"Hunter-Naturalist" Program

[Deleted member 16014]

Please consider the following concept and reply in the poll. Suppose a western state offered a "Hunter-Naturalist" certification, with online learning modules. Topics might include things like: basic ecology of plants/animals/riparian systems, how wild animals interact with their environment (habitat), natural resource policy structure (how NEPA works), how habitat treatments work, etc.

A result might look something like CO's elk university in structure, but could include online testing and certification. The target audience would be any current or future western hunter (resident or non) looking to better understand nature when interacting with it. Priorities in development would be avoidance of bias, progressive knowledge building, and making literature based information consumable for the layman.

Feel free to PM thoughts or considerations. Thanks

 

[Cornell2012]

What would the incentives be to participate in the program? An extra drawing point in tag applications? What would the certificate actually mean?

 

[elkduds]

Even without any incentive I would support such a vetted education course being available online. However, I expect those who value this info already know it or are involved in learning, while those who don't give a sh!t, won't give a sh!t.

 

[1_pointer]

Great idea! The devil's in the details as to the course work and arrangement. Something like this would help put to bed a whole lot of questions and misconceptions. Though it would add greatly to the development workload, a module for younger kids would be a great add on and something I think some schools could make use of.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

What would the incentives be to participate in the program? An extra drawing point in tag applications? What would the certificate actually mean?

Good Questions. The incentives would probably depend on your perspective. The primary benefit for many might be increased natural resource knowledge from a reputable source. An effort like this would likely require multiple partners, to include one or more state game agencies, universities, etc. Hunters who understand the ecosystems that wild game operate in would be more adequately able to: have a fulfilling wilderness experience, comment on things that affect them in an informed manner, think critically about the environment, and discuss natural resource issues with non-hunters. As noted, some will seek this out on their own, but without a scientific background it can be hard to separate wheat and chaff.

As to a certification, it wouldn't necessarily be something you'd print out and hang on your wall. If you think of this as a parallel to a Master Gardener, Master Naturalist, or similar program, it's more of a confirmation of the time and effort put in.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I'd also add that while information based, the goal wouldn't be to say "hey, this is why X is happening with Y population". It'd be more akin to providing some basic understanding of how animals and environments interact, so someone without a degree in the field could look at a given perspective and consider it objectively.

I feel that learning to ask good questions is usually more valuable than knowing the "answer".

 

[406LIFE]

Many states have a classes like this available via universities and schools. In Missoula, we have the Montana Natural History Center and it offers a Master Naturalist program (I graduated). It takes you through a bout a dozen different disciplines (mammals, birds, geology, forest/fire ecology, plats, etc). Besides getting some education about the best state in the union, I firmly believe that the more you know the more you are successful. Knowing how and when different forests burn, helps you to better select (not all fresh burns are equal for elk browsing...) where you will be hunting next. Then you have all the incidental knowledge that you pick up here and there.

I would highly recommend that if you have the chance to take a program like this.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I like the idea of providing more educational resources to those interested in the natural world, but like Cornell says what's the point, why would someone want to do this certification process other than self-edification. Further once in place whats to keep the certification from being used as another hurtle to deal with in order to obtain a hunting license. I can see an unfortunate scenario where the state develops something like this and basically makes a state specific "hunter's environmental appreciate certificate" requirement.

My take away, this program could be a great boon to those interested in ecology but I think bogus certifications are a terrible idea. I see dumb certifications all over the place and have to complete a bunch for work, there's a CDC hand washing certificate, an internet safety certificate, a how to use a printer certificate, ect. if the certification doesn't have an appreciable benefit to the recipient then I don't think it should exist. By this I don't mean the knowledge gained is worthless, quite the contrary... just the competed course certificate is irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[TheJason]

I like the idea of providing more educational resources to those interested in the natural world, but like Cornell says what's the point, why would someone want to do this certification process other than self-edification. Further once in place whats to keep the certification from being used as another hurtle to deal with in order to obtain a hunting license. I can see an unfortunate scenario where the state develops something like this and basically makes a state specific "hunter's environmental appreciate certificate" requirement.

My take away, this program could be a great boon to those interested in ecology but I think bogus certifications are a terrible idea. I see dumb certifications all over the place and have to complete a bunch for work, there's a CDC hand washing certificate, an internet safety certificate, a how to use a printer certificate, ect. if the certification doesn't have an appreciable benefit to the recipient then I don't think it should exist. By this I don't mean the knowledge gained is worthless, quite the contrary... just the competed course certificate is irrelevant and unnecessary.

I see this as being highly beneficial for the adult onset hunters who did not grow up in a hunting home, and don't have a good background on this stuff.

I do not see it in any way becoming a hurdle. There are already state sponsored hunter education programs that touch briefly upon conservation and the role hunters play. I see this as a gateway where folks are not told WHAT to think, but HOW to think.

Not only would it help them in being able to articulate wildlife management to others, it would greatly improve the public perception of hunters as a whole. People like Randy and Steve Rinella have moved hunters light years ahead in terms or being recognized as legitimate conservationists. This gives others a chance to step up their game and do the same at a local level.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I totally agree with the idea of providing this kind of material and could not agree with you more on all points especially the last... still don't like certificates.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think its a great idea to provide a tool to enable folks to become better educated. I agree that it would be a great way to reach some of the AOHs who may not have grown up hunting or recreating outdoors much. But there are plenty of long-time hunters who could benefit from some education too. If it would facilitate better discussions and understanding between wildlife managers and hunters, I'm all for it.

I could take or leave the certification.

 

[mtmiller]

....natural resource policy structure (how NEPA works)....

Pre or post little-hands? ;-)

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Pre or post little-hands? ;-)

Ha, yes. Emphasis on "structure of"