quiksilver

Well, without getting into the specifics of my position, and the where and when of my argument, I wanted to conduct a poll.

What should be the minimum legal age for hunting (whether supervised or not). Put yourself in the shoes of a legislator - your job is to ensure a safe environment for fellow hunters. Remember, hunting isprivilege, not a right.

1.) No minimum age is necessary.

2.) 8-10

3.) 12

4.) no hunting until a driver's license is acquired

5.) no hunting until the child reaches18, and can own land, enter binding contractual agreements, and vote.

Please post your selection number and a brief answer supporting your opinion.

Joe D.

Tuff question.

If they were taught correctly the proper way of gun safety and hunting I'd say 13. However, no childshould ever be unsupervised while hunting regardless.

tj_cubin

i like new york's ages of 12 for small game(supervised), 14 for bow(supervised), and 16 for rifle. I wouldnt go with "no hunting until a drivers license" because it should be age based, if someone doesnt get their license, they shoudl still be able to hunt. I see TV shows where young kids are hunting deer and I was always jealous of them, but 16 isnt really that old. I just dont feel that comfortable about having kids walking aorund the woods with 30-06s, ya know?

slugman

Jersey is 10 , which I think is just right. Wouldnt let my son ( 5 now ) hunt alone till his youth lic. ran out @ 16. Then again , cant drive in NJ till 17 , so how's he gonna get anywhere to hunt alone.

bspencer

1............as long as they are supervised by a adult over the age of 18 with a valid hunting liscense until the age of 15 in which at the age of 15 they can buy their own liscense and hunt by themselves

PABowhntr

I wouldn't have a problem with 10 being an acceptable age assuming the parent actually does what he/she is supposed to do at least in regard to PA regs. None of this posting the kid in a spot and then having dad walk 100 yards away and keeping in touch via a walkie talkie garbage.

BPBowhunter

I agree with PABowhunter.

Being a PA resident and having hunted since I was 12, I feel 10 would be a good age to start having your son or daughter go with you and learn what hunting and theresponsibilities that go with itare all about.

I learned so much from my Father many years ago and I can't wait to pass that on to my children. The real key to it is the role of the parent or gaurdian.

BTBowhunter

I just read a NAHC survey that analyzed hunter replacement state by state. It turns out that the 10 most restricive states have a far lower hunter replacement rate than the less restrictive States. Factors include age, hunter ed, license reuirements etc. Missouri is replacing each hunter with 1.16 new hunters. West Virginia replaces .98 they are among the ten least restrictive states. On the other hand Pennsylvania is replacing each hunter with only.62 hunter (were losing a full third!!!). Montana is the worst with a replacement rate of .56.

That being said, the future of our sport depends on all of us doing what we can to clear roadblocks to recruiting young hunters. My two boys started going with me by the age of 4. They were capable of shooting a .22 fairly well by 7 and In my opinion would have been capable, responsible, and physically readyto hunt safely by 9 or 10.

I say let it be the parents responsibilty in choosing the age!
(Butkeep it mandatory that they be accompanied by an adult)

tj_cubin

i am reminded of my aunts brother who was shot in the face by an underage hunter a few eyars ago thanksgiving morning. A kid under new york's legal age of 12 shot a six foot tall man in the face with buckshot because he thought he was a rabbit. His father was right there, at least within sight, i dont know the exact situation. Then the father claimed it was his older son who was legally able to hunt.
Now this is a case of the parent not fufilling his duty to guide the kid, or not allow him to hunt illegally rather. Also, he allowed the child to use illegal ammunition. But dont you think that a child a little older could have better judged his target, even with a terrible adult supervisor?

I say let your kid go hunting with you as young as possible, but dont give them a gun until they are old enough. And we obviously cant leave that up to the parents to decide as some people have said. And then ease them into actually hunting, small game first, then big game. As for an age, i have said that i agree with 12 for small, and 16 for big.
I dont think that we should looka t it as age restriction and educationa re hindering hunter replacement and we shoudl lower it. then we are jsut replacing them with more inexperienced hunters. its better to have them wait a year or two and learn some responsibilty and experience before handing them a lethal firearm.

doughboysigep

I am not a big fan of lowering the age to hunt with gun below 14. I just don't think most kids are mature enough at the younger age. I know the push is to get more kids hunting, but whats wrong with them going out with dad (or mom) for a fewyears and seeing how it's done and not having the extra responsibility (pressure) of carrying the gun, making a good shot, etc. I was in the woods with my dad for several years before I was old eough (16) to hunt. Although I was out small game hunting - that is a good time for younger pople to learn about being in the woods with a gun. Just my opinion, but I would say the NY system(see above)is pretty good - possibly lower age for big game gun to 14 w/ supervision.