The November issue of Field and Stream poses some interesting allegations about the current mandatory "hunter education" requirements now in place in many states, including my home state of Ohio.
Apparently a study commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation implicates hunter education programs as a catalyst for increased attrition rates currently found within the sport of hunting.
They measured "HRR" which is hunter replacement ratios and found that in states with the most restrictive hunter education and age requirements the attrition rates are the worst. In other words, it appears that the hunter education programs are discouraging newer and/or younger hunters from entering, while at the same time, demographically it seems that for normal reasons the older hunters are leaving the sport (most likely due to health or death).
The current national HRR is 0.69, meaning that for every 100 hunters lost, only 69 take their place. It does not take much imagination to see the potential negative possibilities from the numbers.
I found the article, the study, the numbers, and the implications interesting because about 5 years ago, I wrote a thread on this board commenting on how the hunter education requirements in Ohio had affected my son's desires to hunt ( Ohio a 12 hour program which requires the particpant to attend in person; can't be completed online or otherwise).
The optimum age (in my opinion) to introduce a young person to hunting coincides with the age at which the person is least likely to want to sit still for 12 hours over 2 day outside of school.
Apparently the numbers and the results of the study bear out the assertion I made 5 years ago on this board: While everyone wants all people to have the optimum level of safety and knowledge in the field, current requirements are keeping people from entering the sport, just as it basically kept both of my sons from entering at the key age when they could have been hooked for life. I will go further out on a limb today and add that I can't help but believe that if the average person isn't introduced to hunting within a certain age range, the odds of that person becoming interested and participating in hunting later in life are poor. Of course, that is not to say that no one will enter the sport as an adult, but the chances are certainly reduced, in my opinion.
In response to the study, the NSSF, the NWTF, and the USSA have created a program called "Families Afield" which encourages states to drop mandatory hunter education restrictions for young hunters who are supervised by an adult. That is a mouthful and it is indicative of how obvious it is that hunter education requirements are severely hurting the sport. Bills have already been introduced in Ohio and Wisconsin to relax the restrictions previously imposed.
Interesting facts from the article in Field and Stream magazine:
Hunter replacement rations by state:
Least restrictive states...
Missouri: HRR 1.16
Oklahoma: HRR 1.10
New Hampshire: 1.09
Very restrictive states:
Michigan 0.26
Nevada 0.30
Oregon 0.35
Bottom line: If it aint broke...Hunters safety program requirements have in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of the NWTF, the NSSF, and the USSA, probably done more damage than good.
Its time to go back to the way it was...father teaching son how to hunt and most importantly how to hunt safely.
You stated.... "I wrote a thread on this board commenting on how the hunter education requirements in Ohio had affected my son's desires to hunt ".....how was your son affected?
Also, how affective has Hunter Ed been in reducing hunter accidents and deaths?
__________________
Sign in my VFW Post:
It isn't the price you pay to join, it's the price you paid to be eligible.
couldn't agree more. in PA, you have to sit thru a 2 day program,, crammed full of info you could teach your own son or daughter in about 2 and a half hours.
Jimmy S, my son's were put off by the idea of the 12 hour class. As a result they never tried hunting. Clearly their experience and reaction was and still is commonplace.
If you make entry difficult enough most people will not enter, especially when it is merely a leisure activity.
As to your question about how effective hunter education has been in reducing hunter accidents and deaths...
First, hunters accidents and especially hunting deaths are at their worst neglibile. It is a non-issue, and to my knowledge always was. In fact the article in Field and Stream magazine concludes as follows:
"We need to reach kids while we still can," says International Hunter Education Association director Eric Nuse. "Accompanied youths have a great safety record so why not give it a try?"
Think about that, Jimmy S. If the director of the International Hunter Education Association is inferring that we do NOT need mandatory hunter education programs, that the programs are harming hunting and keeping people (like my sons) from entering the sport, then what does that tell you? Note that he cites the "great safety record" of accompanied youths in the field.
You see, as I said 5 years ago and I am essentially saying today, you can be too safe. In this case, we having the government mandating a program which is apparently destroying the sport over time.
Think about the 30% attrition rate cited by the study. Do the math.
Boysa, I know what you mean. I took the hunters safety course in Pennsylvania. It included a lot of stuff that is almost completely defunct and unnecessary including several hours on trapping. Is information on trapping necessary for one to hunt? Is trapping a high-risk venture? Can you say BS, boys and girls?
Hunter's safety coarses are a joke. Two full days then a test....for hunting? Hell no. I know for a fact that is has kept my wife from hunting, I wonder how many more..
__________________
All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. - Ellen Glasgow
Let me tell ya, i am going thru this now with my son, and its a mess!![:@]Fist off my son is 9 years old, the ohio hunter ed program is based upon a 5th grade education level, My son is only in the fourth. They want them to know how to disassmeble a pistol, a shot gun, and know the parts, thats very discouraging for someone who doesnt even know the name of a particular gun, but could shoot it with accuracy and safety. My son is at the age that I can get him hooked right now, he wants to hunt and learn how to shoot by being in the feild, our kids have enough to do with school as it is and earning there education. Not to say any education like hunter ed per say is bad, its all good. But the big picture of this topic is passin on the tradition of hunting and keeping it alive for future generations. Kentucky doesnt have to have kids 15 and under to go to the course, and most people in kentucky hunt! This is an internet and x-box, playstation generation, and we need to get our kids outdoors and back to the simplistic ways of life in my opinion, and keep there interest. Having some course set up just to please some man made law is foolish. When there 15 and older then make them take it along with maybe some advanced courses if they choose to. Just my 2.
__________________
"ALWAYS LEAVE THE WOODS WITH SOMETHING"
-Michael T. Webster
"Sometimes the lord calms the storm, other times he calms his child, and lets the storm rage."
There's reason to suspect that mandatory HH has been at least partly responsibles for Indiana hunter numbers declining by 10% since it's establishment . Our HE classes are 8 hours , and most kids won't go for it . When my daughter was still in high school HE/Trapping was offered as an elective so she tookit to get some credits , but she won't hunt , my sons never took it. If it were reinstated in the schools where it could be broken down to a week of one hour classes it might be more appealing as opposed to a creditless study hall.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
A very though provoking post. Unfortunately I too, know potential hunters who've balked at the safety course requirement. It's not really the material, but the times. Friday evening 5pm - 11pm, and all daythe following Saturday.
__________________
Days Full Of Clays...
NWTF, DU, SCI
VC, I too read that article and it really made me think! Here I am a late bloomer at 44 years old and am entering my 4th year of hunting! I do my part to promote the dying sport of hunting and try to encourage others.
I like what mr4pt wrote.... That has kept my daughters from ever wanting to go hunting with me. Granted they are not anti's or tree huggers, but, they might have wanted to go with me hunting, but with the strict rules, regulations, laws, etc... they don't want to. Neither does my wife. She won't go hunting either. No desire to... So, I just go at it all alone. [&o]
The hunter education class that I remember taking back then (shortly after 9/11) was utterly ridiculous! If I remember, it was Tuesday night 6:00 - 10:00, then Thursday & Friday back-to-back also at 6:00 - 10:00pm. Most of the stuff they taught, I already learned in Boy Scouts and the teachings on firearms, I already knew and had drilled into me back in USCG bootcamp!
The sad thing was the whole classroom looked like it could seat 50 people. But there were only about a dozen people there - if that. Isthis what ishappening to the sport of hunting? [&:]
Hunter Safety Programs Damaging Hunting
