RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

BTW its not called "Gun hunters safety course" its "hunters safety" course....nice try at division.

Once again, no one is advocating refusal of training. We support it. We don't think the state should have to mandate it or regulate it.I think private organizations do a fine job of training and to take it away from them and have the overburdened state take on any more burden for something that is less dangerous than many other outdoor activities seems wasteful and intrusive. There are so many more outdoor activites that are more inherently dangeous that do not mandate training.

As for your lawyer experince, I just won a $98,000.00 lawsuit, my claim was the counter claim I was sued first. Further, I have 2 more suits pending that am going to win so you are not the only person with some court experience. ;)

80%+ of comunication is not whats said but how its said, that is lost on forums so being able to persuade juries with written arguments falls short. I won't waste more space here but I am positive I could easily win in court about how wastefull mandated bowhunter safety programs are when we private programsalready in place now. Court is not the issuse really anyway atm. Some hunters on here think that if the state mandates bowhunters safey, this somehow proves that "we police our own" which is the opposite. If we did "police our own" and "provide training for our own" then mandated state programs wouldn't be needed,
So if we do need the state to do it...then clearly we don't or cannotdo it.... more ammo for anti's I would think.

I support local education, mandated qualification tests to hunt tracts of land etc... like hagerman wildlife refuge where you have to pass a strict 3d shoot course in order to hunt there...or like I make my clients prove profiency at my hunting lodge before they hunt. These don't burden the state or create more bureaucracy thus making it harder for people to get into the sport of bow hunting and prove to the public that we do police our own. In Texas there is a TON of bow hunter ed, bowhunter safey, and intro into archery courses provided with no state mandate. There is no loophole in the system it works just fine. Further, people who are passionate about archery and bowhunting provide this training instead of a bored state employee who is mandated to be there to get his paycheck...

Lastly, and I am not kidding at all..my cousin was killed while bowhunting...he bled out in his fathers arms because he tripped while walking with a broadhead. I am not even making this up and I still don't think the state should mandate anything, maybe I am in the minority, but thats what I believe.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Skeet shooting requires using a weapon in public, so does 3d shoots or even indoor ranges.....where does it end? Should the state mandate that everyone who does anything remotely dangerous or have any history of danger involved in what they do be trained, tested and authorized to participate in what they want to do?

At what point did the land of the "Free" and home of the "Brave" become land of the "licensed, tested, mandated" and home of the "fearfull of what might happen".

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

In my state, general HE is required for a bow license....so that's the perspective I am coming from. I don't know about many other states, so I can't speak much about that.

My opinion: I think 1 HE courseshould be required for all types of hunting, as it is in my state.

Thanks for clarifying that you were not taking a shot at me personally. SoI guess that a skilled lawyer would also be able to make you look dumb...I can't really pick you apart,because I am not much of a debater, butmaybe a skilled lawyer could. So we are both in the same boat in the courtroom.

I'm not sure what the taking my ball home comment means, but I suspect that it could potentially be immature.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

In the one I quoted, I was pointing out that you misrepresented the "flying off on a firearms tangent" quote that you quoted from a previous poster.

I got your point...I was justpointing out that you missed HIS point...he was playing the role of the anti-hunting lawyer.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Don'tthose activities usually take place on private property? I'm sure the safety concerns are addressed that will not let the projectiles leave the premises into the public.I don't think little Billy and his Dad from down the road, can actually walk down range into harms way.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

SignOfTheTines:

I'm aware ofwhat it is called. How much archery specific information is in the general course? Since you are an attorney or experienced in suing people you already know the other side is going to flop the book down and tell you to read aloud the bowhunting information from the book. Gun Hunters Education and Hunters Education is scemantics, the course is geard to firearms training, safety and hunting. It doesn't address bowhunting. I'm not trying to be devisive, this and the fact that in many states you could just buy a license with no training course whatsoever is precisely why the Bowhunter Education courses were started.

I'm not sure of your point about supporting training and taking it out of individuals hands? The states did not come up with the courses and the states do not teach the courses. I took the bowhunter class in SD and it was administered by volunteers from the National Bowhunter Education Foundation, not the state. The state says you have to take the test, they don't offer it or teach the class. This is what I'm talking about, I think we may be on a different page here. I see no problem with the state mandating that you take the class offered by the NBEF to get your license.I was grandfathered becasue I had held a previous bow tag in NE, to hunt in WY, MT, ID and most other western states you need the class as a non resident to hunt, period. The state doesn't teach the Hunters Safety courses but mandate that you have it to hunt. Why the disconnect when it comes to bows?I would be all for 1 courseIF they integrated the two courses and taught the HE and the NBEF all at thesame time butthey don't do that.

InNE, SD and KS you didn't need a hunters safety card to buy a bow license. All you had to do was fill out thetaginfo and send it in with your money. This was a loophole, and could very easily have been spun to show we as bowhunters werenot interested in educating out members. The NBEF working through the states addresses this and I don't see it as a bad thing. Be honest, if the class were voluntary how many people do you think would take it? My opinion would be only kids who's parents made them take it. Now you have statistics thrown in by the other side, the classes are out there and the hunters just can't be bothered to go take them with numbers to back you up. I still see nothing wrong with the two organizations working together to for a common goal. The only way this burdens the state is they have to put one more line on the application for your certification number. It isn't there, you don't get the tag.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Wow my brain hurts..... And it should. This all requires some rational thinking and, more importantly, good judgment. Sometimes that’s not easy… at least not for everyone.

So what some of you are saying is that before an adult human being can shoot a bow and arrow, not a gun....but a primitive weapon...he needs to be REQUIRED, to have a MANDATORY class (read approval) by the state beyond what the state already mandates for hunters safety. Our culture is wacked. No, we are not saying that at all. You are free to shoot a primitive weapon anytime you want. Not necessarily wherever you want, and certainly not at our wildlife-there are conditions.

Can you see the American Indians saying...before you hunt in our woods young brave visiting from another tribe...we want you to take a course on safety and pass a proficieny test...lol...What American Indians? We’re they not eliminated or brought to near extinction like much of our wildlife? It took an entity like our government in the early 1900’s, with all its power, laws/rules, and mandates, to stop the mass destruction. Am I wrong?Would wehave what we have today without such mandates?
What many of you are missing is everyone on this thread supports the class..supports further education...supports training new hunters... Some of us do not think our rights should be taken away untill we get approval from the state to do something that has been a right since the dawn of man[/b]. Really, since when was it a right? If I remember my history correctly, the deer in England belonged to the crown. If you shot one, you had your head cut off. That is one of the reasons our forefathers so diligently prescribed the wildlife of this independent nation belongs to everyone. Not you, not me, but the state! That makes hunting a privilege in my opinion. For goodness sake, if hunting was a right, we would have cannibals running around everywhere killing and eat whomever, whenever. I don't feel like the state should have to put thier stamp of approval on me in order for me to practice "primitive weapon hunting".[/b] Then move someplace where there isn’t government and the animals belong to you! Otherwise, accept the fact that you are part of society. As a member, we will protect you from cannibals and assure youreceive yourinalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Further, if I was a anti hunting lawyer, the VERY BEST THING that could happen in my opinion is any restriction of hunting, such as required/mandated courses for bowhunting. Anything for bigger government, less hunters and more restrictions. I certainly do not see it that way. I see it as better government (something essential with respect to the present population-which, by the way, isn’t getting smaller), better hunters, and better management. Again, without the benefit of the government, we would not have all the wildlife we have today! We are not restricting you. You can either hunt or not. If you do hunt, we want you to know what you are doing…to our standards. Planes fall from the sky, accidents happen…we all understand. We accept the fact that do-do happens. What we the people do not tolerate is stupidity. Nor do we accept the fact that some people think they are better than the rest of us and above the law.

My argument would be "if bow hunting is so dangerous, that the state requires a mandated proficiecy test, safety course, special class before you can use a BOW and ARROW" how much more should the public be worried about hunters using high powered rifles. I would say that is up to the individual voters within each state. Who assumes the risk and how much risk are they willing to tolerate? Wyoming, for example, might not see high powered rifles or bows as an issue. This is purely based on population density within a given area. That being said, I would say it is certainly and issue in Rhode Island. Personally, I do not see bow hunting as a dangerous endeavor-others might. I look more upon it as an ethical pursuit. I want 70-80% of the population to know that we the people and I are taking the necessary steps to establish procedures to train our ranks on what is ethical and what isn’t. I do not want Wayne Pacelle (USHS) standing there showing them the photographs of animals with arrows sticking out of their heads. Shouldn't we require proficeny tests with those?Some states do. Colorado is one if you need an example. Shouldn't we do background checks before we let people go into the woods to "hunt" with weapons that are far more powerfull than a stick with an arrow? Now you are getting carried away… I would pound my chest.... point at the accidents that happen each year with bow and arrow hunting (very low, not including tree stand falls) compared to rifle hunting (much higher) and declare that for the publics saftey we must have more legislation so we know what/where/who is doing with high powered rifles. Much higher you say? Accidents have been essentially eliminated in my state since 1949. And, we are having fewer and fewer people lost in the back country as a direct result of proper training. What’s going on in your state? Wasn’t there a shooting cased by a Vice President? Did he have proper Training? IF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS SO IRRESPONISBLE THAT THEY CANNOT, WITH OUT THE STATES INTERVENTION/APPROVAL, OPERATE A BOW AND ARROW THEN HOW CAN THEY BE EXPECETED TO BE TRUSTED WITH A HIGH POWERED RIFLE? (there I shouted ) Don't think for one second I couldn't spin that like crazy if I was an anti hunter lawyer.

Do those of you who support mandatory classes see how very little faith you put in the the general population of this country?Ok, so what’s your point? I am tired of paying the price for stupidity! If you do not see that your view of the average joe American is poor, you might want to revisit your values. You are basicly saying, hey, I think the government should take care of them and me...cause we can't do it......its shamefull. No it’s not, it’s responsible! If you walked into a Texas 3d bow shoot and stated..."Before any of you guys hunt this year we want you to take a course, pass at profienciey test and have it state approved becuase we don't think any of you are responsible enough to hunt without our intervention"...the looks you would get... but here you are stating that nationally...in every state...thats what should happen. Who said that? However, I think, for the best interest a state’s wildlife program, each state should adopt a mandatory training program. Walk into that same 3d shoot and give the guys this option. Take a training course or lose your hunting privilege. I’d be willing to bet they would ask “where do I sign!”

The very thing you support in order to promote our sport will be the very thing they use against you.... Really, I thought it was the arrows sticking out of heads that they were/are using against us?

You might say..well...this is mandated for those few who need it but won't take it, not people who go to 3d shoots they of course dont need it but must take it anyway because its mandated... So basicly you are a socialist....everyone suffers in order to cater to the few...or the fears of the few..about what might happen to the few....sigh.... I am a realist trying to keep my hunting privileges from going the way they did elsewhere in the world. Spend ten minutes and see how many countries allow bow hunting in Europe. Bow hunting use to be BIG in England. Now it is banned! Too many people thought they knew better!

Eventually, I will have a license to bowhunt, drive, ride a bike, skateboard, surf, ski (with a special class and profiency test to snowboard cause the skiing test was not safey specific enough for snowboarding), rappel, mountain climb, sky dive, drive a quad or off road vehicle, ride a horse (very dangerous in someterrain and if I do itwrongharmfull to animals so lets not forget that activity)or do anything that is moderately dangerous and might cause harm or be deemed to possiblycauseto myself or others. We will license and certifyeveryone as to not offend anyones sense of safety and try to calm all fears. Way too far… I would move if I were you!


Furthermore, as to the afformentioned court case huckleberry pinned badger girl in the corner with, I could win that case. Or in the absense of 12 logicaly minded individuals hang the jury. Hmmm…just like they did in England, South Africa, and a host of other democratic countries. You must be really smart! It's a small price to pay to play.

Flame away....donning asbestos undies...

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

We are coming from different perspectives as that wasn't required in my state.

I agree that HE should be required but also think that unless they mesh the two programs to include both HE and NBEF you should have both. This could easily be done.

A skilled lawyer can make anyone look dumb, that is what they get paid for. I can't explain it to you, something you have to experience yourself. Debate skills do not matter. You answer the questions that they ask you. You try to explain yourself and you will be told nicely one time to answer the question they don't want or care about your explanation. After that it isn't nice and could cost you money in fines. There can't be any holes indiscrepencies in your statements.

As for "take your ball" was made in reference to the repeated snide comments of writing your legislature to beg for testing and requirements on hiking, camping and riding your horse. You got me there, immature, sorry for the comment.

Finally, in the quoted post, I knew what sign's point was and knew what role he was playing. I was pointing out and referencing what I saw to be a weak arguement. If that was the approach and argument for that topic I figured he/she would play h--- convincing a jury that bowhunting wasn't bad given the scneario that Huckleberry laid out. Guess I wasn't clear in my point.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

I'm a little blown away by this thread. It seems like everyone is fighting yet we are all in agreement? I believe it was sign who quoted that we all agree that education is good. If that is true then the question becomes: What is the most efficient way of getting our new brothers and sisters that education? It is my belief that the most efficient, cost effective way to do it is to coordinate at a state level. The comp system for licensing keeps track of everything. It makes buying a license quick and easy. I am a land owner and am tired of the gov. telling me I can't do this or I have to do that. If anyone can impliment a system that is better I am all for it! If someone else sets it up then we have to live by their rules. Is that any different than the state?

What I see here is a warped thought process. Yes I agree we should get an education but if you tell me I have to do it then I will oppose you. Weigh the positive effects againts the negatives. Are there any negative effects to the state getting our new hunters an education? here in wis you can take a combo. class gun & bow and get cert. in both at once. Search your hearts. Is it possible that some of you are just anti gov? And are in opposition just because it is the gov. And for those of you that argue that this will lead to more gov. involvement in our lives, remember WE are the gov. and have the right to decide on all laws and rules. If I follow your line of thought then we should have no laws and everyone should be able to do anything we want. How do you think that would work?

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

A college education is good...is it mandatory to get one?

I'm not surewhat point you were trying to make by saying you are a landowner and tired of the govt. telling you what you can and can't do. Maybe I misunderstood.

Opposition just because it's the govt. telling us what to do is a part of it, and not necessarily a bad reason. Remember, this is the "land of the free", not "land of the govt. knows best", or "land of the approved by my peers to do A, B, and C, but not X, Y, and Z."

In civilized society, there is obviously a line to be drawn somewhere well short of anarchy. So your suggestion that those opposed to mandatory BE are in favor of a lawless land is pretty disingenuous.