ORIGINAL: PA Hardwoods

In the class I teach the majority of the course is spent teaching hunter ethicsand how to improve us as hunters image to the non-hunting public who in reality hold our hunting lives in their hands. 10% of the population are Hunters, 10% are Anti-Hunters, and the other 80% are non-hunters who vote and control weather we hunt or not. One wrong move on our part can turn a non-hunter into an anti-hunter. We will never change the minds of the antis but we can prove to the non-hunters we provide a valuable service to the community and show them we as a majority are good law abiding people. Not beer guzzling law breaking rednecks like the anti's like to make us out to be.

The other large part of the course is going over treestand safety. You'd be amazed at the number of people who do not use safety harnesses at all, or do not know how to use their treestands in a safe manner.

Of all the people I have taught in the 3yrs I have been teaching not one said this course was useless. And they all said they atleast took one thing away from the class.

ORIGINAL: Goodgrief

It's not as ridiculous as you think. If you are implementing a brand new program, you have to have a cut off somewhere. How it worked was, in order to gun hunt you had to be 14, they started the program (hunter safety)in, I think 1975, where if you wereborn before '61(this is important) and have already "drawn a hunting tag" (Fall '74,) then you don't have to have hunter safety, you were supposedly already a vet. If you were born" before '61" and "didn't already draw a tag prior to the start of the course", you would have to take the course. Any body born after '61 has to take the course. So basically, all veteren hunters born before '61 didn't have to take the course.

ORIGINAL: OHbowhntr

Yes, IT IS, because that age stipulation proves nothing if someone has never hunted prior to that date 32+ years ago. In Ohio, last time I checked the age was 25 I think. I believe that as well is stupid, because there are many adults who are 35 who are idiots, and many I know who are 20-24, that are very intelligent and responsible people. Most of Hunter's Ed is common sense. I've actually considered taking the "Bowhunter's Ed." course, but I do NOT believe it should be mandatory, unless it is made mandatory for NEW hunters, or "young" hunters say under 21.

Unfortunately, the 8hr class really isn't going to change a LOT in most people. Hell, I know an instructor that intentionally head shot a deer with a bow, then went on to say he'd never advocate it in a class, be he see nothing wrong with it if you're "good enough." That make him one of the people, that I WOULD NOT, be heading into the woods with.

Charlie's for the most part got it right, but when it comes to young kids or new hunters who've never been exposed to hunting, I see it as a good thing, but still not something I think ought to be MANDATED. In my busy life, if you mandated a course on me, and gave me half a dozen dates the rest of the year, without missing work, or forcing my wife to miss work, I might not be able to make any of the dates you gave me. If there's an ONLINE course, someone send me the link, I WOULD be interested if it's something I can do on line, because I get plenty of opportunity to get online and do things, but I don't have many opportunities to load up and go somewhere for 8 hours and take a class, especially during normal daytime hours since I work night shifts and LONG stretches.

ORIGINAL: virginiashadow

Against...do we have mandatory football education classes for little kids?...and how many football related deaths do we have in this country as compared to bowhunting fatalities? I could go on and on why we should not have it but I think my football example settles it.