spook12
New member
Serious question.In your opinion can the herds in MT. take the extra pressure of more tags being issued?
4 year olds with guns
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Serious question.In your opinion can the herds in MT. take the extra pressure of more tags being issued?
Topgun 30-06
Active member
No kidding, as I would have never guessed that, LOL! Seriously though, MI is exactly the same as MT in that the game on private property is considered owned by the public, unless it's high fenced and grandfathered in. My comments in that post were to specifically address the safety aspect of keeping the younger ones on private property if that is the only concern a person has about this Bill.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
***Do you really believe that even when the allotted NR tags aren't selling out now that the few extra tags going to these kids would be a meaningful detriment to the wildlife?
The column headline on the February 7, 1958 Independent article proclaimed, “First Hunting Certificate Given Great Falls Lad.” The story goes on to talk about Mike Wright who was the first graduate of the then new Montana Hunter Education Program. Or, as it was described, “...a valid hunter safety certificate under the states’ new teen-age hunter safety program.” In the ensuing 55 years, that program has grown to one of the best hunter education efforts in the nation. With over 1200 instructors (1500 if you count those who teach Bowhunter Education) this program has established a benchmark for tomorrow’s hunters. It was first established as a gun safety program in an effort to reduce the number of hunting-related accidents which were commonplace. But since, it has grown far beyond gun safety to outdoor skills, wildlife biology, and landowner relations.
So it’s disheartening to see that a bill is currently sailing through the halls of our legislature, touting as its purpose to get “… kids involved in hunting..” that essentially undermines a program dedicated to continuing and enhancing Montana’s hunting heritage. It does so by reducing the notion of what hunting is to simply taking game- that is, to the act of killing something. SB 197 allows 9 year-olds to “hunt”- to carry a firearm and take an animal. He or she can do so without having taken—and successfully completed- Hunter Education and leaves the details of how to go about this time-honored tradition up to “mentors”- self-appointed teachers in the field (generally a parent or an adult friend.) Special certificates will be issued to these kids so that they can legally “take” an animal, thus, giving them a preview to the great tradition of hunting. And shucks, other states allow it- some states don’t even have an age limit. To that I politely reply: Baloney.
SB 197 does three bad things. First, it reduces the “official” definition of hunting to the act of the kill. This kind of thinking may be understandable for some adolescents, enamored with suddenly being entrusted with a firearm but not for adults supposedly acting as stewards of our hunting heritage. Reducing hunting to little more than it’s most base element is totally unacceptable. It disregards the notion that carrying a rifle is but one element of the hunt. Hunting, to most of us, is knowing how to track an animal, being afield in the woods or on the prairie in the fall, and reconnecting to a part of our treasured environment. It is not simply killing something. To encourage impressionable young people-children- that such is the case is not only wrong but only adds one more nail in the coffin of hunting, both in Montana and the rest of the country. Anti-hunters are not a big part of our population here, but this bill serves only to give more fodder to those who claim that hunting is simply the taking of a life.
SB 197 undermines the Montana Hunter Education program and in doing so is a slap in the face to the thousand-plus instructors who annually donate multiple thousands of hours of their time, teaching our children the essentials of our hunting heritage. Although we all at one time or another have called it “Hunter Safety,” Hunter Education is so much more. A glance at the Hunter Education manual shows about 1/3 dedicated to firearms and gun safety. The rest is teaching the basics of wildlife biology -where do you find game? How? What are its needs? What’s the difference between deer species? Why is hunting a management tool as well as recreation and a food source? Also, there’s tracking and woodsmanship- the difference between an elk track and a deer track, how do you find your way in the woods? And a host of other skills. And most certainly, why we have wildlife laws and seasons and the absolutely critical importance of recognizing and respecting the private landowners’ rights and contributions to sustaining Montana’s wild resources. No, this isn’t a PhD course in hunting, but it certainly provides the basics to get a young boy or girl off on the right foot- both for their own well being and that of our state’s hunting heritage. Some complain that the state has no business in educating children in hunting and hunter ethics. Fact is, it is our program- initiated by hunters, for hunters and you can’t argue with success- both in terms of the significant reduction in hunting accidents over the years as well as the quality of its graduates. It’s not uncommon for parents to take the course with their kids. More than one parent has told me that they’ve picked up a lot they didn’t know or think about by attending.
Finally, it tears at some basic Montana values – a curious thing inasmuch as those who seem to be pushing SB 197’s adoption the hardest include those who decry the loss and passing of basic social values. There are multiple reasons why the “age of majority” for hunters in Montana is 12. Some of those reasons are based on tradition as 12 has been and remains a time-honored benchmark when one moves from childhood towards adulthood. It is at that age that the boy or girl can become entrusted to handle more responsibility- including the safe handling a firearm. It is the age when the expectations of our society for a person go from being allowing a kid to be a kid to more maturity as an adolescent. Also, there are reams of papers, reports, studies and information that show us that kids mature at unique rates; that the difference of 1 year in age can, and usually does, mean an exponential difference in, knowledge, physical dexterity, reasoning, understanding of responsibility and a host of other developmental aspects of humanity. The difference between 9 and 12 is worlds, if not galaxies apart. Becoming a hunter at 12 is a time honored rite of passage reserved -as other such rituals- for those who earn it.
Contrary to what some have said, SB 197 is not a means to bring more hunters into our ranks. With the huge distractions of video games, social networks, computers, texting, self and parentally-inflicted school sports and extra-curricular activities, trying to keep up with school and a host of other things out there for young kids, hunting has indeed suffered. Those of us who have found grounding and enjoyment in the outdoors rue seeing that. Yet, there are other ways to bring in new hunters to the fold; new, ethical and knowledgeable hunters, not just people who await the shot. The cynic in me sees this as a door to wildlife violations; parents shooting kid’s tags; the teaching of poor, if not absent hunter ethics and behavior, the sanctioning of a kind of Road Hunter Education. Poaching, and disrespect for wildlife laws, after all, has been proven time and time again to be a “family value”. There will always be that. But to simply lower the age when one can “hunt” is not the silver bullet to recruiting more hunters.
Besides, all the whizz-bang gimmicks to recruit new hunters won’t mean a tinker’s damn if there’s nowhere to hunt. It’s ironic this legislature can jump head over heels to give 9 year olds the ability to shoot an animal but most of the basic and most important access bills proposed have fallen flat. That bodes even more ominous than the hunter recruitment issue.
To those who say that other states allow it, I suggest they look out their window; those are not the Allegany’s out there, nor the Adirondacks, the Appalachians, or even the Sand Hills. This is Montana, and there are reasons why people live here as well as non-residents save for a long time to have an opportunity for a Montana hunting trip. Our hunting tradition and opportunities are uniquely steeped in history and the value that the privilege to take an animal afield is predicated on a series of prerequisites of experience and knowledge prior to being the one to pull the trigger. Should we forget that, then hunting is no longer a tradition but simply a singular act—and unfortunately, the final act.
So it’s disheartening to see that a bill is currently sailing through the halls of our legislature, touting as its purpose to get “… kids involved in hunting..” that essentially undermines a program dedicated to continuing and enhancing Montana’s hunting heritage. It does so by reducing the notion of what hunting is to simply taking game- that is, to the act of killing something. SB 197 allows 9 year-olds to “hunt”- to carry a firearm and take an animal. He or she can do so without having taken—and successfully completed- Hunter Education and leaves the details of how to go about this time-honored tradition up to “mentors”- self-appointed teachers in the field (generally a parent or an adult friend.) Special certificates will be issued to these kids so that they can legally “take” an animal, thus, giving them a preview to the great tradition of hunting. And shucks, other states allow it- some states don’t even have an age limit. To that I politely reply: Baloney.
SB 197 does three bad things. First, it reduces the “official” definition of hunting to the act of the kill. This kind of thinking may be understandable for some adolescents, enamored with suddenly being entrusted with a firearm but not for adults supposedly acting as stewards of our hunting heritage. Reducing hunting to little more than it’s most base element is totally unacceptable. It disregards the notion that carrying a rifle is but one element of the hunt. Hunting, to most of us, is knowing how to track an animal, being afield in the woods or on the prairie in the fall, and reconnecting to a part of our treasured environment. It is not simply killing something. To encourage impressionable young people-children- that such is the case is not only wrong but only adds one more nail in the coffin of hunting, both in Montana and the rest of the country. Anti-hunters are not a big part of our population here, but this bill serves only to give more fodder to those who claim that hunting is simply the taking of a life.
SB 197 undermines the Montana Hunter Education program and in doing so is a slap in the face to the thousand-plus instructors who annually donate multiple thousands of hours of their time, teaching our children the essentials of our hunting heritage. Although we all at one time or another have called it “Hunter Safety,” Hunter Education is so much more. A glance at the Hunter Education manual shows about 1/3 dedicated to firearms and gun safety. The rest is teaching the basics of wildlife biology -where do you find game? How? What are its needs? What’s the difference between deer species? Why is hunting a management tool as well as recreation and a food source? Also, there’s tracking and woodsmanship- the difference between an elk track and a deer track, how do you find your way in the woods? And a host of other skills. And most certainly, why we have wildlife laws and seasons and the absolutely critical importance of recognizing and respecting the private landowners’ rights and contributions to sustaining Montana’s wild resources. No, this isn’t a PhD course in hunting, but it certainly provides the basics to get a young boy or girl off on the right foot- both for their own well being and that of our state’s hunting heritage. Some complain that the state has no business in educating children in hunting and hunter ethics. Fact is, it is our program- initiated by hunters, for hunters and you can’t argue with success- both in terms of the significant reduction in hunting accidents over the years as well as the quality of its graduates. It’s not uncommon for parents to take the course with their kids. More than one parent has told me that they’ve picked up a lot they didn’t know or think about by attending.
Finally, it tears at some basic Montana values – a curious thing inasmuch as those who seem to be pushing SB 197’s adoption the hardest include those who decry the loss and passing of basic social values. There are multiple reasons why the “age of majority” for hunters in Montana is 12. Some of those reasons are based on tradition as 12 has been and remains a time-honored benchmark when one moves from childhood towards adulthood. It is at that age that the boy or girl can become entrusted to handle more responsibility- including the safe handling a firearm. It is the age when the expectations of our society for a person go from being allowing a kid to be a kid to more maturity as an adolescent. Also, there are reams of papers, reports, studies and information that show us that kids mature at unique rates; that the difference of 1 year in age can, and usually does, mean an exponential difference in, knowledge, physical dexterity, reasoning, understanding of responsibility and a host of other developmental aspects of humanity. The difference between 9 and 12 is worlds, if not galaxies apart. Becoming a hunter at 12 is a time honored rite of passage reserved -as other such rituals- for those who earn it.
Contrary to what some have said, SB 197 is not a means to bring more hunters into our ranks. With the huge distractions of video games, social networks, computers, texting, self and parentally-inflicted school sports and extra-curricular activities, trying to keep up with school and a host of other things out there for young kids, hunting has indeed suffered. Those of us who have found grounding and enjoyment in the outdoors rue seeing that. Yet, there are other ways to bring in new hunters to the fold; new, ethical and knowledgeable hunters, not just people who await the shot. The cynic in me sees this as a door to wildlife violations; parents shooting kid’s tags; the teaching of poor, if not absent hunter ethics and behavior, the sanctioning of a kind of Road Hunter Education. Poaching, and disrespect for wildlife laws, after all, has been proven time and time again to be a “family value”. There will always be that. But to simply lower the age when one can “hunt” is not the silver bullet to recruiting more hunters.
Besides, all the whizz-bang gimmicks to recruit new hunters won’t mean a tinker’s damn if there’s nowhere to hunt. It’s ironic this legislature can jump head over heels to give 9 year olds the ability to shoot an animal but most of the basic and most important access bills proposed have fallen flat. That bodes even more ominous than the hunter recruitment issue.
To those who say that other states allow it, I suggest they look out their window; those are not the Allegany’s out there, nor the Adirondacks, the Appalachians, or even the Sand Hills. This is Montana, and there are reasons why people live here as well as non-residents save for a long time to have an opportunity for a Montana hunting trip. Our hunting tradition and opportunities are uniquely steeped in history and the value that the privilege to take an animal afield is predicated on a series of prerequisites of experience and knowledge prior to being the one to pull the trigger. Should we forget that, then hunting is no longer a tradition but simply a singular act—and unfortunately, the final act.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Well said, Pierre. The emphasis of this bill does seem to be in putting a large caliber firearm in the hands of a child to kill wildlife at a much younger age. It ignores hunter education, the North American Wildlife Conservation Model so critical to our wildlife legacy, gun safety, and so much more of importance to hunting. Strangely, it seems to imply that a parent cannot include younger children in the experience of hunting now and that this will suddenly increase the interest.
It smacks of the essence of just another feel-good legislation to satisfy someone's wants and desires, without considering the responsibilities inherent in allowing the privileges, merely as one proponent posted here, "Because that's what some children actually DO want to be doing." If a parent or grandparent allowed children to do what they want without the requisite and proper education, training, safety emphasis, and limits then the risk of mistakes increases. Some contend that this bill will lead to more firearm accidents. I hope not, but it's a reasonable prediction.
It smacks of the essence of just another feel-good legislation to satisfy someone's wants and desires, without considering the responsibilities inherent in allowing the privileges, merely as one proponent posted here, "Because that's what some children actually DO want to be doing." If a parent or grandparent allowed children to do what they want without the requisite and proper education, training, safety emphasis, and limits then the risk of mistakes increases. Some contend that this bill will lead to more firearm accidents. I hope not, but it's a reasonable prediction.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
good grief....straightarrow....give me a break...this bill "ignores the NAWM"?? Where in the holy tenant does it say, "thou 11 yrs. of age and younger shall not hunt"....
good grief....pierre....give me a break.... " a door to wildlife violations"...if this is a door to wildlife viololations, then we best start taking guns/bows away, for those are the true "gateways to poaching"
Remember, I have no dog in this fight...but as a parent I feel that I should have been able to say when my children were old enough to hunt... I do not need the state/fed to tell me anymore than they are already....
good grief....pierre....give me a break.... " a door to wildlife violations"...if this is a door to wildlife viololations, then we best start taking guns/bows away, for those are the true "gateways to poaching"
Remember, I have no dog in this fight...but as a parent I feel that I should have been able to say when my children were old enough to hunt... I do not need the state/fed to tell me anymore than they are already....
Violations of a parent shooting or shooting at their youngsters critters to fill a tag are fairly common. Before you start yapping, call law enforcement.
So eric, are you best qualified to decide when your kid is ready to drive, vote, have sex, enter the service? Better hand them a gun and a pkg of condums too. Think of all the parents and mentors out there who are helicopter parents....hovering around telling everyone how their kids are superior to the average kid.
As a society, we have to draw lines to protect citizens. We draw them all the time. Our hunters safety instructors have to deal with this....have you bothered to talk to any?
And, finally, as this bill was being developed, were there any efforts to work with our HS instructors and sportsmen groups or is this just another shove it up their backside attempt by SFW and MOGA? Yes, MOGA is a supporter. The outfitters in my neighborhood are extremely embarrassed and appalled by this bill.
So eric, are you best qualified to decide when your kid is ready to drive, vote, have sex, enter the service? Better hand them a gun and a pkg of condums too. Think of all the parents and mentors out there who are helicopter parents....hovering around telling everyone how their kids are superior to the average kid.
As a society, we have to draw lines to protect citizens. We draw them all the time. Our hunters safety instructors have to deal with this....have you bothered to talk to any?
And, finally, as this bill was being developed, were there any efforts to work with our HS instructors and sportsmen groups or is this just another shove it up their backside attempt by SFW and MOGA? Yes, MOGA is a supporter. The outfitters in my neighborhood are extremely embarrassed and appalled by this bill.
T
tjones
Guest
Remember Eric, since it is my public wildlife I have a say in when your child is old enough to hunt.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric asks
Good grief, Eric, don't you realize that Hunters Education includes information about the very basic tenet behind hunting as a wildlife management tool and the principle that wildlife is entrusted to the state on behalf of its residents?
Granted, some parents may instill the basic philosophy of hunting and wildlife management, but this bill does not promote that as it could or should. All that it does is to put a firearm in the hand of a child to kill big game ... with no discussion of responsibility for education, training, or concern for safety.
Good grief, Eric, don't you realize that Hunters Education includes information about the very basic tenet behind hunting as a wildlife management tool and the principle that wildlife is entrusted to the state on behalf of its residents?
Granted, some parents may instill the basic philosophy of hunting and wildlife management, but this bill does not promote that as it could or should. All that it does is to put a firearm in the hand of a child to kill big game ... with no discussion of responsibility for education, training, or concern for safety.
spook12
New member
Straight Arrow, you stated''It ignores hunter education''. How so? Couldn't one say it accelerates young hunters education?Gets them headed on the right path sooner? As I read it you still have to take the hunters safety course before hunting without a mentor present.
While it is reasonable to assume that with more tag holders afield,there will be more accidents, There isn't any evidence that I can find that other states that have similar programs have experienced a disproportional rise in accidents due to mentored youth being in the field.Have you or anyone else for that matter found any data to the contrary?
Topgun 30-06
Active member
After reading a couple of the last negative posts regarding this Bill, all I will say is I'm glad neither was my Father when I was 5 or 6years old! The way you talk is that lowering the age several years so parents that want to can legally allow their kids to shoot earlier because they feel they are ready is going to ruin hunting and create more firearms accidents has already proven to be false everywhere else it has been allowed. You also evidently fail to realize that the kids will only be out there a year or two and then will be mandated to pass the HE course/tests just like they have to now at age 12 to continue on. When they take the course they should in most instances be that further ahead to pass it than waiting. With all the lousy gun handling I see adults doing every year I wish any that have kids had to accompany them and pass the test with them! What really is ridiculous is that dang near every negative respondent on this thread has related the same old baloney that it will lead to poaching or too much game being taken and that again is just flat out baloney because a poacher isn't going to worry about following the law regardless of the kid's age or he wouldn't be a poacher in the first place! Finally, I really had to snicker when I read the SFC B post about his 8 year old daughter being allowed to shoot that hog in Texas, but he didn't feel she should be pulling the trigger on a big game animal. Most feel hogs are big game and I really fail to see the difference if she was set up that way what difference it would have been if a deer, elk, or exotic had walked in and she couldn't shoot just because it was a different species! Since I'm not a resident of MT all I will say is that I hope the Bill passes and all of you that are so negative about it are proven wrong in all respects. Thanks for the healthy debate and I'm outta here!
Last edited:
Topgun, for every argument used to discount our HS program, you could use to discontinue it altogether. I agree with you on some parents being lousy gun handlers and more. It is a rare case where a parent is proficient in teaching all the aspects HS does. This is a public resource largely supported by sportsmen $. I think we have abundant freedoms we have fought for. Setting some limits is not so overbearing. Some of these same helicopter parents would move their kids from 4th grad to high school too because they are so special.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Better re read the bill. You don't have to take hunters ed. After 3 years of hunting you would be required to pass the class before year 4.
spook12
New member
Very well stated points.
Do you see any irony in your passionate defense of the MT hunters education program and how detrimental it would be for kids to hunt with a mentor before passing it, only to then point out what we can only assume are graduates(parents) of that program will teach there kids to poach,roadhunt,Ect.
T
tjones
Guest
Topgun since you can't see the difference in shooting a hog and shooting an elk I am glad you are not a resident of Montana.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Really?
Well this bill isn't only about youth. Anyone born after 1985 are now required to have taken and passed a hunters education course prior to purchasing hunting licenses.
The potential for new, and added clients, using the outfitter as a mentor could be significant. These people could come 3 times to Montana before having to take a course. Many potential clients wouldn't hunt here more than that anyway.
In less than 10 years (average hunter age) you will have potential clients up the back side.
This bill is another self serving bill, and I'm getting tired of the "YOUTH" aspect, attention it's getting.
spook12
New member
So your saying that as written this bill will allow kids to hunt without a mentor present and never having passed a hunters safety course?
Spook,
I am not sure where you are aiming. The comment about poaching being a family value is true. Bad habits are often taught by families. What I am saying is that HS provides a counter to that kind of education. Bad habits taught by mentors are extremely difficult to address and cure by HS instructors.
I am not sure where you are aiming. The comment about poaching being a family value is true. Bad habits are often taught by families. What I am saying is that HS provides a counter to that kind of education. Bad habits taught by mentors are extremely difficult to address and cure by HS instructors.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
They would be required to have a mentor, but they do not have to have taken hunters safety.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Good grief...i have said it before, and will say it again... If MOGA or an outfitter came out in support of a bill doing away w/ outfitting folks like shoots and pierre would be against it.
This has nothing to do w/ "potential clients"... that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard anyone say...hands down.
Pierre, "yapping"? really?.
...parents shooting a kids animal, holds no water...how about the parents who are now letting their 7 yr. olds shoot mom's tag and grandma's tag full? Like I said, if you want to stop poaching, do away w/ "gateway drugs", rifles and bows.
Tjones, good point about having a say in the wildlife, as it is the publics, I am the "public" too, as are the supporters of this bill.
Morality can not be legislated. It must be instilled. Allowing a parent to take a child 11 or younger hunting if they deem so should be a parents choice.
.
This has nothing to do w/ "potential clients"... that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard anyone say...hands down.
Pierre, "yapping"? really?.
...parents shooting a kids animal, holds no water...how about the parents who are now letting their 7 yr. olds shoot mom's tag and grandma's tag full? Like I said, if you want to stop poaching, do away w/ "gateway drugs", rifles and bows.
Tjones, good point about having a say in the wildlife, as it is the publics, I am the "public" too, as are the supporters of this bill.
Morality can not be legislated. It must be instilled. Allowing a parent to take a child 11 or younger hunting if they deem so should be a parents choice.
.
