Tougher Licensing?

[LabGuy]

What would everyone think of a tougher licensing system (As they have in some other countries), where you have to pass stricter tests in order to get a license?

It seems funny to me that getting a hunting license is easier than a drivers license.

------------------
Cliff Cushard
Cushard's Kennel

[Airoh]

It would only restrict more hunters from the woods.

Driving is one of the more dangerous things you can do.

Hunting is one of the safest things you can do.(fact from our own national safety council)

Michigan leads the way in hunter safety.

[Joe Archer]

I agree with Airoh, a drivers license should be more difficult to obtain than a hunting license. Way more people die on our hughways than in the woods. <----<<<

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Sorry, but I am in favor of labguy's suggestion. Carrying a firearm out in the woods isn't more dangerous than driving a car? We have all griped and complained about the putz's that we have found on state land that are shooting up signs, littering, shooting deer and not following up on them, ect. I think that if it took more effort to learn about wildlife habitat, game species, wildlife management, ect in order to pass an exam for a hunting license, then a lot of these pea-brained morons could go take up some other hobby and leave the woods and feilds to those of us who REALLY care about our sport. Let me just add that I think everyone here that I have met so far is an ethichal & Knowledgable hunter and would have no problem passing such an exam. Those that would I consider chaff that should be scattered to the wind anyway.
I have a friend that lives in Scotland. He is a member of the BASC (British Association of Shooting and Conservation). In order to become a member, he had to pass a rigid test that I think most of us would fail, as well as a shooting test where he would have to put 3 shots in a circle the size of a quarter at 100 meters (without a rest). There is no such thing as "public land" in the U.K., so if you want to hunt, it is required that you have good relations with a landowner, and let me tell you, if you are not a member of the BASC, you don't hunt.
There are some negatives with this idea, however. The first that I can see is that since the majority of hunters would give up the sport rather than take such an exam, hunting license fees would have to go way up in price in order to maintain the current level of wildlife management we have now. I can also see problems with who would manage (state or private agency) this, and where would funding come from.
Might be interesting to try something like this on a volunteer basis. Maybe if word got around that there was an ethical group of hunters who had an orginization that only allowed knowledgable, caring, marksmen into there circle, those hunters would be allowed acces to private land before anybody else with little difficulty. What if we raised the standards for all to follow? I'm curious to other peoples thoughts on this subject, as it is something that I have pondered for a long time.

[Pat Eddinger]

I gotta second Mr.16ga on this one.
The Lisc. test could be set up on 3 or 5 year re-quals,with a waiver for those with a signed waiver from a certified instructor.
I would like to see a base level marksmanship requirement added,as well as a firearms framiliarity requirement.
I have had too many folks bring me ratty firearms,with messed up optics that wish me to "Bore sight" before they go hunting.
The number of folks that just aren't framiliar with their firearms is increadible.
So is the number of hunters that sighted in 3 years ago with brand X ammo and go out hunting with Y.
The game suffers,the hunters miss,and fellow hunters are at risk from ignorance.
A better educated hunter,is a safer hunter.
I also am all for an increased penalty for hunting under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
That type of behavior tells me the guy could care less about the safety of others,and should have his hunting priveledges revoked period.The same goes for drunk drivers.
I have a zero tolerence mentality for drunks and dopers,and the thought that my self or those I surround myself with could be taken from this world by a person suffering from selfishness ticks me off.
Slob hunters affect us all in a negative manner,and fuel the anti's fire as the news media goes the extra step to point out every single incident the slobs are involved in.
We gotta clean up our ranks before we can grow.
Pat

[song_dog_slammer]

I'll fall in line behind Mr. 16Ga.

[Tim Baker]

I would be against it and it has been tried in another states where a special hunt was being held. I don’t remember the particulars but something like 70% of the guys failed the bow shooting test. Some people don’t test very well, especially if they have to do it in front of a bunch of other people. I always shoot my best when I’m alone, my brother can come over the next day and I’m all over the place.

I can see where you guys are coming from on the other side but it will never work. Who would do the testing? The DNR? Heck, they can’t even regulate the 11,000 people who apply for a crossbow permit, so can you imagine trying to certify 800,000 hunters.

MR. 16 Gauge, you bring up some good points about becoming certified by the BASC. If a person desired, I’m sure they could get certified by a number of organizations that offer training (NRA) and then present them to the landowner when asking for permission. It would be similar to a resume, I think Ted Nugent suggests making a resume and presenting it when asking for permission to hunt new property.

Tim

[trappercarl]

this post makes me laugh.why should there be tougher licensing? if it is harder to get a hunting license than it is a drivers license than kiss hunting goodbye.how many 14 year old kids are gonna go through a test like that? when its eaiser to just play nintendo . the one problem with hunter safety that I have seen was theres not very many instructors.and they banned it from public schools(or they did ares anyway).the hunter safety I took we didn't get to handle guns we didn't shoot or see anybody shooting. it should be a requirement to have 5 hours of shooting(2 hours rifles, 2 hours shotgun, and 1 hour of pistol) or they could have them like trapping courses where they actually go out into the woods and hunt as part of there class. but making it harder than a drivers license would ruin the sport as we know it. carl

[Airoh]

More people die in any given weekend on Michigan highways than quite a few years of hunting seasons. Yes you are much more likely to die driving to your favorite hunting spot. Reasons to regulate hunting always touches more on ethics than anything else. But the sad fact is you will find it almost impossible to regulate these things. Nobody wants the black eyes bad hunters give us to go away more than me. Tougher regulations won't do that.
One of the best ways our enemys have to kill our sport is to regulate us. A relative I had in Wales had to apply every year to obtain shells for his .22. If he did not apply for shells every year the amount of his allotment was reduced. Which country do you want to live in?
Tougher regulations would be the best thing that could happen to me. Less hunters, and more game. But I guaranty it will kill the sport for my sons and grandsons.

Good hunting to all

Airoh

[farmlegend]

I like the idea of tough licensing. The fact that this would reduce hunter numbers doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Remember, the key to preserving our hunting rights lies in the minds of the 90% of the population that doesn't hunt. A fluctuation in the number of hunters of +/- 25% isn't going to materially influence public policy. However, the behavior of low-life imbeciles amongst the hunting community is the biggest black eye our sport has.

Realistically, I can't see tough licensing becoming a reality in our society. Perhaps, along the lines of Mr. 16 Guage's suggestion, a private, voluntary licensing organization, with a well-desrved reputation for high standards, is a realistic way to go.

[This message has been edited by farmlegend (edited 01-25-2001).]

[Coldwater Charters]

I can't even belief this topic. Lets just put more seperation in an already devided fraternity. So now if you do not have an IQ of a certain level you can't hunt. Most hunting skills are achieved over a long period of time spent in the woods. Trapper Carl has a very good point. What about the younger hunters? This is a very lame attempt to lessen the numbers. And to gain access for the PHI CAPPA hunters who where born better then everyone else.It makes it more of a country club atmosphere. If your for this I have no respect for any of you. Oh, on the upper scale hunters ethic deal. Yea right!!! I know hunters who can't hardly read but they are definately some of the top hunters I know. Hunter safety maybe stepped up a peg or 2 but to have the Bar exam to be able to hunt don't even go there. Are you guys sure your not with Peta. This makes me sick!!!!!!!!!

[StrutnSpur]

I'm going to have to go on Trappercarls side of the issue, but I see the good points that Mr.16 Gauge brought up too.
I think that giving people the easy way will help the sport more than hurt it, and Pat I think that you have to consider the loss in sales and profits that you might lose, and other stores will as well.
I think that it is ok the way it is and it shouldn't change.
No matter what group of people you have there is always going to be bad apples in the basket...SnS

[Mtnman198]

Boehr,
Speaking of tougher licensing.I know several people who have bought a hunting license without ever taking the course.They just go to meijers and say they have had one in the past.They do not fall under the pre 1960 law and obtain them with no problems at all,I knew of one guy who did it when we had the passbooks to.Why are they able to get away with this?

[boehr]

Mtnman198...don't count on them getting away with it. There is an investigation going on right now to identify these individuals.

I guess I would have to say that the current hunter safety program we have at the present time is a good program provided the instructors teach it how it was intended to be taught. We do have many great instructors that give an excellent course and like anything else there are some instructors that just push kids through to say they taught X number of kids each year. What really matters is teaching kids, 12 year olds, the basics so that they have an understanding. The adult, reason for not hunting alone until you are 17, is suppose to be providing the addition training through the hunting experience over a period of years.

[boehr]

Also, if somebody knows for a fact that someone is hunting when they haven't had hunter safety you should report them so that it can be checked out. You can do this confidentially of annoymously, using the 800 hotline number. You may think that the current system with licenses on the computer is full proof but it isn't. The information is onlay as good as the person who puts in the information.

[Mr. 16 gauge]

As usual, Coldwater charters has read more into my post than what is there. Since I am tired of him infering that I belong to peta just because I disagree with him (on this thread and every other one I have disagreed with him on), let's set the record straight.

- I gave the example of BASC as and example, and ONLY an example. I am not proposing that you have to shoot your bow like Errol Flynn did in Robin Hood and split an arrow! However, it would be nice to know that the person going into the woods can hit a target at 20 yards most of the time and didn't just buy his bow the night before so he can have an excuse to go in the woods and drink with his buddies, and cripple some poor deer (or worse yet, another bowhunter). There is 9 MONTHS of off season to practice and pass any shooting test.....if you can't hit a target at 20 yards in that amount of time, YOU SHOULDN"T BE BOWHUNTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

-Trapper Carl: I don't think that the original idea of this post was to make a hunting license "harder" to get than a driver's license. I think the idea was to make sure that people have some idea of what they are doing out there BEFORE they go. You study for your tests in school, don't you? Isn't this to make sure that you have a basic working grasp of the material? Why do you oppose this for hunting? Quite frankly, if young people don't want to learn about hunting (its responsabilities and what they are getting into) BEFORE they go in the woods, I would rather that they stay home an play nintendo. At least then when they kill someone it won't be a real person.

-Airoh: Yes, you are right, the U.K. has some of the strictest laws on the books regarding firearms and ammunition ownership. But the BASC is a conservation orginization, while firearms certificates, ect, are political. The BASC is especially stringint for just this reason. There is no NRA fighting for the rights of sportsmen in the U.K. If someone is killed by accident on a hunt in the U.K., the antis (which are more rabid over there than over here) will be harping on Tony Blairs' door, and he will give them what they want, which is more restrictions of firearms ownership.

And finally, Coldwater charters: What the hell post were you reading? Where in the hell did I say anything about country clubs, phi beta kappas, or any of that other crap you spewed? I said nothing in regards to any cost, except that if this occured (stricter licensing), then the cost of license would have to go up because those individuals who do it haphazardly wouldn't (or could't) be bothered to learn some basic skills. I then stated that in order to maintain the level of income now, licenses would have to be raised in order to decrease the cost. And, if you noticed, I said that this would be a DRAWBACK to having more stingent licensing regulations. As for a "BAR" exam, I never said that it had to be an exam equivilent to a PHD in biology. What is wrong with making sure someone knows which end of the gun they are using to put the bullets in? Maybe you would like to take the fool out who shot over my head while duck hunting (while 15 yards away), or take the idiot out that I found on the state game area trying to put the shells in his gun backwards? You are getting paid for the privelidge; not I! Talk about a country club atmosphere where only the rich can afford it! And you make your living off of selling hunts? What a hypocrit! Maybe that is the real reason you are worried about lessening hunter numbers; fewer people would need your services. I said nothing about only "smart" people being able to pass the exam, or that they were the only ones "worthy" of hunting privledges. Quit infering things into my posts that weren't there. As for "morons"; yes, if they are truly classified as "morons", I don't want them having a license and being afield with a gun....as the law stands right now, there is nothing from preventing a mentally retarded (or mentally "challenged", if you wish to be P.C.) from buying a license or a bow and going afield. I'm not sure about firearms, but the last time I read the 5722 form, it said "judged insane", not mentally insuffiecient. There is a big difference.

Farmlegend is right; it is not the antis we have to worry about. As far as I am concerned, they can kiss my big, white , hairy butt! Antis make up roughly 25% of the population. Hunters make up 17 to 20% It is the other 55 to 60 % of individuals that will make us or break us. We need to show them that we do not tolerate poaching (as with the "goose on a stick" thread) and that we are doing everything in our power to stop things such as this, accidental shootings, ect and striving to be the best hunters we can be. We must show them that we can police ourselves effectively, because if we don't, you know what will happen? Somebody else will do it for you, and I can guarantee if you don't like my suggestions, you DEFINATELY won't like theirs! I am done with this topic.

[trappercarl]

(.It wouldn't bother me a bit if there was less hunters)

why? it seem to me there are a lot of selfish (hunters) on this board.how about having all hunting banned in a state? then would ya think we should have less hunters? oh well hunting can't be banned. NOT. trapping has been banned in aleast 5 states.theres a total of 800 trappers in michigan and were the biggest trapping state besides alaska.what if hunting was that way? it probally will be in the near future because of (hunters) that are to selfish. take a kid hunting carl

[Coldwater Charters]

Mr. 16 Ga. we do butt heads don't we. Well let me explain my post and I will talk real slow so you can understand it. here's a quote from you 16. " I think that if it took more effort to learn about wildlife habitat, game species, wildlife management, ect in order to pass an exam for a hunting license, then a lot of these pea-brained morons could go take up some other hobby and leave the woods and feilds to those of us who REALLY care about our sport" Some of these skills take many years a field to learn on just one species and this is a big part of the fun of hunting if someone had to look at and study a hand book a 1,000 pages long it would deter many and take away much of the intrique in the field. If I wanted to be a book worm I would have been a DR. or Lawyer. Another Quote "There are some negatives with this idea, however. The first that I can see is that since the majority of hunters would give up the sport rather than take such an exam, hunting license fees would have to go way up in price in order to maintain the current level of wildlife management we have now". Now I see why you would oppose this it will hit your pocket book, OK I see now seems now it will not be good. Another Quote and this Is what I take offense to the most "Might be interesting to try something like this on a volunteer basis. Maybe if word got around that there was an ethical group of hunters who had an orginization that only allowed knowledgable, caring, marksmen into there circle, those hunters would be allowed acces to private land before anybody else with little difficulty". First, we do not need any elitist groups, hunters who's Hunting skills are far better then everyone elses [in there mind anyway]. So they can look down upon the pions and laugh. I've hunted with such purists before and they couldn't find any sign of animals if they crawled on there head and bit there noses. We don't need more government we need more individuals taking time to share there knowledge and wisdom gained through years of experience to help the new and eager hunters not an more elite clubs to thumb there noses down on the unfortunate. Now these folks are there only ones allowed to hunt because they are the elite few. Yea right when hell freezes over. If there are folks out there that don't know which end is the dangerous end they probably had either or poor hunter safety instructer or obtained there license illegally. Hunting is a lot like life and with time hopefully wisdom comes through trial and error and makes you better and more responsible. It's called maturity and it can't be gained by any book or belonging to an elite group who calls themselves the ultimate outdoors man. I just don't want to see any more elite clubs that couldn't find a clue but think there stuff don't stink. In one respect, like I said in my earlier post hunter safety could be beefed up a little to make people more aware of actions taken with a gun are sometimes non refundable. Most hunter and fisherman for that matter are on different levels and hopefully always moving up, sometimes decisions are made that probably would not be if more years of experience were at hand. Shots taken that were past the edge or didn't quite practice enough. Probably 16 you have made it through your years of hunting with all the right decisions but most of us including myself have not always made the right decision it's called being human. Anyway untill we meet again 16.

[Kevin]

I am for a far more stringent qualifying process for operating a motor vehicle on public roads. It is clear that most people do not consider very seriously the responsibility of driving.

I think that non-marksmen can be in the woods with a firearm or bow, liscenced, and enjoy the experience, and make rational choices about their capabilities and what shots they should be taking. If that means, for some people, that they pass on all but point-blank shots, yet still they are offered the opportunity to be liscensed and out in the woods during the season, and enjoy it for whatever it offers them at that stage in their hunting education/progress, I think we as a community are better for their involvement.

I may or may not be able to pass a course requiring that I certify as "expert marksman". However, I do not take shots outside my capability. I believe that I am a good sportsman and that no one is the worse for my presence in the woods.

I know crack shots, and people who are extremely knowledgable about life outdoors, who break the law, who kill for killings' sake; people who feel the need to fire their gun whether it is at a deer, beaver, crow, cat, stop sign or beercan. There are laws against these sorts of people already. Additional or stricter laws will not safeguard against jerks. Jerks come in skilled and unskilled varieties.

We can arm people with the information and training they need to become responsible sportsmen and women, and it is the right thing to do. I believe in the end however, that the bulk of problems in the field have more to do with a lack of personal responsibility than they do with a lack of sufficient knowledge or of a stricter screening process.

Amos

[mikeylikesit]

I guess I was fortunate to go thru a very good hunter safety program. ( Twice actually...) I went with my wife for hers and, am planning to take my younger brother-in-law for next season. Mine was at my highschool after hours. The one my wife & I went through covered everything. I would like to see the current programs continued, improved, and expanded with more hands-on, common sense, practical situations. Some basic qualifying type criteria on marksmanship and accuracey. Say with rifles
.22 & .30 cal. at 25 & 50yds on the paper 5 out of 10 shots. Shotgun, say clays, 3 out of 10 minimum and a patterning excercise. Archery, not my area of expertice, so some basic 20 - 30 yard shots at a target, (possibly a paper target with various species with the vitals defined) ( for all qualifying gun & bow etc...) maybe a field test day graduation type deal. If presented properly in a positive way it would work. What's the age cut-off for mandatory hunter safety requirements. I think I remember if you born before 1961 you don't have to?? Maybe raise the standard and set the age up to say 1971 and do voluntary re-qualifying for those up to 1961? Did that make sense??
The new standards for anyone after 1981, voluntary re-qual. for those between 1961-81, and no change for the pre-1961 crowd.

I would do it if I had to and if I didn't pass, I would practice and study till I did.

Firmer and better yes...not restrictive.

m.l.i. yadda yadda yadda...

[BEAGLEMAN]

Mr 16 gauge and Coldwater Charters,
It might be a good idea if the both of you step back and chill for a minute.
I can agree with some points you make but I have to say the truest statement came from -Amos- "that the bulk of problems in the field have more to do with a lack of personal responsibility than they do with a lack of
sufficient knowledge or of a stricter screening process". Only I wouldn't limit to "in the field", I think if we held people more responsible for their actions this whole world would be a lot more fun to be a part of.
I think that is the single most largely ignored problem we have facing us today.


------------------

[Coldwater Charters]

Beagle man that was my point with maturity and yes me and 16 don't see eye to eye on some issues. We probably would get along great in a duck blind with a few heated moments maybe :). Responsibility and maturity come in time not in any classroom

[Eastern Yooper]

There ain't no substitute for common-sense......

Maybe if you trolls would stop taking 'sound shots' and lose your 'spray-and-pray' mentality... you'd all have fewer horror stories about near-death encounters while afield downstate.

Then there wouldn't be a need for topics like this!

LOL!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[This message has been edited by Eastern Yooper (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Sarge]

I agree with a stricter requirement and I even think a marksmaship test is appropriate. While I do agree, I also think it would be a pain in the butt to have to do, and that would decrease the hunter population. I don't know whether that's a good thing or bad, but I think its true.

To Mr. 16ga. I agree that those fools in the woods are the lowest form of animal life on earth, but all of the statistics prove that owning a drivers license is way more dangerous than owning a hunting license. In fact, if the laws were meant to enforce the elimination of dangerous instruments, cars would have to be on the top of the list and guns would be many levels lower.

more people have been killed in cars in the 20th century, than were killed in all of the 20th century wars and crimes all added together. A sobering fact that we have absolutely no control over. (except for our own responsibilities, our car, our driving etc.)

------------------
Sarge

Live your conscience. Leave others to theirs.

[This message has been edited by Sarge (edited 01-26-2001).]

[fishandhunt]

Tougher licensing is a tough one to say the least. I am certainly for cleaning up our ranks, however I am unsure if marksmanship, game identification, written tests, etc. will accomplish this goal. What your asking for I believe is ethics, not rules or laws. We have a lot of laws now. An analogy is as simple as this; What is the difference between driving 5 mph over the speed limit and shooting ducks 5 minutes after shooting hours? Nothing, both are violations of law. Does drivers education teach us not to speed? Does hunters safety teach us not to violate game laws? NO on both counts. Is crippling an animal any different because you are rookie, or because your an expert marksman that hit an unseen twig? NO, the result is still the same.

Once again we ask society to make it tougher to weed out the bad element. Look at all the gun legislation and the fact that the desired outcome with tougher gun laws did not happen. I was fortunate, I was taught right from wrong and I got my ass whipped if I was on the wrong side. What we need to preach is ethics, and ethics cannot be taught, they must be lived and experienced. As hunters we must set the example, we must follow the law, and abide by the rule, written or not. Ultimately when faced with any situation the individual must make the decision, not society, not laws, not rules.

[Bob S]

Originally posted by LabGuy:
What would everyone think of a tougher licensing system, where you have to pass stricter tests in order to get a license?

It seems funny to me that getting a hunting license is easier than a drivers license.

Isn`t this one of the arguments that liberals use when they want to pass more gun control laws?
LabGuy, replace the words "getting a hunting license" with "buying a gun." Now, do you still agree with your statement?
I believe in safety first, but I don`t want to reduce the number of hunters. We should be encouraging more hunters. Not making rules to make it more difficult.



------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/buckmaester/images/RAtinybuckL.gif

[Joe Archer]

Statistically, it is far more dangerous to drive a care than it is to hunt.

I do have faith in our present system of hunter's safety. Three years ago, I enrolled my son, his friend and my nephew in the two week program. When they got home after the very first day of class my son had a question about the parts of the rifle. I quickly fetched my rifle. When taking it out of the case I asked "do you guys think this rifle is loaded" They reply simultaneously "THE GUN IS LOADED!" Needless to say I was impressed.

Bottom line, lets report the poachers, and disrespectful morons that are out there and help enforce existing laws. <----<<<

[bigmountain]

As much as I hate to admit it, I have contributed to getting a non-safety course hunter a license. However, I took it upon myself to teach respect, responsibility, and safety to my hunting partner. All you have to do is go to Meijers and wait for a sales person who doesn't look like they have a clue about licenses. They will give a 10 year old kid a license if they are with an adult, not that I stooped that low. The point is, that we do need stricter rules. It is easy to get a license without going through the proper channels. Some people may get these licenses and receive no instruction as how to use a weapon, let alone the rules of outdoorsmen, or the rules set by the State of Michigan. That is what scares me.

[LabGuy]

I posted this topic after reading about the drunken hunter that shot and killed someone in the woods.

I thought maybe it would be a good thing if we received a little extra training. If it scares away those persons that don't take hunting seriously, who cares?

Our present Hunter Safety Program is a fine introduction to hunting and firearm safety, but it is geared to the early teenage level. Maybe we need a refresher course every so often that covers things in a little more detail.








------------------
Cliff Cushard
Cushard's Kennel

[pegasus]

A friend and I were discussing this issue today. We know that anyone can go out and buy a gun, bow, and a crossbow go out to the woods without having any training and try to shoot a deer. We talked about having people prove they can hit a target at a set distance (depending on the weapon) before they can get their hunting license.

[Coldwater Charters]

Everyone that hunts or fishes is at a different skill levels. Some closer together then others. We are not little kiddies that need more rules and restrictions to make it more hassle then it already is to hunt. Don't even go here. More government is not the answer. This is exactly how new gun laws started and then no guns. I would speculate that an overwelming majority of hunters and fisherman are Law abiding and ethical outdoorsman. The others will come and go just like with any other sport. I would say that our sport has less unethical people then in everyday life folks.

[Canuck]

I think it is way to easy to obtain a hunting license in Michigan all you have to do is go to any department store and say (lie for some)that you have taken a safety coarse(without showing proof) and they sell you a license. I know in Ontario you have to take a safety coarse and then write a 60 question test with the MNR (Canadian DNR) before the MNR issues you a license that is the only way to obtain a hunting license. On the test you are allowed 12 mistakes before you fail and a lot of the questions are safety related so if you fail on the questions you should not be allowed to hunt.They also have you demostrate how to safely handle a gun after you pass the questions. This process also takes about a month to obtain a license which helps weeds out most of the want to be hunters. This helps the MNR to be the only ones to issue you your first license with proof of a passed safety course. This is not a perfect system as some bad apples will always get their licence but it really keeps their numbers low. I think it is a better system than we have here in Michigan.
Thats my 2 cents!

[Coldwater Charters]

Cunuk no offense but we don't need anything that resembles Canadian laws. Can you say gun control. This would be another form of government telling us we don't know anything and have no commen sense we need them to control us more then they already do. Bad apples like you say will always show up, people who do Illegal activities will always be there, just like with gun control it does not work. So lets don't even go here. I value your opinion but. I didn't know about the month wait in Canada to obtain a hunting license. Thats gotta hurt. The problem today with people that they have the Jim Jones effect you know the guy who had his followers take poison. As we are mezmerized by people who know whats good for us, we buy into the bull and forget our own minds. Anything that makes it harder to buy a gun or obtain a hunting license is a form of poison that eventially be the death of us as hunters. Criminals don't abide by the law, but we do.

[Coldwater Charters]

Labguy, Do you really think the guy who was drunk when he shot the guy was drunk when he obtained his hunter saftey certificate. I don't think he was, how are more rules and regs going to stop something like that. I think it's a tragedy too!!! But one thing you must look at if I remember they were hunting together and the fellow who was shot had to know his friend was drunk. This type of ethics cannot be taught in a classroom it comes from commen sense. The guy who shot the other fellow who was drunk when asked on this upgraded test "should you consume alcohol and hunt" he would say "No" So how would this help weed out or even stop this? If I thought it would I might tend to re think my opinion but I am as sure as I can be it wouldn't help. In a perfect world everthing would be great and we all would be ethical and of course not make mistakes of judgement.

[LabGuy]

All I am saying is that maybe we need something besides "basic" training. When we renew our drivers license we have to pass a short test. This test looks like ANY moron could pass it, and yet each year there are many that fail it!

When they fail at least they have to study and refresh their memories on some of the laws. After we get our initial hunting license there is nothing in place to keep us up to date.



------------------
Cliff Cushard
Cushard's Kennel

[boehr]

Canuck...actually what you posted about what they do in Canada is very mush like what we do in Michigan. When you sign your license you are signing an affidavit (read your license where you signed it) that you did take hunter safety. As far as lying, as I stated above, those lies will be catching up with many as this is being investigated at the present time.

[This message has been edited by boehr (edited 02-01-2001).]

[Waidmann]

Very interesting topic, guys.

I live and hunt in Germany these days (and in Michigan in November :) ). The rules for hunting here are qwhat you would call strict.

For a German to get a jaegdshein (hunting license) takes him over a year and costs him probably $1,000. Even for an American under the Status of Forces Agreement, the requirements are stringent. There is a course that all must take that covers just about everything in the woods, whether it's huntable or not. All the animals, when they breed, how many young, what they eat, where they live, what they look and sound like, etc. Need to learn about native trees, and the traditions that go along with them. We need to learn to recognize the bugals calls and know what signal is being conveyed. Need to qualify with both rifle and shotgun, and while we didn't have to put 3 rounds in a one inch circle at 100 meters offhand (I doubt the Scots have to shoot that well--that would be phenomenal shooting), and so on. Need to be able to put at least 3 shots out of 5 in the 8 ring or better on the running boar target, and be able to hit at least 4 of 10 trap. You see, here a hunting license is a hunting license. I'm good to go for whatever is in season. It's like a macro sportsman license.

Once you have the license, you still need to find a place to hunt. There is no such thing as "public land" for hunting. You want to hunt state land, you pay. You want to hunt private land, you need an invite from the holder of the hunting rights--not the owner, BTW. Simply owning land doesn't give you the right to hunt it, even if you do have a license. After something is shot, if you want to take it home, you have to buy it. Venison isn't cheap. Neither is wild boar.

I could go on and on. The system here is so different from Michigan that it would take hours to describe. The point of all this is that one part of the puzzle leads to another. More stringent requirements leads to more costs. More costs means hunters pay for more thing. Fewer hunters means the ones who remain must take more animals to maintain the balance. Enter the quotas on taking game. Here every hunting area has a government document that defines how many deer (for instance) he must take in the year. Not may take, MUST take. No more, no less. How many fawns, how many does and how many and how old bucks.

Before starting on the slippery slope of tighter requirements, carefully consider the ramifications. Check out the places where tighter requirements exist, and see how it's run. I personally don't think it would work in the US anywhere near as well as it works here.

Waidmannsheil!

[Canuck]

Culdwater I did not take offence to your reply but I am not for tighter gun control and did not mention it, but I am for making it tougher to obtain a hunting license by somehow having the DNR issue your first license with proof of your safety course. I also did not mention anything about Canadian law because there is no comparison and do not think there should be.

[Coldwater Charters]

Cunuck I copied this from your other post "I know in Ontario you have to take a safety coarse and then write a 60 question test with the MNR (Canadian DNR) before the MNR issues you a license that is the only way to obtain a hunting license. On the test you are allowed 12 mistakes before you fail and a lot of the questions are safety related so if you fail on the questions you should not be allowed to hunt.They also have you demostrate how to safely handle a gun after you pass the questions. This process also takes about a month to obtain a license which helps weeds out most of the want to be hunters. This helps the MNR to be the only ones to issue you your first license with proof of a passed safety course. This is not a perfect system as some bad apples will always get their licence but it really keeps their numbers low. I think it is a better system than we have here in Michigan". This is what i responed to. No big deal everyone has there own opinion. But you can't teach commen sense.