter ED set out guidelines

Anything else is merely assessing cost, consulting the present list of hunter ED instructors and ranges to organize access. A lot more complicated things are already being achieved. Fact of the matter is this could be as simple or as complicated as the guidelines decided on make it.

Really the only argument that is logical when it comes to opposing something like this is if it would benefit new hunters or not. Will it actually make a difference in the long run. If you don’t see it as useful or that is wouldn’t make a difference I can respect that. If you think everything is fine by your personal standards that is also a fair statement

Logistics is far less complicated than you are making it out to be and not a valid argument.

Hunter Ed makes zero difference honestly. You would be far better off writing a 200 question exam on the wildlife act. No, not the regs, the act. But F&W don’t know it’s content so why should I?

Regarding the range access and requirements. There are people in this province that live hours from a range.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Not regulation but offering added training to the one time hunter ED I don’t see as a horrible idea

If we have you fundraise for it does it then become a horrible idea?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Not regulation but offering added training to the one time hunter ED I don’t see as a horrible idea

The insurance regime at most ranges makes this such a nightmare, as well as having instructors available to provide said service, and who covers the liabilities in such a scenario?

To top it off, the cost of a hunters Ed course would be nearing $500 to cover all these wants, wishes, and pie in the sky thinking. We’d crater new hunter recruitment with a strike of a pen…….

You can’t build shooting competency in a new shooter or hunter in an even a couple range sessions, so this whole argument becomes seriously flawed pretty quick.

[Pathfinder76]

The bottom line is, it’s an incredibly horrible idea.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by pathfinder76

the bottom line is, it’s an incredibly horrible idea.

10-4!

[59whiskers]

More government rules that do not apply to everyone, huge costs, less mentors, less access to public/private lands and Less New Licensed Hunters.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by 59whiskers

More government rules that do not apply to everyone, huge costs, less mentors, less access to public/private lands and Less New Licensed Hunters.

I agree, especially in the " less new licensed hunters" part- or possibly " less properly licensed hunters and more poachers"
As for "Government rules not applying t everyone", well we already have blatant discrimination in that respect, and with no regard to anything safety related but certain "rights"
Cat

[Pathfinder76]

Sounds like Justin came up with the idea.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Dick284

The insurance regime at most ranges makes this such a nightmare, as well as having instructors available to provide said service, and who covers the liabilities in such a scenario?

To top it off, the cost of a hunters Ed course would be nearing $500 to cover all these wants, wishes, and pie in the sky thinking. We’d crater new hunter recruitment with a strike of a pen…….

You can’t build shooting competency in a new shooter or hunter in an even a couple range sessions, so the whole this argument becomes seriously flawed pretty quick.

Insurance is a very valid point

Agree you are not going to turn out any amazing shots and are only going to provide some fundamentals

Like I have posted in this thread I even question how much of an impact it would have because issues are often more about people making bad choices. But I also see benefits in providing some training to help new hunters start off in the right direction

[sns2]

More gov’t. That oughta fix things just peachy.

[birdseye]

I can tell not many have actually read my post.It clearly states ( Sponsors should hold the so called Pro Hunters accountable or some level of accuracy should be mandatory).Nothing stated to or of general hunters,farmers,gun guys,or anyone but pro hunters.Like those that are sponsored to use rifles,optics and ammo.Im sorry to you perfect columnists (Dick284) lool But all the replys are interesting tks for the entertainment

[elkhunter11]

You can qualify people at 100m, but that won't help the guy that never shoots at targets past 100m, but won't hesitate to shoot at an animal at 500m.
More government overreach, would accomplish nothing of value.