Too Easy To Get?

[Art Eatman]

Before the depression of the 1930s, some half of the US workforce was on-farm, and many city people had relatives in the country. Hunting was taken pretty much for granted as an "everybody knows" sort of pastime.

Post-WW II with the movement to the cities, this basic knowledge declined. There was some increase in hunting accidents. Over time, the "hunter safety" courses came to be a requirement, based on the age of a first-time purchaser of a license.

To compare with other licensing isn't strictly relevant. For one thing, there are some 13 million or so deer hunters, but over 150 million drivers of automobiles--which are a year-around hazard. Occupational licenses are mostly in place to reduce competition in a field of work, or as revenue producers for local and state governments.

 

[pgdion]

The reality, at least in MN, is that the hunting license is to limit the amount of game taken and to generate revenue for the DNR. It has nothing to do with safety or firearms. Younger / new hunters need to take a firearms safety course, which is a good idea, but older hunters don't need to have the course. It's really not a license to use a gun, it's a license to take game. Just like you need a license to sell food and things like that.

 

[Scorch]

Are you advocating that the states should begin licensing hunters in the European method? I used to feel the same way, requiring hunters to pass a markmanship skills test and a very basic field skills kniowledge test would make sense. I must admit I still feel there should be some requirement to know how to shoot before going afield, but I do not believe the Governemnt should be the one administering it. With all the efforts to ban our sport, I would not trust the states or Federal government to limit themselves to hunting skills and marksmanship tests.

That's how it started in Europe; a very sensible firearms and game animal knowledge test, and a fairly simple marksmanship test (field shooting positions on stationary and moving targets, must score more than 60%). Requiring shooters and hunters to belong to a club seemed sensible, but the number of clubs was limited, so it was difficult to comply (not impossible, just difficult). From there, it was just one short step to telling shooters they had to justify any new firearms purchases and test with those firearms, then limiting the number of firearms you can own, and in some countries requiring the firearms to be stored at the local police station. That's just one short step from telling people they cannot own any firearms. And who is going to object? You already know who the shooters are, and you know where the guns are, soooooo . . . .

So what exactly are you proposing? Marksmanship testing? Requiring shooters to belong to shooting clubs? Requiring shooters to test with any new firearms? And when will they start requiring shooters to store their firearms at the local PD? Hmmmmm, seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

[Pahoo]

I am a Hunter Safety instructor and in the three midwest states that I have taught in, it's not a requirement.
Addressing the OP's questions;

Is getting a hunting license too easy?

Yes & No; For the older students and adults, it's mostly a breeze. For the younger students and most of them are, it can be a real struggle.

Should it be tougher?

No; However, it could be enhanced to address your points. Good call.

Should a marksmanship test be part of the requirement?

No; However in all of our classes, we do have live fire and observe levels of skill. Again, the older ones do quite well and the younger ones struggle a bit. Most if not all of us, are on a learning curve in regards to our shooting sports. Last class, we had a sniper from one of our local police force. The only part that turned him on, was our M/L station.

Enhanced Separate Programs
Some states offer a Master Hunter programs that other states could or even adopt. Many states have YHEC programs that provide the level of training that you have listed. They are excellent and you might look into these. I'm sure you might finds these educational if not informative. ...

Be Safe !!!

 

[Kreyzhorse]

A shooting test will not weed out slob hunters.

Ethics is the issue, not marksmenship. A good hunter will only take a shot they can make safely and humanely. A slob hunter, who might be an outstanding shot will take shots they can't make and take them without regard for the animal. A slob hunter won't recover wounded game. A slob hunter might not tag an animal that suffered ground shrinkage. There are plenty of slob hunters out there and their marksmenship isn't the issue.

Now, to your education point. Kentucky does make hunters born after 1975 (I think) take a hunters ed course. While you aren't graded on marksmenship, the course covers safety, ethics and was a great course. To me, education and ethics is just as important as marksmenship. I was born before 1975 and while I only had to take the course to hunt out of state, I'm glad I took it and I think hunters ed courses are a great idea. I don't however think that you have to pass a marksmenship test in order to hunt however.

 

[Big Bill]

There are too many government regulations on hunters and hunting now. So, adding more is counter productive. I say, to Hell with more regulations.

 

[Gbro]

This is happening here in Minnesota with the moose hunt.
Anyone that draws a tag (once in a lifetime) must attend an orientation session and get the tag validated.
Check page 12, http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/moose/successful_hunter.pdf

And that goes for Elk, and I would bet if we ever get a chance to hut a Wolf there will be sessions for that also.

Its a sign of the times, Good/Bad YMMV.
We all want to think that hunters 100 years ago knew all there was to know and never made mistakes, but that just isn't supported by the statistics.
The old system of giving Ottis or the mayor a ride home every time he was picked up intoxicated is an example of the old way that just isn't accepted anymore.

 

[kraigwy]

I'm really surprised to see so many on this forum are supporting more restrictions and regulations on our God Given Right.


All the rules and regulations in the world wont prevent "slob hunters" if that were the answer, then why are there so many drunk drivers out there.

I'm all for punishing slob hunters if they break the law. I am not however willing to support punishment for law abiding citizens and that is exactly what these rules do

You cannot legislate ethics and morals, Just doesn't work.

 

[Edward429451]

Generally speaking, I am against regulations for a supposedly free people. Hunting is a right because my instinct says if I or my family are hungry then all regs are off. However, valid concerns of safety have been raised and addressed. A voluntary demonstration of skills to show that one is up to community standards is not unreasonable in the least, and could be wonderfully executed with incentives for participation like subsidized game permits and ammo etc..

woops musta fell asleep and was dreaming there for a minute.

 

[oneounceload]

If there is no need for shooting skills to be tested and judged, then why bother to do live fire?

If that isn't important enough for a Hunter Safety course, why bother having a HS course at all - just issue the license to whomever at any age and let them all go into the woods and have at it - seems to be the feelings here

 

[hooligan1]

+1 on what the Captain say's!! More legislation will not a safer hunt make...............period..........