Hunting Regulations?

R

roy reali

New member
I want to start out by saying that their are too many gun regulations, espically here in California. I also believe that any more gun laws won't do squat about crime or make us any safer. But what about hunting?

I am sure that some of you are aware of some the hoops hunters in Finland and Sweden have to jump through to get a license. They even have a marksmanship componant in the requirements. While we might find that to strict, you have to admit that the hunters that pass all the tests are probably serious and more importantly, safe.

Does anyone think that the ability to get a hunting license is too easy?

Have you ever run into hunters that made you uneasy?

This is America and I believe in having as much freedom from government interference as possible. I am a borderline libertarian. However, there are folks that should not have a driver's license, likewise I do think that some people should not be allowed to be in the woods or the field with a firearm.
 
Here in Georgia we have to complete a hunter's safety education course to get a license. It's a great idea but I believe that if someone wants to hunt they should be allowed. There are some nuts out there that require these laws to keep us responsible hunters safe. I have run into hunters that scare me to know they are hunters. Common sense is learned and so many people just don't have it. In my hunter's safety course when I was 13 The first night the instructor put an image in my mind that I will never forget. He reached behind his desk and pulled out a jar with a hand that had been blown off by a shotgun that was percieved to be unloaded. That will give anybody respect for a firearm. There will always be morons out there that give resposible hunters a bad name. I for one don't put up with it. If I see poachers or idiots doing stupid things I try my best to get in touch with the DNR.
 
Hands-on Test

Here in California, a hunter safety course is also required for first license issue.

In most states, teenagers have to take driver education classes to get a license. But they still have to take a behind-the -wheel test to prove they can handle a car in the eyes of their state. Even pilots and CCW people have to prove proficiency in order to have their permits.

Do you think that hunters should be required to prove that they can safely and accurately discharge a firearm?
 
In Sweden you can own a full auto and it's pretty much required that you do!;) The Government will give you the gun.

A drivers licence is a privilege. To own a firearm is a constitutional right. Thats where the problem is. I only wish firearm safety was tought in school.
 
Not Ownership

Gun ownership should not require any sort of permit or testing. I am talking about hunting. In order to obtain a CCW in most areas, a person has to demonstrate weapon proficiency by actually shooting. Now, how often is the average CCW person going to discharge their gun.

A hunter, with any luck, will shoot. Depending on the game, he may shoot many times in a short period of time. Is it expecting too much to make sure that the hunter can hit his target? Or that he can tell the difference between a deer and a cow? Or that they know how to render their gun safe and proceed with all due diligiance that gun use requires?
 
Roy I believe you are on the right track...

Hi,

I feel all persons who shoot in the field or go hunting should have to take a course. It would add money to the coffer.
When I was with the Eldorado Rod and Gun Club we offered course's at a very modest fee for anyone who was interested. We were always booked solid.

NRA has such training, many gun ranges have them also. They are not something to be taken lightly.
Everyone has a right to own a gun? Shoot a gun? I think not...

We need to get a better thing going, or else the Government will step in one of these fine days and say this is the law...Done it before will do it again.

Yes. Driving is similar in my opinion. Not everyone should drive and not everyone should own a gun and shoot it.

The constitution has been amended numerous times and it will happen again.
If the responsible citizen does not come to the forefront and take these classes and show good faith. I think we will at some date and time be sucking wind, like other countries in the world are doing right now and have done in the past.

The problem with the way the Constitution was originally written (only writing it for a select group). I don't want to get into that here, but that is the truth.

One of the reason's California has so many laws is because it is larger with population than 70% (guess) of the worlds countries, the gross product and money in and out is very large. Population is tremendous in the state with all the large Metropolitan area's.
If you look at other countries with the same population it is plain to see why we have more restricting laws. Most of the states are pretty sparse compared to California.

My opinion...

Harley
 
Hands On

I think part of the hunting license requirement should involve some sort of test of marksmanship. I am not talking about hitting a gnat at 200 yards, but something that shows a hunter's seriousness in the sport. We owe this to the safety of the sport and the animals being shot at.

I know, many will object to this. But imagine if they issued driver's licenses to folks that had to have the examiner start the car for them. Or going to a doctor that was given permission to practice in your state based only on a written exam.
 
I don't know about a test of marksmanship but more a test of safety. like when you discharge your firearm you have a good idea where the projectile is going to land. Or what could happen when there is a AD discharge. Because of Hollywood most people have no idea what a firearm will do. I hate to say it! But hollywood and Democrats made most people stupid to firearms.
 
Process Of Elimination

I look at it this way, if someone shows some shooting ability, they might be safe and ethical hunters. I realize that this would be no guarantee. But maybe, just maybe, a person that is unable to hit the side of a barn won't be allowed to hunt. Folks that are that inept at shooting probably have other issues that makes them undesireable to hunt around.

In Finland, a potential hunter has to hit a moving target, off-hand, at 75 yards. I assume, that a person that can do that, probably takes hunting seriously. They might know the regulations. They might be able to not make others around nervous.
 
Hunter's education is now mandatory in Idaho for a license, and that includes a marksmanship demonstration. In fact, part of the course is a basic introduction to general gun stuff (descriptions of all the actions (bolt, lever, full-auto, etc.), history of firearms, cartridge design, etc.). I don't think i'ts too easy to get a license.
 
A little off subject but since you all was talking about tests it wouldn't be a bad idea for people to take a test before becoming parents. you have to take a test for just about everything else you want to do. Driving,hair cutting.ccw.flying.hunter safety. to name a few
 
Last edited:
rapier144...Off topic, but on target...LOL

Aint that the truth.
The basic right of all is to be able to go forth and multiply.
Who Say's???
Not the way I am seeing it and have for over 40 years in the face of out and out parental misbehavior.

Good one for the obviously observant. And speaks it's mind. That will get you kicked out of the room on Sunday. LOL

Harley
 
roy reali - I'm not sure what your hunter safety education courses teach in California, but in Wisconsin they teach all of this stuff, and much more. However, they do not make you qualify via marksmanship tests.

If your concern is safety:

roy reali said:
Isn't the ability to hit your target part of the safety equation?
Click to expand...
"Know your target and beyond." -- something repeated many, many times in our hunter safety education course.

Ya know what the "...and beyond" part is for? That's in case you miss, and in case your bullet passes through your target!

My point: if one were to follow this rule, which I believe is a standard line in all hunters ed courses, a miss is anticipated and should be safe. If you've never missed, give it time, it'll happen.

impact said:
I don't know about a test of marksmanship but more a test of safety. like when you discharge your firearm you have a good idea where the projectile is going to land.
Click to expand...
Here's where that "Know your target and beyond" stuff comes in again. Additionally, the WI hunters ed course tests you on a chart of distances each caliber may travel in ideal conditions - even shotguns by gauge.

roy reali said:
Is it expecting too much to make sure that the hunter... can tell the difference between a deer and a cow??
Click to expand...
Yes, it is too much to expect the state to require someone tell the difference between a deer and a cow. The person who cannot tell the difference shouldn't ruin it for me - frankly that person is an idiot - and their issues go well beyond hunting, gun safety, and ethics. Anyone who would aim a weapon and pull the trigger without - Knowing their target... and beyond - is not following the basic firearms safety rules already taught.

roy reali said:
Or that they know how to render their gun safe and proceed with all due diligiance that gun use requires?
Click to expand...
This is one of the fundamentals of hunters ed courses. Are you telling me the California hunters ed course does not teach the workings of each type of action, each type of safety, and the proper procedure for rendering each type safe (i.e. unload and have the action open?)? I find that hard to believe, but if it's true - their hunters ed course is sub-standard.

Not everyone is going to be a "marksman" to your standard, or my standard for that matter. The state should already have procedures in place so that people are taught the proper and safe handling/discharging of firearms (that's 99% of the hunters ed course!). If the basic firearms rules are followed - there should be no issue.

If your concern is ethics:

If your worried about animal suffering think about trappers who's focus is fur-bearing animals. They usually drown their quarry so as not to ruin the fur.

I don't think someone should be barred from hunting just because they can't hit the vitals on a moving target at 75 yds or get a satisfactory group (by who's standard?!!!) at ___ yards.

The formula for creating an ethical hunter does not necessarily involve teaching them to hit the bullseye... It's to teach them how to respect wildlife, how to track an animal, and to teach them what an ethical shot actually is -- all things taught in the WI hunters ed courses.
 
Re:trip20

You do make valid points.

Here in California, our hunter safety courses have no gun handling requirements. Some instructors throw it in, but it is not mandatory. So technically, here in my state, you could get a hunting license and not know which end of the gun the ammo goes into. Kind of scary, isn't it!
 
yes, roy reali, I agree that is very scary :(

However, the "4 Rules" should negate the possibility of an accident. Also, the "4 Rules" follow the KISS principle - Keep It Simple Stupid:

Rule #1
Assume every gun to be loaded.

Consider any firearm you have not just unloaded to be loaded and treat it accordingly.

Rule #2
Control the muzzle–point guns in a safe direction.

You must decide what the safest available muzzle direction is and keep your firearm pointed in that direction. Never point a firearm at yourself or others.

Rule #3
Trigger Finger–keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

The natural instinct when picking up a firearm is to put your finger in the trigger guard. DON'T! This could cause an negligent discharge if the gun is loaded.

Rule #4
Target–be sure of your target and beyond.

Never point your firearm at something you do not intend to shoot. Make sure you positively identify what you are shooting at and know what lies in front of and beyond it.
 
As has been said over and over, taking a hunter education class is generally mandatory in most states prior to getting a hunting license the first time unless you're an older gent. Even if you are and are not familiar with hunter ettiquette and safety rules, the class is excellent. It is mostly common sense stuff, but it's a good reminder.

A test for markmanship prior to being "qualified" to purchase a hunting license would be a boondoggle. More rules and regulations are not needed. You normally take a test at the end of the hunter safety class as you do following many educational seminars.

Hunting is a privilege. I try my hardest to respect the property that I am hunting on. This applies to hiking and any use of our outdoor spaces. I never want to be considered an "idiot" when it comes to hunting or gun safety.
 
Wow, a lot of side issues here. I'm going to try to stay on the original topic.

Should :
  • Some kind of hunter safety course be required to obtain a hunting license - Yes
  • Safe gun handling by students be demonstrated in class - Yes
  • Knowledge of how a firearm operates be taught - Yes
  • Knowledge of state hunting rules and regulations be taught - Yes
  • Improving an individuals level of Marksmanship be encouraged - Yes
  • Marksmanship be demonstrated - No

Marksmanship is a indicator of proficiently with a give firearm under controlled conditions, as already stated you do not need to be a marksman to handle a firearm safely. The safe handling and discharge of a firearm should be the concern of the state/wildlife department, how well an individual shoots is purely a personal thing.

I do not think we want the government dedicating a level of performance to obtain a hunting license.

The driver license road test is not a valid analogy , all the road test does is demonstrate an individuals ability to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, it does not test an individuals driving abilities i.e. cornering, acceleration, stopping etc.

IMHO - we need to be very careful of what control we give the government over an individuals daily activities. Marksmanship should be acquired by the individual
 
Windjammer

Good points and something I was saying in a prior post, keep the Gov out of it, have good gun clubs, responsible citizens, with an ability and desire to impart the information.

NRA is a good group for that very reason. We are concerned citizens trying to have a say in the way gunowners are treated. Look at the catastrophe that happened in New O.

If it had not been for the NRA there would have been a precedent set and every other disaster we had, would revert to that same technique to take away the guns from people.

I believe that someone should be able to hit an object as large as a paper plate at say 50 yds. down range if they are given a hunting lic. if you can't hit the target why go hunting?

Harley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top