I am always suprised by the reactions that are elicited when the subjects of minimum hunter age and mentored hunts comes up. In a recently locked thread, I saw a few statements made that caused me a little concern. I am not going to, nor do I intend to create a strawman argument. However, I am going to throw out a few thoughts here that are based upon many years of experience with the subject, and my anecdotal observations over that time.
Firstly, I guess if a minimum hunting age is desired because of the rite of passage that it creates, fine. At least be honest about it. I had to wait until I was 12, so you should to is a common rationale I see. Does it create safer hunters? I have not pulled nationwide data, nor do I intend to. However, after being a Hunter Ed instructor in states that have a minimum age vs. those that do not, I have come to the opinion that it is a feel good measure.
A well constructed Hunter Ed program (which most states have), will quickly weed out the students that do not belong in the field. I recently passed a 7 year old hunter, who took an online class and the mandatory field day. This young man's performance in the field day was one of the finest I have ever seen. I find myself having to correct young adults more frequently than I do young children. And, older children typically need more frequent correction than do the very young children.
Now, I realize we have minimum ages for driving. I realize there are valid reasons for these, and hunting is an acceptable analogy. I am completely supportive of eliminating a minimum age for hunting, but requiring that they be in the direct company of an adult hunter.
An example was given of a unethical event that happened in the Bitteroot with youth hunters. Is this a product of the youth, or a product of their mentoring? I fully realize I can teach everything a young hunter should know, but in the end they will very likely default to the examples and expectations of their parents while they are in the field. The same parents who allow their kids to create the event in the Bitterroot are the same kinds of parents that would themselves be involved with the event near Townsend. Does a minimum age rectify this? Not in any way.
I also fail to see the basis fears of increased tag transfers with mentored and/or youth hunters. I am willing to bet a very large sum of money that very few of the illegal tag transfers that take place each year involve young kids. Do some? Certainly. My guess is that the majority of these come from a spouse's tag or some other source. There really is no way to eliminate the possibility or likelihood of tag transfers, and as such I don't see the need to reduce opportunity in the name of a feel good measure to reduce poaching.
I think every state should be looking at creative ways to provide youth mentoring programs that allow parents the opportunity to get their kids in the field at a reasonable cost. Idaho's youth mentored tags are a great example, and I would argue that Oregon's youth mentor opportunity is also a great idea.
These are simply my thoughts and not meant to troll a big internet pissing match. As always, your mileage may vary.
Firstly, I guess if a minimum hunting age is desired because of the rite of passage that it creates, fine. At least be honest about it. I had to wait until I was 12, so you should to is a common rationale I see. Does it create safer hunters? I have not pulled nationwide data, nor do I intend to. However, after being a Hunter Ed instructor in states that have a minimum age vs. those that do not, I have come to the opinion that it is a feel good measure.
A well constructed Hunter Ed program (which most states have), will quickly weed out the students that do not belong in the field. I recently passed a 7 year old hunter, who took an online class and the mandatory field day. This young man's performance in the field day was one of the finest I have ever seen. I find myself having to correct young adults more frequently than I do young children. And, older children typically need more frequent correction than do the very young children.
Now, I realize we have minimum ages for driving. I realize there are valid reasons for these, and hunting is an acceptable analogy. I am completely supportive of eliminating a minimum age for hunting, but requiring that they be in the direct company of an adult hunter.
An example was given of a unethical event that happened in the Bitteroot with youth hunters. Is this a product of the youth, or a product of their mentoring? I fully realize I can teach everything a young hunter should know, but in the end they will very likely default to the examples and expectations of their parents while they are in the field. The same parents who allow their kids to create the event in the Bitterroot are the same kinds of parents that would themselves be involved with the event near Townsend. Does a minimum age rectify this? Not in any way.
I also fail to see the basis fears of increased tag transfers with mentored and/or youth hunters. I am willing to bet a very large sum of money that very few of the illegal tag transfers that take place each year involve young kids. Do some? Certainly. My guess is that the majority of these come from a spouse's tag or some other source. There really is no way to eliminate the possibility or likelihood of tag transfers, and as such I don't see the need to reduce opportunity in the name of a feel good measure to reduce poaching.
I think every state should be looking at creative ways to provide youth mentoring programs that allow parents the opportunity to get their kids in the field at a reasonable cost. Idaho's youth mentored tags are a great example, and I would argue that Oregon's youth mentor opportunity is also a great idea.
These are simply my thoughts and not meant to troll a big internet pissing match. As always, your mileage may vary.
Last edited by a moderator:
