# Nuge speaks



## Cowpoke

You can think want you want about Ted but on a nationwide scale he is in the forefront in defending hunter's rights.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/01/pzn.01.html


----------



## Guest

Ted was on live T.V. last night. ( I think CNN, but not 100% sure) Nugent was giving counter arguement to a minimum age proposal given by the HUMAN SOCIETY that would require minors to reach a certain age before they would be allowed to hunt...

Ted busted them pretty good.... Ted stated that it should be up to the parents to determine what is the appropriate age for each child to hunt..no the law makers... He caught the human' society off guard.. when he asked this question, " Is'nt the real agenda to place a ban on hunting altoghether" not age limits" The reporter stated posed that question as well to the spokes person for the human society as well... She did not have an immdiate answer... ( caught with her pants down) she had to think... before she could respond...


----------



## doctariAFC

The Nuge is certainly a great worker for sportsmen and women. He sometimes is also not so good. In this case, he was dead on the money. Now, please Nuge, no more liver-eating on TV. That doesn't do any good at all.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Since when is it the most reasonable idea to allow PARENTs to make lethal decisions for other adults about the capability and maturity level of their offspring.

Most parents are quite blind to Little Johnny's capability levels as evidenced by the sports world little league experts in the stands...

Minimum hunting age should NOT be the decision of the parent. It has to reside with the State. The parent does not decide when Little Jimmy is reading to drive a car, right? He might KILL someone because he's NOT MATURE ENOUGH to make life and death decisions.

Why would shooting a .270 be any different?


----------



## centerx

Well there's an argument….

Why should I not be able to sit in a blind right behind my son why he puts the crosshairs on a deer and shoots compared to letting him lose on the highway with thousands of other motorist at the age of Ohhh let's say 10….

Do you really need it spelled out out can most reasonable adults and parents see the difference?


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> Since when is it the most reasonable idea to allow PARENTs to make lethal decisions for other adults about the capability and maturity level of their offspring.
> 
> *Isn't that what good parents do on a daily basis?*
> 
> Most parents are quite blind to Little Johnny's capability levels as evidenced by the sports world little league experts in the stands...
> 
> *many parents don't spend a enough time with their children, that is a fact, and it may skew some of thier perception. I can't see why anyone would want to take away time that so many people cherish. I may be wrong, but I feel that every hour I spend hunting with my son, decreases the odds that he will be into drugs and alchohol, and in the woods instead.*
> 
> Minimum hunting age should NOT be the decision of the parent. It has to reside with the State. The parent does not decide when Little Jimmy is reading to drive a car, right? He might KILL someone because he's NOT MATURE ENOUGH to make life and death decisions.
> 
> *It ABSOLUTELY should be at the parents discresion. My son has been shooting since he was 4 years old. It is something we do every weekend. he isi now 9, and hunts with me regularly. he is different than many 9 year olds, some of which shouldn't be trusted with a squirt gun. I understand that, but this is a decision that the parents should make, not the state.
> 
> No one is saying to turn a kid loose unsupervised. That WOULD be asking for trouble. but as far the state telling me when I can take my son out to hunt and teach him to be a responsible hunter (and person for that matter), well, its a bunch of BS.*
> 
> 
> Why would shooting a .270 be any different?
> *because the government already regulates way too much, and heaven forbid taking kid away from in front of the TV for a few hours. taking a kid hunting is time spent with your kid that he will probably never forget. and the lessons learned can last a lifetime.*


I am curious, what is your stance on hunting in general, and do you have any kids yourself? I am fairly new here, and I can't say I am familiar with your posts yet. thanks


----------



## bow weevil

Nevermind, It's pretty obvious that anything nugent stands for, you are opposed to. in this case, is your stance because of the man, or the idea of taking a child hunting?


----------



## Cowpoke

Free Speech DB said:


> Minimum hunting age should NOT be the decision of the parent. It has to reside with the State. The parent does not decide when Little Jimmy is reading to drive a car, right? He might KILL someone because he's NOT MATURE ENOUGH to make life and death decisions.


One might argue that there plenty of 16 and 17 year olds out there that should not be on the road, yet the state says that they are ready merely because of their age, as if that was a barometer of their maturity. Everyone develops at a different rate and parents are the only ones equipped enough make a maturity decision.


----------



## doctariAFC

I agree here. The PARENTS are the ones who should decide when their child should be able to hunt. I began hunting in NY at age 12 for small game, wielding the good old .22 cal rimfire rifle. I was taught how to handle a firearm responsibly at age 8. In fact, this brings me to another thing. Firearms safety. Statistics gathered by the National Shooting SPorts Foundation clearly indicate that kids who are taught firearms safety are the safest, most responsible firearms handlers around. This carries over as adults.

This, as opposed to those following the government anti-gun fears, with the results being an unsafe, more likely to experience firearms accidents and commit crimes with firearms person.

Therefore, considering the fact that it is every American's right to keep and bear arms (2nd ammendment) everyone should be taught the responsible handling of firearms IN SCHOOL! We spend much time teaching about our right to Freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) and a plethora of other rights, but this one is ignored, and this is shameful. As American citizens, I would urge all of you to bring pressure on our government(s) to start pushing this forthwith. This is a RIGHT, and our children should all be taught the proper responsibilities that go along with the right as an American citizen.


----------



## BogeyMan

doctariAFC said:


> I agree here. The PARENTS are the ones who should decide when their child should be able to hunt. I began hunting in NY at age 12 for small game, wielding the good old .22 cal rimfire rifle. I was taught how to handle a firearm responsibly at age 8. In fact, this brings me to another thing. Firearms safety. Statistics gathered by the National Shooting SPorts Foundation clearly indicate that kids who are taught firearms safety are the safest, most responsible firearms handlers around. This carries over as adults.
> 
> This, as opposed to those following the government anti-gun fears, with the results being an unsafe, more likely to experience firearms accidents and commit crimes with firearms person.
> 
> Therefore, considering the fact that it is every American's right to keep and bear arms (2nd ammendment) everyone should be taught the responsible handling of firearms IN SCHOOL! We spend much time teaching about our right to Freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) and a plethora of other rights, but this one is ignored, and this is shameful. As American citizens, I would urge all of you to bring pressure on our government(s) to start pushing this forthwith. This is a RIGHT, and our children should all be taught the proper responsibilities that go along with the right as an American citizen.



I agree with you 100%:thumbs_up


----------



## Free Speech DB

centerx said:


> Well there's an argument….
> 
> Why should I not be able to sit in a blind right behind my son why he puts the crosshairs on a deer and shoots compared to letting him lose on the highway with thousands of other motorist at the age of Ohhh let's say 10….
> 
> Do you really need it spelled out out can most reasonable adults and parents see the difference?


After having taught hunter safety for "oh, lets say some 15 years now", the combination of a 10 year old maturity level with a 30.06 projectile (maturity as judged by an extremely biased PARENT) is a questionable call.

In states where there is little public land, and people hunt on extremely large private leases, and where hunter density is 2 per thousand acres, I can see your point; let junior pull the trigger... there is no human in front of him to hit.

In states where hunter populations are large, public land is readily available and junior's excitement level could get the better of him (ie seeing a big ol deer but not seeing the hunter that is in direct line 100 yards away), its a recipe for a death. You may be willing to accept this potential in order to get your way, but I am not. 

As a parent who has sat with his son in a blind, unless you are looking through the same scope, directly in line with your son's line of sight, parallax angles create completely different views of the supposed target. The judgement call to pull the trigger rests solely on the operator of the gun, a 10 year old.

Two points of consideration enter this discussion. Is a ten year old mature enough to make life and death decisions, and is the parent really the best person to make this judgement when its an innocent third party potential victim that will pay the price for any mistakes made by the parent's judgement of his child?

I'll bet your kid is the best pitcher on his little league team, or is the Pop Warner quarterback, right?


----------



## Free Speech DB

> It ABSOLUTELY should be at the parents discresion. My son has been shooting since he was 4 years old. It is something we do every weekend. he isi now 9, and hunts with me regularly. he is different than many 9 year olds, some of which shouldn't be trusted with a squirt gun. I understand that, but this is a decision that the parents should make, not the state.


I love this part. You believe your child is safe because YOU taught him. YOU trust him; yet you immediately cite that your child is DIFFERENT than many other nine year olds, however you are willing to let the parent of one of these other nine year olds make the decision to replace the squirt gun with a .270 based upon THAT parent's assessment of his offsprings capabilities and maturity level. Beautiful. 

Based on your adament belief that Parents should make these decisions, I am assuming that you would have no problem with the Squirt Gun Kid being in the same woods with you and your child.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> Nevermind, It's pretty obvious that anything nugent stands for, you are opposed to. in this case, is your stance because of the man, or the idea of taking a child hunting?


Im not against everything Nugent stands for, just the stuff that makes me vomit.

His track record is about 50/50. Good message on staying away from drugs, good message on getting kids involved in hunting (guess who started Kamp for Kids?). Bad follow up on his Family Values message, bad interpretation of the United States Constitution with respect to the Bill of Rights, bad message on supporting security guards and other police type functions. Bad message on Freedom of Speech. He wins some, he loses more.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Cowpoke said:


> One might argue that there plenty of 16 and 17 year olds out there that should not be on the road, yet the state says that they are ready merely because of their age, as if that was a barometer of their maturity. Everyone develops at a different rate and parents are the only ones equipped enough make a maturity decision.



I am assuming then that you trust the Squirt Gun Kid's parental judgement also, right?


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> I agree here. The PARENTS are the ones who should decide when their child should be able to hunt. I began hunting in NY at age 12 for small game, wielding the good old .22 cal rimfire rifle. I was taught how to handle a firearm responsibly at age 8. In fact, this brings me to another thing. Firearms safety. Statistics gathered by the National Shooting SPorts Foundation clearly indicate that kids who are taught firearms safety are the safest, most responsible firearms handlers around. This carries over as adults.
> 
> This, as opposed to those following the government anti-gun fears, with the results being an unsafe, more likely to experience firearms accidents and commit crimes with firearms person.
> 
> Therefore, considering the fact that it is every American's right to keep and bear arms (2nd ammendment) everyone should be taught the responsible handling of firearms IN SCHOOL! We spend much time teaching about our right to Freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) and a plethora of other rights, but this one is ignored, and this is shameful. As American citizens, I would urge all of you to bring pressure on our government(s) to start pushing this forthwith. This is a RIGHT, and our children should all be taught the proper responsibilities that go along with the right as an American citizen.



Make that three votes for the Squirt Gun Kid's dad. As for teaching firearm safety in school, I support the Eddie Eagle Program. I think every child should be aware of the dangers that are inherent in the handling of a firearm. Even kids who dont have access to guns at home have the potential to run into them at their friend's houses. When horseplay with Daddy's pistol turns into a shooting incident, its because the kids didnt know the consequences of their actions are more permenent than what they see on the cop shows on TV. Familiarity is important. They should also be taught to use wooden fingers when using a table saw.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> After having taught hunter safety for "oh, lets say some 15 years now", the combination of a 10 year old maturity level with a 30.06 projectile (maturity as judged by an extremely biased PARENT) is a questionable call.
> 
> In states where there is little public land, and people hunt on extremely large private leases, and where hunter density is 2 per thousand acres, I can see your point; let junior pull the trigger... there is no human in front of him to hit.
> 
> In states where hunter populations are large, public land is readily available and junior's excitement level could get the better of him (ie seeing a big ol deer but not seeing the hunter that is in direct line 100 yards away), its a recipe for a death. You may be willing to accept this potential in order to get your way, but I am not.
> 
> As a parent who has sat with his son in a blind, unless you are looking through the same scope, directly in line with your son's line of sight, parallax angles create completely different views of the supposed target. The judgement call to pull the trigger rests solely on the operator of the gun, a 10 year old.
> 
> Two points of consideration enter this discussion. Is a ten year old mature enough to make life and death decisions, and is the parent really the best person to make this judgement when its an innocent third party potential victim that will pay the price for any mistakes made by the parent's judgement of his child?
> 
> I'll bet your kid is the best pitcher on his little league team, or is the Pop Warner quarterback, right?


This is why the decision should be made by the parent. Just like other decisions, like playing baseball, joining cub scouts, intramural activities enrollment, etc. 

But, to a degree, you are also correct. Many parents do not have the responsibility themselves. That is actually the crux of the matter. This stems from the generational malarky coming out of that wonderful 1960's Make Love, not War, express yourself, screw the system mentality. When you examine the history of this "evolution (or de-evolution)" of our society, the biggest issue people had wasn't with their rights or opportunities, it was about taking responsibility. You need look no further than the myriad of government programs geared at taking responsibility out of the parent's hands and into the government's hands. Standards were relaxeed in many areas due to believing in pyschobabble, to the point where the roots are disintegrating (public schools - 1950's - biggest problem was talking and chewing gum in class, today, kids killing or beating fellow students and faculty members.) Why is this happening? Pretty darned simple. Some parents do not take responsibility for their kids, and the kids are not taught about being responsible themselves.

I know this is an oversimplified explanation, as many other contributing factors exist. Howevr, this, IMO, is the foundation for all the issues.


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> This is why the decision should be made by the parent. Just like other decisions, like playing baseball, joining cub scouts, intramural activities enrollment, etc.
> 
> But, to a degree, you are also correct. Many parents do not have the responsibility themselves. That is actually the crux of the matter. This stems from the generational malarky coming out of that wonderful 1960's Make Love, not War, express yourself, screw the system mentality. When you examine the history of this "evolution (or de-evolution)" of our society, the biggest issue people had wasn't with their rights or opportunities, it was about taking responsibility. You need look no further than the myriad of government programs geared at taking responsibility out of the parent's hands and into the government's hands. Standards were relaxeed in many areas due to believing in pyschobabble, to the point where the roots are disintegrating (public schools - 1950's - biggest problem was talking and chewing gum in class, today, kids killing or beating fellow students and faculty members.) Why is this happening? Pretty darned simple. Some parents do not take responsibility for their kids, and the kids are not taught about being responsible themselves.
> 
> I know this is an oversimplified explanation, as many other contributing factors exist. Howevr, this, IMO, is the foundation for all the issues.



So Doc, realistically, you argue in your first paragraph for these life and death decisions to made by parents who, in your second paragraph are described as victims of the 60's psychobabble upbringing).

I strongly encourage parents to get their kids into hunting at an early age. Take them with you, teach them woodslore and animal habits. Let them shoot a shotgun (limited downrange lethality) and when they have reached a maturity level that is reasonable (14 years perhaps with direct hands on supervision) let them graduate into a rifle that can kill at 400 yards.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> So Doc, realistically, you argue in your first paragraph for these life and death decisions to made by parents who, in your second paragraph are described as victims of the 60's psychobabble upbringing).
> 
> I strongly encourage parents to get their kids into hunting at an early age. Take them with you, teach them woodslore and animal habits. Let them shoot a shotgun (limited downrange lethality) and when they have reached a maturity level that is reasonable (14 years perhaps with direct hands on supervision) let them graduate into a rifle that can kill at 400 yards.


Many courses (firearms/ marksmanship) use .22 cal rimfire as the primary firearm of instruction. I have witnessed this first hand through the Teen Shooting Academy initiatives here in WNY, where Boy Scouts are taught marksmanship at a local Rod & Gun Club. Ages of these kids range from 11 to 13.
Education is critical, and I believe the best environment for this teaching is through the Rod & Gun club involvement. Courses can be held at the facilities, and each parent gives consent for this schooling. Before any child takes to the woods for a hunt, they must demonstrate their knowledge and proficiency in handling a firearm with responsibility. Larger calibur rifles are not an issue in the hands of a youth, provided they have received the necessary instruction/ education, and prove through passing rigidly controlled tests measuring their understanding of the proper ways to handle firearms and the physical proficiency needed to fire an implement correctly and accurately. As I said, I witnessed this first hand here in NY, and wrote an article concerning this for various local publications.
Step one is firearms safety training and proficiency. Step two is taking to the field, with parent or qualified mentor. In the period between learning about being a responsible American citizen through safe and responsible handling of firearms and actually taking to the field, additional education regarding wildlife behavior, botany and woodsmanship should all be passed down from the older generations. I believe this is a big part of the NSSF "Families Afield" National campaign/ program.
I have no issues with States defining what calibur firearms youths may use afield. This is a State issue, and minors do not recveive the same rights under our laws as adults. The issue is when can a youth hunt big game. Here in NY, the age is 16 for firearms (shotguns), 14 for Big Game Archery hunting. In terms of small game, minimum age is 12 years, and these kids can use any firearm or even bow and arrow to hunt small game. From ages 12 - 15, kids must be accompanied by parent, relative or legal guardian and supervised afield throughout the hunt. The age of the guardian/ relative changes, depnding upon the age of the jr hunter. 12-13, supervisor must be a licensed hunter, age 21, and if a relative, must have written consent from parent/ legal guardian to take kid out hunting. Ages 14 -15, the age of the person supervising drops to 18, with same permissions in place.
ONce the child reaches 16, they are able to hunt alone, and to pursue big game as well, falling under all regulations that apply to adults. Caveat is that the hunter must be 16 at the time of purchasing a license, I believe.
The challenge is getting these kids with mentors afield. Rod & Gun clubs must develop a volunteer mentoring program to meet this need. And the laws need to be changed to include mentors (qualified) to take these kids afield, with the same permissions and requirements currently in place.


----------



## Cowpoke

Free Speech DB said:


> Make that three votes for the Squirt Gun Kid's dad. As for teaching firearm safety in school, I support the Eddie Eagle Program. I think every child should be aware of the dangers that are inherent in the handling of a firearm. Even kids who dont have access to guns at home have the potential to run into them at their friend's houses. When horseplay with Daddy's pistol turns into a shooting incident, its because the kids didnt know the consequences of their actions are more permenent than what they see on the cop shows on TV. Familiarity is important. They should also be taught to use wooden fingers when using a table saw.


I agree with this approach. Children definitely need to be instructed in the safety of firearms or any other weapon that is used to hunt with or that they may come into contact with. With the hunter safety program that is in place, we will see parents who were instructed in this program, pass this important messege on to their children who in turn will pass it as well. This is a perfect example of limited government roles in deciding when a child is ready to hunt.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> I love this part. You believe your child is safe because YOU taught him. YOU trust him; yet you immediately cite that your child is DIFFERENT than many other nine year olds, however you are willing to let the parent of one of these other nine year olds make the decision to replace the squirt gun with a .270 based upon THAT parent's assessment of his offsprings capabilities and maturity level. Beautiful.
> 
> Based on your adament belief that Parents should make these decisions, I am assuming that you would have no problem with the Squirt Gun Kid being in the same woods with you and your child.


I do believe my child is safe, and he is different than most 9 year olds. Why, because it is something I work with him almost on a daily basis. Not only did I teach him to handle firearms safely (probably safer than you do), he is also a member of the local gun club's junior program. not only does he get instruction from me, but also certified range masters, and instructors. 

The instruction from me never really stops. Even if we are driving around, I will "quiz" him~ "if there was a deer right there, would you shoot it?" and the answer is always immediate, and correct. If the answer is no, he will tell me why~ "horizon shots are bad, dad" or "if I missed, the bullet could [fill in the blank]." you obviously doubt my sons ability and responsibility. I can't say I blame you, as I don't trust other people in general during hunting season. I will hunt public land during archery deer season only, once general season starts, I will only hunt private property. Not because there are children out there, but because there are adults that have less responsibility than my child.

Now, here in the liberal state of california, I can't take my son for big game until he is 12. This bothers me, but it is the law, and that is something I am also teaching my son to respect. so we hunt squirrel, rabbit, quail, duck..and so on. If I am no longer able take him to hunt for small game because people with your point of view trying to save us from ourselves make it illegal, then I will have to decide whether or not it is worth it to me to break the laws I am trying to teach him to respect.

Finally, you brought up that a child can't be trusted to make a shot, even with the parent right there behind him. That is completely ridiculous. no, things may not look exactly the same looking through a scope, but just looking at an animal is pretty much the same as looking at one through iron sights. the shot is either safe, or unsafe, whether you are using a scope or not. it definetly falls on the parent to make sure the child is making the proper decision.

If we start excluding children from hunting now, it won't be long before the adult hunting population dives, and then where will we be. Check out the hunting scene in england, that will probably give you a good idea.


----------



## doctariAFC

bow weevil said:


> I do believe my child is safe, and he is different than most 9 year olds. Why, because it is something I work with him almost on a daily basis. Not only did I teach him to handle firearms safely (probably safer than you do), he is also a member of the local gun club's junior program. not only does he get instruction from me, but also certified range masters, and instructors.
> 
> The instruction from me never really stops. Even if we are driving around, I will "quiz" him~ "if there was a deer right there, would you shoot it?" and the answer is always immediate, and correct. If the answer is no, he will tell me why~ "horizon shots are bad, dad" or "if I missed, the bullet could [fill in the blank]." you obviously doubt my sons ability and responsibility. I can't say I blame you, as I don't trust other people in general during hunting season. I will hunt public land during archery deer season only, once general season starts, I will only hunt private property. Not because there are children out there, but because there are adults that have less responsibility than my child.
> 
> Now, here in the liberal state of california, I can't take my son for big game until he is 12. This bothers me, but it is the law, and that is something I am also teaching my son to respect. so we hunt squirrel, rabbit, quail, duck..and so on. If I am no longer able take him to hunt for small game because people with your point of view trying to save us from ourselves make it illegal, then I will have to decide whether or not it is worth it to me to break the laws I am trying to teach him to respect.
> 
> Finally, you brought up that a child can't be trusted to make a shot, even with the parent right there behind him. That is completely ridiculous. no, things may not look exactly the same looking through a scope, but just looking at an animal is pretty much the same as looking at one through iron sights. the shot is either safe, or unsafe, whether you are using a scope or not. it definetly falls on the parent to make sure the child is making the proper decision.
> 
> If we start excluding children from hunting now, it won't be long before the adult hunting population dives, and then where will we be. Check out the hunting scene in england, that will probably give you a good idea.


You don't have to look beyond our borders. Just look at New York. In 1996, 10% of all licensed hunters were between the ages of 12 and 15 (small game hunters.) In 2001, this figure dropped to ZERO %! In 2004, license sales declined 40% in Region 9 (WNY) which is one of the strongest regions for license sales in NYS. This year, license sales across the state for big game hunting dropped dramatically. LY we had an estimated 624,000 big game hunting licenses sold. TY, the estimates are under 600,000!!

You reap what you sow. You think California is bad, come on over to NY. But, we sportsmen are working to address the issues.


----------



## DwayneR

Hello FreeSpeech,

Quote:
It ABSOLUTELY should be at the parents discresion. My son has been shooting since he was 4 years old. It is something we do every weekend. he isi now 9, and hunts with me regularly. he is different than many 9 year olds, some of which shouldn't be trusted with a squirt gun. I understand that, but this is a decision that the parents should make, not the state. 


FS>>I love this part. You believe your child is safe because YOU taught him. YOU trust him; yet you immediately cite that your child is DIFFERENT than many other nine year olds, however you are willing to let the parent of one of these other nine year olds make the decision to replace the squirt gun with a .270 based upon THAT parent's assessment of his offsprings capabilities and maturity level. Beautiful. <<

And let me respond to your comment... with your words... here it goes..

I love this part, you believe the government knows your child so well, they can assign a age and maturity level to the child, because the government knows your child better than you. 

Government NEVER was built to tell us how to raise our children. It has no business in this arena. It is up to the parents to do such. Parents know best about their kids. I know 25 year olds, that shouldn't be behind a wheel of a car, yet the government knows best, right?

But I do agree with you, that some parents are "over confident", thinking their child is "perfect". But I would rather have a parent like this, than a government telling me how to raise my child, and what I can and cannot do with my child.

Dwayne


----------



## fatboy111

It's a parent right. I started hunting with my dad at age 6. If the kid is supervised, I have no problem with them being in the woods with a parent. Why does the gov't have to tell us how to parent? Because there are parents, that don't know how to parent. Hence, this is where the real problem lies.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> I'll bet your kid is the best pitcher on his little league team, or is the Pop Warner quarterback, right?


I just saw this.

not that it is really releavant to the topic, but no, he isn't the best pitcher on his team. He usually plays shortstop or third. His coaches seem to think he is good, but I think he needs to improve.

The fact is, I demand a lot from my son. I know what he is capable of, and anything less than his best effort is not acceptable. this goes with everything he is involved in. 

Would you like to know his report card grades, medical history, or anything else?


----------



## bry2476

I believe that we are missing the point. Why does the humane society care about the age of hunters? The animals will have a better chance of surviving if they are young hunters. They want to ban hunting!!!!!!!!! Simple as that. Check out this link and think about the next time you give money to them. I am glad the Nuge brought this to our attention. I actually thought about giving to them because of Katrina Lost Pets thing. Nothing ever for them.


http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/

Supervise your kids. Leave the governement out of the decision. This is why one day we will not able to hunt. Because hunters are not joined together and we have Libs like Free Speech that want everything controlled by the goverment. I started hunting at a young age and I turned out ok. What gets me is that these Libs don't want parents to know if there kid is having a abortion and wants to regulate hunting age. Get a life! Stay out of mine!


----------



## doctariAFC

bry2476 said:


> I believe that we are missing the point. Why does the humane society care about the age of hunters? The animals will have a better chance of surviving if they are young hunters. They want to ban hunting!!!!!!!!! Simple as that. Check out this link and think about the next time you give money to them. I am glad the Nuge brought this to our attention. I actually thought about giving to them because of Katrina Lost Pets thing. Nothing ever for them.
> 
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/
> 
> Supervise your kids. Leave the governement out of the decision. This is why one day we will not able to hunt. Because hunters are not joined together and we have Libs like Free Speech that want everything controlled by the goverment. I started hunting at a young age and I turned out ok. What gets me is that these Libs don't want parents to know if there kid is having a abortion and wants to regulate hunting age. Get a life! Stay out of mine!



Well stated, and right on the money! Government has a role, taking over as the parent for all children IS NOT ONE OF THEM!


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> Many courses (firearms/ marksmanship) use .22 cal rimfire as the primary firearm of instruction. I have witnessed this first hand through the Teen Shooting Academy initiatives here in WNY, where Boy Scouts are taught marksmanship at a local Rod & Gun Club. Ages of these kids range from 11 to 13.
> Education is critical, and I believe the best environment for this teaching is through the Rod & Gun club involvement. Courses can be held at the facilities, and each parent gives consent for this schooling. Before any child takes to the woods for a hunt, they must demonstrate their knowledge and proficiency in handling a firearm with responsibility. Larger calibur rifles are not an issue in the hands of a youth, provided they have received the necessary instruction/ education, and prove through passing rigidly controlled tests measuring their understanding of the proper ways to handle firearms and the physical proficiency needed to fire an implement correctly and accurately. As I said, I witnessed this first hand here in NY, and wrote an article concerning this for various local publications.
> Step one is firearms safety training and proficiency. Step two is taking to the field, with parent or qualified mentor. In the period between learning about being a responsible American citizen through safe and responsible handling of firearms and actually taking to the field, additional education regarding wildlife behavior, botany and woodsmanship should all be passed down from the older generations. I believe this is a big part of the NSSF "Families Afield" National campaign/ program.
> I have no issues with States defining what calibur firearms youths may use afield. This is a State issue, and minors do not recveive the same rights under our laws as adults. The issue is when can a youth hunt big game. Here in NY, the age is 16 for firearms (shotguns), 14 for Big Game Archery hunting. In terms of small game, minimum age is 12 years, and these kids can use any firearm or even bow and arrow to hunt small game. From ages 12 - 15, kids must be accompanied by parent, relative or legal guardian and supervised afield throughout the hunt. The age of the guardian/ relative changes, depnding upon the age of the jr hunter. 12-13, supervisor must be a licensed hunter, age 21, and if a relative, must have written consent from parent/ legal guardian to take kid out hunting. Ages 14 -15, the age of the person supervising drops to 18, with same permissions in place.
> ONce the child reaches 16, they are able to hunt alone, and to pursue big game as well, falling under all regulations that apply to adults. Caveat is that the hunter must be 16 at the time of purchasing a license, I believe.
> The challenge is getting these kids with mentors afield. Rod & Gun clubs must develop a volunteer mentoring program to meet this need. And the laws need to be changed to include mentors (qualified) to take these kids afield, with the same permissions and requirements currently in place.



This sounds like a very good initial approach to bringing children into the adult world of firearms. I also learned on .22 while in Cub Scouts. On a range, shooting at paper targets. Getting adults to assist with kids in the outdoors is a great thing. I have been involved in teaching these kinds of kids since 1990, at one time in connection with a famous loud mouth. I believe there is a big difference between rifle ranges and hunting public lands, though.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Cowpoke said:


> I agree with this approach. Children definitely need to be instructed in the safety of firearms or any other weapon that is used to hunt with or that they may come into contact with. With the hunter safety program that is in place, we will see parents who were instructed in this program, pass this important messege on to their children who in turn will pass it as well. This is a perfect example of limited government roles in deciding when a child is ready to hunt.


Parents pass along lots of knowledge, but in my teaching experience, many times they pass along information that is incorrect, mythical, or just plain dangerous.

I have found that a standardized, organized approach, with a written curriculum makes sure that all the bases are covered.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> I do believe my child is safe, and he is different than most 9 year olds. Why, because it is something I work with him almost on a daily basis. Not only did I teach him to handle firearms safely (probably safer than you do), he is also a member of the local gun club's junior program. not only does he get instruction from me, but also certified range masters, and instructors.
> 
> The instruction from me never really stops. Even if we are driving around, I will "quiz" him~ "if there was a deer right there, would you shoot it?" and the answer is always immediate, and correct. If the answer is no, he will tell me why~ "horizon shots are bad, dad" or "if I missed, the bullet could [fill in the blank]." you obviously doubt my sons ability and responsibility. I can't say I blame you, as I don't trust other people in general during hunting season. I will hunt public land during archery deer season only, once general season starts, I will only hunt private property. Not because there are children out there, but because there are adults that have less responsibility than my child.
> 
> Now, here in the liberal state of california, I can't take my son for big game until he is 12. This bothers me, but it is the law, and that is something I am also teaching my son to respect. so we hunt squirrel, rabbit, quail, duck..and so on. If I am no longer able take him to hunt for small game because people with your point of view trying to save us from ourselves make it illegal, then I will have to decide whether or not it is worth it to me to break the laws I am trying to teach him to respect.
> 
> Finally, you brought up that a child can't be trusted to make a shot, even with the parent right there behind him. That is completely ridiculous. no, things may not look exactly the same looking through a scope, but just looking at an animal is pretty much the same as looking at one through iron sights. the shot is either safe, or unsafe, whether you are using a scope or not. it definetly falls on the parent to make sure the child is making the proper decision.
> 
> If we start excluding children from hunting now, it won't be long before the adult hunting population dives, and then where will we be. Check out the hunting scene in england, that will probably give you a good idea.



Bow... you miss my point. I am not questioning YOUR child or YOUR intense instruction... I am questioning the average Joe Blow who casually decides HIS kid is ready. If we follow your plan to let every parent make that decision for themselves, Joe Blow and the Squirt Gun Kid are hunting next to you in the woods... opps... you vacate all public land when the potential Squirt Guns are afield, heading to PRIVATE land to continue your enjoyment of the hunt, leaving the rest of us public land hunters to suffer an unknown fate at the hands of kids WHO YOU WONT BE IN THE SAME COUNTY WITH... brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I dont understand why you cant take your son hunting with you in California. Are you saying that its illegal for you to take him afield, even just to accompany you? I think thats wrong.


----------



## ELKARCHER

bry2476 said:


> I believe that we are missing the point. Why does the humane society care about the age of hunters? The animals will have a better chance of surviving if they are young hunters. They want to ban hunting!!!!!!!!! Simple as that. Check out this link and think about the next time you give money to them. I am glad the Nuge brought this to our attention. I actually thought about giving to them because of Katrina Lost Pets thing. Nothing ever for them.
> 
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/
> 
> Supervise your kids. Leave the governement out of the decision. This is why one day we will not able to hunt. Because hunters are not joined together and we have Libs like Free Speech that want everything controlled by the goverment. I started hunting at a young age and I turned out ok. What gets me is that these Libs don't want parents to know if there kid is having a abortion and wants to regulate hunting age. Get a life! Stay out of mine!


GREAT POST!!!!


----------



## Free Speech DB

DwayneR said:


> Hello FreeSpeech,
> 
> Quote:
> It ABSOLUTELY should be at the parents discresion. My son has been shooting since he was 4 years old. It is something we do every weekend. he isi now 9, and hunts with me regularly. he is different than many 9 year olds, some of which shouldn't be trusted with a squirt gun. I understand that, but this is a decision that the parents should make, not the state.
> 
> 
> FS>>I love this part. You believe your child is safe because YOU taught him. YOU trust him; yet you immediately cite that your child is DIFFERENT than many other nine year olds, however you are willing to let the parent of one of these other nine year olds make the decision to replace the squirt gun with a .270 based upon THAT parent's assessment of his offsprings capabilities and maturity level. Beautiful. <<
> 
> And let me respond to your comment... with your words... here it goes..
> 
> I love this part, you believe the government knows your child so well, they can assign a age and maturity level to the child, because the government knows your child better than you.
> 
> Government NEVER was built to tell us how to raise our children. It has no business in this arena. It is up to the parents to do such. Parents know best about their kids. I know 25 year olds, that shouldn't be behind a wheel of a car, yet the government knows best, right?
> 
> But I do agree with you, that some parents are "over confident", thinking their child is "perfect". But I would rather have a parent like this, than a government telling me how to raise my child, and what I can and cannot do with my child.
> 
> Dwayne



Boy, you guys sure take liberties with what I write. I didnt say the government should raise our children.. I said that certain potentially lethal activities require a reasonable maturity level to protect the innocent third party. I dont expect that government to allow 12 year olds behind the wheel on the highway. I dont care if mommy and daddy allow junior to race on a private road at 90 mph, but in that environment, he can only kill himself, not me. Same with a rifle. MY safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment of YOUR child.

The government's role in hunter safety is one of providing a reasonable set of qualifications to be in place before a child takes a rifle afield. Hunter Safety courses are required in most places... yes I know.. a government intrusion, but it only serves to protect ME as I hunt the same public lands with the Squirt Gun Kid. Minimum age based on reasonable maturity levels is part of that safety net.

Its not about how soon you can take YOUR kid hunting... its about how safe is the third party innocent participant in the presence of the Squirt Gun Crowd.


----------



## Free Speech DB

fatboy111 said:


> It's a parent right. I started hunting with my dad at age 6. If the kid is supervised, I have no problem with them being in the woods with a parent. Why does the gov't have to tell us how to parent? Because there are parents, that don't know how to parent. Hence, this is where the real problem lies.


It is NOT the parent's right. ITs the State's responsibility to provide reasonable regulations for dangerous activities to protect innocent third parties from potentially faulty parental supervision.

You admit there are parents who dont know how to parent, yet you give them the right to put an .06 in junior's hands while YOU are in the same woods? Brave man, you are....


----------



## Free Speech DB

bry2476 said:


> I believe that we are missing the point. Why does the humane society care about the age of hunters? The animals will have a better chance of surviving if they are young hunters. They want to ban hunting!!!!!!!!! Simple as that. Check out this link and think about the next time you give money to them. I am glad the Nuge brought this to our attention. I actually thought about giving to them because of Katrina Lost Pets thing. Nothing ever for them.
> 
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/
> 
> Supervise your kids. Leave the governement out of the decision. This is why one day we will not able to hunt. Because hunters are not joined together and we have Libs like Free Speech that want everything controlled by the goverment. I started hunting at a young age and I turned out ok. What gets me is that these Libs don't want parents to know if there kid is having a abortion and wants to regulate hunting age. Get a life! Stay out of mine!



Disagreement with you on the reasonable age of gun toting children makes me a Lib? Your assessment is rather shallow, as is I believe your thought processes with respect to logical trains of thought. And before you cry about me calling your thinking cockeyed, you called me a LIB... expect me to return the comments.

You didnt know about the Humane Society ARists before Nugent tipped you off? Have you been living in a cave for the last 20 years?

You say "Get a life"... when in reality, I am just trying to protect mine, my wife's and my son's from the faulty parental decision makers that put the Squirt Gun Kid in the same woods with me and my family. How about that huh? A Lib like Free Speech actually hunts? How can that be? 

You wanna exchange deer biology notes next, Bry? Come on, it'll be fun.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> This sounds like a very good initial approach to bringing children into the adult world of firearms. I also learned on .22 while in Cub Scouts. On a range, shooting at paper targets. Getting adults to assist with kids in the outdoors is a great thing. I have been involved in teaching these kinds of kids since 1990, at one time in connection with a famous loud mouth. I believe there is a big difference between rifle ranges and hunting public lands, though.


Of course there is, but, under supervision, I would worry more about a kid getting shot by someone who has simply gone through the Hunter's Safety courses at age 18 than a kid who has been mentored properly at a young age making a mistake. This type of information has been compiled by the NSSF, and is very, very solid.
When we educate our kids properly, we win. The troubles start when we ignore our kids and the responsibilities they should learn, and when they opt to hunt, without proper training, being hunting tactics or shooting skills or safety, we have a more dangerous sport.
In order to get the mentoring programs up to speed in many States, leveraging the collective of the Conservation/ Rod & Gun Clubs, we must get the laws changed to permit a mentor to act as the supervisor in the field for these kids. As it stands right now, supervision must come from a parent, relative or legal guardian, and any of these must also be a hunter (hold a valid hunting license.) With club members, these folks typically have documentable (not all, but many) experience in the field, and may be better suited to teach youngsters in the field. Of course, this is up to the parents (as to allow their kids to participate in mentoring or not) but a mentor cannot take the kids afield unless they are related.
NY is pushing to have the big game hunting age lowered to 14 (firearms). Small game minimum age is 12, and the restrictions are in place (as mentioned in a previous post.) We truly need the mentoring program, as I believe all States do.


----------



## bry2476

Free Speech DB said:


> Disagreement with you on the reasonable age of gun toting children makes me a Lib? Your assessment is rather shallow, as is I believe your thought processes with respect to logical trains of thought. And before you cry about me calling your thinking cockeyed, you called me a LIB... expect me to return the comments.
> 
> You didnt know about the Humane Society ARists before Nugent tipped you off? Have you been living in a cave for the last 20 years?
> 
> You say "Get a life"... when in reality, I am just trying to protect mine, my wife's and my son's from the faulty parental decision makers that put the Squirt Gun Kid in the same woods with me and my family. How about that huh? A Lib like Free Speech actually hunts? How can that be?
> 
> You wanna exchange deer biology notes next, Bry? Come on, it'll be fun.


No what makes you a Lib is that you want the government to control what everyone does. Eventually we may lose our hunting rights if people like you keep giving away our freedoms. I think that children should be supervised with guns and that the parents should be the one to choose. Just like young people driving a car, parents should determine if they are mature enough to drive. Sixteen is a age that the government has determined and we have to obey the law. Thats the way it is. Also I am sure that parents have made bad decisions with their kids about letting them loose with a gun. Thats part of life. But give the government more control over my children is not the way to go. We should be preaching responsibility not more government regulation. 

This humane society nut is trying to find another way to stop hunting and arguing about the age is another way to divide and conquer hunting. As far as the Humane Society being against hunting, they have always been for ethical treatment of animals and I was fooled by there marketing just like countless millions of other people have. I have always known that PETA is a enemy and didn't think about them. I guess that one day I will be as smart as you.

I am not sure how you are protecting your wife and children. You better build a concrete, bullet proof, and bomb proof bunker for them, because in this day and age if all have to worry about is a 10 year old hunting in the woods then I feel lucky.

I am not sure about the biology notes comment, I guess if you are a expert at it then congrats. I guess I will pick something out and claim to be a expert at it.

PS I may not have a logical train of thought, but others like my post, thats all I need


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> Bow... you miss my point. I am not questioning YOUR child or YOUR intense instruction... *I think you were, reread your posts, the one starting "I love this part", and the one "I'll bet your kid is blah blah blah...*I am questioning the average Joe Blow who casually decides HIS kid is ready. If we follow your plan to let every parent make that decision for themselves, Joe Blow and the Squirt Gun Kid are hunting next to you in the woods... opps... you vacate all public land when the potential Squirt Guns are afield, heading to PRIVATE land to continue your enjoyment of the hunt, leaving the rest of us public land hunters to suffer an unknown fate at the hands of kids WHO YOU WONT BE IN THE SAME COUNTY WITH... brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
> 
> I dont understand why you cant take your son hunting with you in California. Are you saying that its illegal for you to take him afield, even just to accompany you? I think thats wrong.


I don't miss your point. If this was put into effect, I would loose the right to take my kid hunting. Sure, he could accompany me, but I take him hunting so he can hunt. Usually I don't even bring a gun for myself. Its time for him. And again, I don't vacate land because of kids in the forest, I vacate the area for the adults in the forest. banning kids from hunting will have no effect on this. Kids already can't hunt large game in CA until they are 12.

The only thing that would make public land safer is a stricter hunters saftey program. any moron can pass the hunters saftey course as it sits. I would have absolutely no problem making it even a semester long community college type class. It should include field time, range time, and classroom time. That would make more sense than a blanket ban on involving the youth in our way of life.


----------



## vermonster13

A simple thought, how many hunter related deathes do you hear about involving children? if child is capable of passing the hunter safety course and has proper supervision it has been my experience that they are safer to hunt with than many oldtimers I have known. They are concerned about what they are doing and careful not to make any mistakes. Age laws diminish hunter recruitment and that is a sure slow death for the sport.


----------



## Free Speech DB

vermonster13 said:


> A simple thought, how many hunter related deathes do you hear about involving children? if child is capable of passing the hunter safety course and has proper supervision it has been my experience that they are safer to hunt with than many oldtimers I have known. They are concerned about what they are doing and careful not to make any mistakes. Age laws diminish hunter recruitment and that is a sure slow death for the sport.


In Michigan, last year, a very young hunter who had taken hunter safety was hunting on his parents property and killed himself with his gun while climbing into his tree stand.

Very sad.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> In Michigan, last year, a very young hunter who had taken hunter safety was hunting on his parents property and killed himself with his gun while climbing into his tree stand.
> 
> Very sad.


Indeed, and if his father (or mother) were supervising him, I am sure the gun would have been unloaded prior to him starting up the steps. 

don't get me wrong DB, I will never be an advocate for children hunting alone with no supervision. Heck, I don't even hunt alone (I would hate to die out in the forest because I broke something and couldn't get any help). Supervision is key, and it has to be taken seriously. Thats why I have no problem with increasing education exponentially before allowing someone to get thier hunting license. If the course is hard enough to keep some people from passing the first, or even maybe a few times, but it is passed by a pre-teen, why shouldn't he be able to go on supervised hunts?


-=edit, I don't think vermonster was saying that children have never been behind any hunting accidents, he was pointing out that the number is incredibly low.=-


----------



## vermonster13

Supervision and no one should be climbing into a stand with a gun loaded or otherwise. It doesn't needed to be loaded to kill yourself on, a gun barrel can impale you as quick as an arrow in a fall. They should be using a double ladder stand anyways if the child is going to be in one, they shouldn't be in it alone.


----------



## Free Speech DB

The principle I am arguing here is the suggestion that ANY parent is MORE astute at determining when a 10 year old can operate a lethal weapon woods than is a State sponsored, standardized procedure of hunting safety instruction coupled with reasonable limits on minimum age and maturity acquistion.

In almost every argument, it has been pointed out that THEIR kid has been taught from birth (or slightly later  ) and is DIFFERENT than other kids, who's parents are really drugged out 60's dolts and that many of them shouldnt be trusted with squirt guns; yet they rail against government intrusions into their lives and would rather take the chance that the Squirt Gun Kid wont be shooting in their direction on Opening Morning.

You dont have to put a rifle in your ten year old's hands in order to take him hunting. Young kids are excited just to go. There is plently of time for them to gain maturity and learn how to use a weapon. It is not unreasonable, (especially in states with high populations of hunters on public land) to expect the State to set some "minimum" requirements for age.

By all means, get kids started in Cub Scout programs at rifle ranges with .22's (guns that wont knock them over when the sear breaks). In fact... many flinching problems are associated with overpowering the user. Do you want to traumatize your kid by slamming his shoulder with an .06? (just kidding.. I know this is a psycho-babble free zone  )

Let them work their way into rifles by taking them small game hunting with small bore shotguns. The bird shot is not lethal at 100 yards, is it?

There are plenty of ways to take a kid hunting that doesnt involve a high powered rifle.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> Indeed, and if his father (or mother) were supervising him, I am sure the gun would have been unloaded prior to him starting up the steps.
> 
> don't get me wrong DB, I will never be an advocate for children hunting alone with no supervision. Heck, I don't even hunt alone (I would hate to die out in the forest because I broke something and couldn't get any help). Supervision is key, and it has to be taken seriously. Thats why I have no problem with increasing education exponentially before allowing someone to get thier hunting license. If the course is hard enough to keep some people from passing the first, or even maybe a few times, but it is passed by a pre-teen, why shouldn't he be able to go on supervised hunts?
> 
> 
> -=edit, I don't think vermonster was saying that children have never been behind any hunting accidents, he was pointing out that the number is incredibly low.=-



Perhaps, perhaps not. I was just citing an example of a young kid dying in response to a question. Did this kid have the maturity level to make the correct decision? Apparently not. The ultimate responsibility is one of individual decision, not secondary parental guidence.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> Perhaps, perhaps not. I was just citing an example of a young kid dying in response to a question. Did this kid have the maturity level to make the correct decision? Apparently not. The ultimate responsibility is one of individual decision, not secondary parental guidence.


Ok, now we're speculating as to the maturity level of the kid. This is not a maturity issue (killing oneself because you're climbing into a treestand with a loaded gun), this is an education/ reinforcement issue. Many adults do the same thing. Are these adults immature as well? The real issue is education and reinforcement. Kids that are taught at a young age about firearms safety AND handling are far less likely to do stupid stuff, but it does not preclude stupidity, even in adults. If the kid has a parent to reinforce the education received, these accidents do not happen. If the parent is not a hunter, but allows the kid to hunt, a mentor would perform the reinforcement. This must be done.
Hunting is more than firearms safety, and you need some good hunters to pass on the safety of hunting at an early age through supervised hunting. Whether its age 10 or 12 makes little difference. Its the mentor and the quality of instruction provided to the child. Trying to determine the maturity of a child is way too subjective. SOme 10 year olds are more mature than some 17 year olds. I know some 14 year olds that are more mature than 30 year olds. Government cannot define this uniformly, no matter what we want to believe. Rather, the issue is education and reinforcement, and this comes from solid mentoring. But the choice for a child to hunt is up to the parents, not the government.
You know, a child in NYS can operate a boat, solo, at age 14 (provided they take the boaters safety course.) It was 10, but, with the increase of PWC, laws were just changed. This was not done on account of kids being stupid. It was done on account of more stupid adults on the water, posing a serious risk to children operating boats. Protect the kids from the ******ed adults. I came out against this, as most accidents are caused by adults, not kids, and the % of kids on the water solo is insignificant when compared to the whole. But it felt good. Symbolism over substance. AGain, the issue here is education and reinforcement, not the age of the kid, necessarily.


----------



## fatboy111

The parent does have a right. If the kid hunts WITH a parent on private ground, so be it. Make it mandatory that after age 11 they must have a hunter safety permit. Getting them involved in hunting at an early age is not a problem-keep it supervised on private grounds. I don't have a problem with young kids being in the woods. I can think of alot of other things kids do at an early age that I would be much more concerned about.


----------



## doctariAFC

fatboy111 said:


> The parent does have a right. If the kid hunts WITH a parent on private ground, so be it. Make it mandatory that after age 11 they must have a hunter safety permit. Getting them involved in hunting at an early age is not a problem-keep it supervised on private grounds. I don't have a problem with young kids being in the woods. I can think of alot of other things kids do at an early age that I would be much more concerned about.


Yes indeed, but I wouldn't necessarily limit this to private grounds olny. Supervised in public, private or any other classification of lands for kids under the age of 16. Once they hit 16, and have held a license for at least a year, they can head to their own spot. Before that age, you must hunt with your supervisor, right next to them in the stand.


----------



## DwayneR

Hello Free Speech,

FS>>Boy, you guys sure take liberties with what I write. I didnt say the government should raise our children..<<

I am afraid that you are saying just this. *anytime* you avocate the government telling people that they cannot do things with their kids, that *was* a God given right when this country was formed, is exactly that. It has only been in the last century, that Anti-hunters, Anti-weapon, and Socialists have eroded our freedom to hunt and pass laws that slowly erode our freedoms away. Prohibition started in the 1860's... with a Christian movement by the WTC group. It took 60 years before the 18th amendment... It took another 10 years before the 21st.

Government was NOT made to raise our children. It was NOT made to tell parents what they can and cannot do with their children. For me to have government say "Your child is not old enough to hunt" is ludicrous. 

FS>> I said that certain potentially lethal activities require a reasonable maturity level to protect the innocent third party.<<

What makes you think the government knows how mature your child is by age? When you allow the government to point fingers by age, that has nothing to do with maturity level.... It is about socialism and government controlling people.

FS>> I dont expect that government to allow 12 year olds behind the wheel on the highway.<< 

I don't expect that either... Driving is a privilage that is earned. It is necessity that most everyone must have, in order to survive nowadays. Not only do drivers endanger 1000's and 1000's of people every day, but it is a necessity. Hunting does not endanger 1000's at all. It is a way in which there are *NO* "split decisions" that makes the difference between life and death of you and I. Driving, you are passing vehicles only a few feet away, and every second is life and death. 

Free Speech>>I dont care if mommy and daddy allow junior to race on a private road at 90 mph, but in that environment, he can only kill himself, not me. Same with a rifle. MY safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment of YOUR child.<<

Think about this FS, My safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment OR the GOVERNMENTS assessment of YOUR child. Maybe your child shouldnt be behind the wheel at all... for my safety's sake. I am only taking your arguement at applying it back. If you think I am crazy with this aruguement, then call the insurance people and ask what the highest rate of accidents accure in what age group... Then tell me how safe I am to have Government or you saying your child is safe on the road. Its a delimma... We both know it...

FS>>The government's role in hunter safety is one of providing a reasonable set of qualifications to be in place before a child takes a rifle afield.<<

<chuckle> the governments role had NOTHING to do with hunters safety. It was an organization who is trying its best to fight off Anti-hunters, Anti-weapon, PETA, and other socialist organizations that do their best to outlaw everything that deals with hunting and guns. NRA had lots to do with it... To attempt to ward off and appease (to some degree) these kinds of people. It is working for now...But it is also slowly losing ground. And yes, the courses have helped to some extent.

FS>>Its not about how soon you can take YOUR kid hunting... its about how safe is the third party innocent participant in the presence of the Squirt Gun Crowd.<<

I agree with you here. But I don't think it has anything to do with age...

Dwayne


----------



## bow weevil

DB,
correct me if I am wrong, but this is not about wether the kid is hunting with a 30-06 or a .410. you keep going back to the deer rifles, and I don't think this is what this is about. this will remove my childs ability to hunt quail and ducks, along with other small game. I have already pointed out that here in CA, he can't hunt large game until he is 12.

My son doesn't go hunting with me to watch me hunt, he goes to hunt. It is something he looks forward to every day. is it right to remove my sons ability to do something he enjoys because there are irresponsible parents out there? No, it isn't. the solution lies in educating the irresponsible parents. Chipping away at our hunting rights will only end in one scenario. completely loosing the right to hunt.

And you keep getting back to the state doing a better job determining our childrens maturity levels. Its still a bunch of crap. If someones child is not mature enough, they need to leave the childs firearm at home, if he is, by all means, get the kid out there and teach him. The state has absolutely no clue of individual childrens personallity traits.

When you can show me on that a supervised 9 year old is more likely to make a mistake than an adult that got his hunting license for the first time two weeks before opening day, maybe I will budge a little, but the fact is, its not going to happen, unless you dig up some PETArd propaganda that is neither based on logic or fact.


----------



## fatboy111

Kids should be able to hunt WITH a parent on private land. I don't have a problem with a child hunting with a parent regardless of age. Accidents are always going to happen, even if they have had hunter safety. I know of several people who have been shot by adults, who by the way, did have a hunter safety certificate. It still boils down to being taught how to be reponsible and knowing your surroundings-bottom line, and no amount of hunter safety will teach that!


----------



## bow weevil

fatboy111 said:


> Kids should be able to hunt WITH a parent on private land. I don't have a problem with a child hunting with a parent regardless of age. Accidents are always going to happen, even if they have had hunter safety. I know of several people who have been shot by adults, who by the way, did have a hunter safety certificate. It still boils down to being taught how to be reponsible and knowing your surroundings-bottom line, and no amount of hunter safety will teach that!


Why would you wan't to limit children to hunting on private land?


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> Ok, now we're speculating as to the maturity level of the kid. This is not a maturity issue (killing oneself because you're climbing into a treestand with a loaded gun), this is an education/ reinforcement issue. Many adults do the same thing. Are these adults immature as well? The real issue is education and reinforcement. Kids that are taught at a young age about firearms safety AND handling are far less likely to do stupid stuff, but it does not preclude stupidity, even in adults. If the kid has a parent to reinforce the education received, these accidents do not happen. If the parent is not a hunter, but allows the kid to hunt, a mentor would perform the reinforcement. This must be done.
> Hunting is more than firearms safety, and you need some good hunters to pass on the safety of hunting at an early age through supervised hunting. Whether its age 10 or 12 makes little difference. Its the mentor and the quality of instruction provided to the child. Trying to determine the maturity of a child is way too subjective. SOme 10 year olds are more mature than some 17 year olds. I know some 14 year olds that are more mature than 30 year olds. Government cannot define this uniformly, no matter what we want to believe. Rather, the issue is education and reinforcement, and this comes from solid mentoring. But the choice for a child to hunt is up to the parents, not the government.
> You know, a child in NYS can operate a boat, solo, at age 14 (provided they take the boaters safety course.) It was 10, but, with the increase of PWC, laws were just changed. This was not done on account of kids being stupid. It was done on account of more stupid adults on the water, posing a serious risk to children operating boats. Protect the kids from the ******ed adults. I came out against this, as most accidents are caused by adults, not kids, and the % of kids on the water solo is insignificant when compared to the whole. But it felt good. Symbolism over substance. AGain, the issue here is education and reinforcement, not the age of the kid, necessarily.



I agree that education and reinforcement are sound methods of teaching a child to hunt safely. The question becomes, how do you determine that a child has been educated and reinforced "enough" to demostrate that he has been ingrained with the lessons that will protect ME from him?

So far, in this discussion, I have seen almost all of you leave this "enough" question in the hands of the parent. How do any of you know HOW RIGOROUS the Squirt Gun Kid's dad is going to be in this "education and reinforcement"? What if SGK's dad just says... show me how to load the rifle, show me that you know where the safety is, show me how you dont point the gun at me.... and leaves it at that? You have just abdicated the responsibility for your safety (in the name of minimum government intrusion on your lives). You would rather let a lame parent decide his kid is ready than to allow for a small amount of reasonable standards to be set by the state. 

I am continually amazed at this paranoia over common sense regulation setting.


----------



## Free Speech DB

fatboy111 said:


> The parent does have a right. If the kid hunts WITH a parent on private ground, so be it. Make it mandatory that after age 11 they must have a hunter safety permit. Getting them involved in hunting at an early age is not a problem-keep it supervised on private grounds. I don't have a problem with young kids being in the woods. I can think of alot of other things kids do at an early age that I would be much more concerned about.


So, you would allow an 8 year old to hunt without taking a safety course, but as soon as they are old enough to comprehend the text of the Hunter Safety course, it should then be mandatory? 

There are no firewalls that keep bullets from traversing private ground to public ground. Bullets dont pay attention to fences.


----------



## Free Speech DB

DwayneR said:


> Hello Free Speech,
> 
> FS>>Boy, you guys sure take liberties with what I write. I didnt say the government should raise our children..<<
> 
> I am afraid that you are saying just this. *anytime* you avocate the government telling people that they cannot do things with their kids, that *was* a God given right when this country was formed, is exactly that. It has only been in the last century, that Anti-hunters, Anti-weapon, and Socialists have eroded our freedom to hunt and pass laws that slowly erode our freedoms away. Prohibition started in the 1860's... with a Christian movement by the WTC group. It took 60 years before the 18th amendment... It took another 10 years before the 21st.
> 
> Government was NOT made to raise our children. It was NOT made to tell parents what they can and cannot do with their children. For me to have government say "Your child is not old enough to hunt" is ludicrous.
> 
> FS>> I said that certain potentially lethal activities require a reasonable maturity level to protect the innocent third party.<<
> 
> What makes you think the government knows how mature your child is by age? When you allow the government to point fingers by age, that has nothing to do with maturity level.... It is about socialism and government controlling people.
> 
> FS>> I dont expect that government to allow 12 year olds behind the wheel on the highway.<<
> 
> I don't expect that either... Driving is a privilage that is earned. It is necessity that most everyone must have, in order to survive nowadays. Not only do drivers endanger 1000's and 1000's of people every day, but it is a necessity. Hunting does not endanger 1000's at all. It is a way in which there are *NO* "split decisions" that makes the difference between life and death of you and I. Driving, you are passing vehicles only a few feet away, and every second is life and death.
> 
> Free Speech>>I dont care if mommy and daddy allow junior to race on a private road at 90 mph, but in that environment, he can only kill himself, not me. Same with a rifle. MY safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment of YOUR child.<<
> 
> Think about this FS, My safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment OR the GOVERNMENTS assessment of YOUR child. Maybe your child shouldnt be behind the wheel at all... for my safety's sake. I am only taking your arguement at applying it back. If you think I am crazy with this aruguement, then call the insurance people and ask what the highest rate of accidents accure in what age group... Then tell me how safe I am to have Government or you saying your child is safe on the road. Its a delimma... We both know it...
> 
> FS>>The government's role in hunter safety is one of providing a reasonable set of qualifications to be in place before a child takes a rifle afield.<<
> 
> <chuckle> the governments role had NOTHING to do with hunters safety. It was an organization who is trying its best to fight off Anti-hunters, Anti-weapon, PETA, and other socialist organizations that do their best to outlaw everything that deals with hunting and guns. NRA had lots to do with it... To attempt to ward off and appease (to some degree) these kinds of people. It is working for now...But it is also slowly losing ground. And yes, the courses have helped to some extent.
> 
> FS>>Its not about how soon you can take YOUR kid hunting... its about how safe is the third party innocent participant in the presence of the Squirt Gun Crowd.<<
> 
> I agree with you here. But I don't think it has anything to do with age...
> 
> Dwayne



It was in the early 20th century that SPORTSMEN demanded rules and regulations be placed on hunting in order to protect sport hunting from market hunters that decimated animal populations. Careful with your history there Dwayne... it was a necessary thing to do, regulations by the state, at the request of hunters. And you blame it on socialists and anti hunters.

The government has no idea how mature my child is, nor do I have any idea how mature YOUR child is, and the Squirt Gun Kid's dad doesnt really care how mature any child is (he's probably drunk somewheres, anyway). The question becomes..

How do we maintain a reasonable set of standards when deciding how old is old enough to carry a lethal weapon in a woods that is being used by me, you and the Squirt Gun Kid? Or are you just against ANY government regulations? Be honest. You dont like any rules, do you? They have a word for that, its called Anarchy.

When a 10 year old pulls a trigger... a split decision is being made.. one that is every bit as lethal as an automobile at 70 mph.

You wrote this..."Think about this FS, My safety should not be dependent upon YOUR assessment OR the GOVERNMENTS assessment of YOUR child. Maybe your child shouldnt be behind the wheel at all.."

Bingo... and my safety should not be dependant upon YOUR assessment of your kid.... we agree.. although I know you wont see it that way.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> DB,
> correct me if I am wrong, but this is not about wether the kid is hunting with a 30-06 or a .410. you keep going back to the deer rifles, and I don't think this is what this is about. this will remove my childs ability to hunt quail and ducks, along with other small game. I have already pointed out that here in CA, he can't hunt large game until he is 12.
> 
> My son doesn't go hunting with me to watch me hunt, he goes to hunt. It is something he looks forward to every day. is it right to remove my sons ability to do something he enjoys because there are irresponsible parents out there? No, it isn't. the solution lies in educating the irresponsible parents. Chipping away at our hunting rights will only end in one scenario. completely loosing the right to hunt.
> 
> And you keep getting back to the state doing a better job determining our childrens maturity levels. Its still a bunch of crap. If someones child is not mature enough, they need to leave the childs firearm at home, if he is, by all means, get the kid out there and teach him. The state has absolutely no clue of individual childrens personallity traits.
> 
> When you can show me on that a supervised 9 year old is more likely to make a mistake than an adult that got his hunting license for the first time two weeks before opening day, maybe I will budge a little, but the fact is, its not going to happen, unless you dig up some PETArd propaganda that is neither based on logic or fact.



Bow.. for me.. it has everything to do with Deer rifles... thats my focus. Long lethality. If you are talking about shotguns with bird shot, weapons with limited lethal range, I have no problem with younger kids using them with adult supervision.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> I agree that education and reinforcement are sound methods of teaching a child to hunt safely. The question becomes, how do you determine that a child has been educated and reinforced "enough" to demostrate that he has been ingrained with the lessons that will protect ME from him?
> 
> So far, in this discussion, I have seen almost all of you leave this "enough" question in the hands of the parent. How do any of you know HOW RIGOROUS the Squirt Gun Kid's dad is going to be in this "education and reinforcement"? What if SGK's dad just says... show me how to load the rifle, show me that you know where the safety is, show me how you dont point the gun at me.... and leaves it at that? You have just abdicated the responsibility for your safety (in the name of minimum government intrusion on your lives). You would rather let a lame parent decide his kid is ready than to allow for a small amount of reasonable standards to be set by the state.
> 
> I am continually amazed at this paranoia over common sense regulation setting.


Well, ok, to that end, let's examine the question another way. Right now, according to most State laws, any person over the age of 16, or 18, who takes a hunter's safety course, completes the course, and gets their certificate can hop into the woods the next day and legally hunt. Does this make the hunter a safe hunter? After all, he or she has completed the Hunter's Safety program, just like a kid would have to as well, right?

Now, in many States, the requirement to get a hunting license is you prove you have taken a course. Not that you learned anything, or apply the course material properly in the field. Just that you have taken the course. This, again, is not a kid issue, or a maturity issue. Perhaps some feel more comfortable knowing the unsafe person is over the age of 18, as if that gives all the security in the world. Yet, when just about every State demands that kids under the age of 16 hunt with a supervising parent or guardian (cannot be in the stand alone), and that these kids who start early get the lessons repeatedly over their time in the woods as a junior hunter, I would certainly feel far more comfortable with that scenario than the proverbial "Joey" who takes the course, buys a gun and gets his or her license. Wouldn't you???

I do not believe what Nugent said was let the kids run rampant on their own through the woods. He was addressing the minimim ages in States such as NY and others, where you cannot hunt big game with a firearm until you reach your 16th B-day. No option for supervised or mentored hunting. Its 16 and that's that. The first year you have your license, you must be supervised, but if you got your small game license at age 15, then got the BG license at 16, you can have at it.

Again, like I have stated before, the model to get kids into the sport of hunting, as a safe and ethical participant, must involve young age introduction, and education and reinforcement through mentoring and other firearms/ bow safety courses while they are young, before they develop too many bad habits, which many adults seem afflicted with.

But, in terms of a government telling the parents when the kid can hunt, I just do not get it. I can see the government telling parents that in order for your kid to hunt, they must be supervised until a specific age. Mentoring also should become part of the equation, and this should already be happening with parents who hunt. After all, mentoring could be another word for passing down the traditions of hunting, right?

Does this make sense??


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> Well, ok, to that end, let's examine the question another way. Right now, according to most State laws, any person over the age of 16, or 18, who takes a hunter's safety course, completes the course, and gets their certificate can hop into the woods the next day and legally hunt. Does this make the hunter a safe hunter? After all, he or she has completed the Hunter's Safety program, just like a kid would have to as well, right?
> 
> Now, in many States, the requirement to get a hunting license is you prove you have taken a course. Not that you learned anything, or apply the course material properly in the field. Just that you have taken the course. This, again, is not a kid issue, or a maturity issue. Perhaps some feel more comfortable knowing the unsafe person is over the age of 18, as if that gives all the security in the world. Yet, when just about every State demands that kids under the age of 16 hunt with a supervising parent or guardian (cannot be in the stand alone), and that these kids who start early get the lessons repeatedly over their time in the woods as a junior hunter, I would certainly feel far more comfortable with that scenario than the proverbial "Joey" who takes the course, buys a gun and gets his or her license. Wouldn't you???
> 
> I do not believe what Nugent said was let the kids run rampant on their own through the woods. He was addressing the minimim ages in States such as NY and others, where you cannot hunt big game with a firearm until you reach your 16th B-day. No option for supervised or mentored hunting. Its 16 and that's that. The first year you have your license, you must be supervised, but if you got your small game license at age 15, then got the BG license at 16, you can have at it.
> 
> Again, like I have stated before, the model to get kids into the sport of hunting, as a safe and ethical participant, must involve young age introduction, and education and reinforcement through mentoring and other firearms/ bow safety courses while they are young, before they develop too many bad habits, which many adults seem afflicted with.
> 
> But, in terms of a government telling the parents when the kid can hunt, I just do not get it. I can see the government telling parents that in order for your kid to hunt, they must be supervised until a specific age. Mentoring also should become part of the equation, and this should already be happening with parents who hunt. After all, mentoring could be another word for passing down the traditions of hunting, right?
> 
> Does this make sense??




Doc,

You are making the "most" sense of anyone else here, but you throw the red herring of 18 year olds with little experience into the mix. By doing that, you are essentially stating that there is really no difference between the maturity levels of 10 year olds, 18 years olds, or 25 year old (yahoos). We all know that this is not true.

Everyone recognizes a minimum "age of accountablity" with respect to kids. They need to grow beyond their Seseme Street years.. I admit that "some" kids do this sooner than others, but we cannot make laws that apply to ALL kids by using the superior ones as the example, can we?

Hunter Safety programs have proven to drastically reduce the number of hunter caused firearms accidents. Any program is better than NO program, and the STATES are the ones that implemented the requirement. Dozens of lives were lost each year in Michigan until this program went into effect... now the occurance rate is quite minimal... a handful, maybe.. some years one or none.

I am quite familiar with Nugent's position on this issue. He advocates NO AGE LIMIT anywhere. He is extreme and he is foolhardy, imo.

I encourage you to keep working on your model to bring children into the hunting world safely. I appauld your efforts and agree with your approach.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> Bow.. for me.. it has everything to do with Deer rifles... thats my focus. Long lethality. If you are talking about shotguns with bird shot, weapons with limited lethal range, I have no problem with younger kids using them with adult supervision.


is that how the law will be written? or are you willing to ban every child shooting a .410 or .22 just to remove the chance of someone shooting a .270?


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> is that how the law will be written? or are you willing to ban every child shooting a .410 or .22 just to remove the chance of someone shooting a .270?


I have no idea what law you are talking about. I am talking in generalities about the abilites of children with respect to long range centerfire rifles.

If legislation is afoot in your area, it is quite easy, and quite reasonable to address your issue by using language that recognizes the difference between center fire rifles and rim fire rifles or shotguns using pellets.

My concern is to maintain a reasonable minimum age where long range, centerfire rifles are used by children.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> I have no idea what law you are talking about. I am talking in generalities about the abilites of children with respect to long range centerfire rifles.
> centerfire rifles are used by children.


This whole topic came about due to people lobbying for a minimum hunting age. A minimum hunting age will certainly take my son out of the woods as I am sure there will be nothing specifying the difference between centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, and shotguns. does it matter if it is here in this state, or way over in yours? 

taking kids out of the woods is just as big a travesty no matter what state it is in.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> This whole topic came about due to people lobbying for a minimum hunting age. A minimum hunting age will certainly take my son out of the woods as I am sure there will be nothing specifying the difference between centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, and shotguns. does it matter if it is here in this state, or way over in yours?
> 
> taking kids out of the woods is just as big a travesty no matter what state it is in.


I advocate to maintain the status quo in Michigan... kids can hunt with a rifle with supervision when they are 14. Some here, like the Nuge crowd, are lobbying to have this minimum age reduced.

If I were in your state, I would be asking my legislators to make a distinction between centerfire weapons and other guns with respect to hunting ages. If you dont speak up, no one else will either. Good luck to you and your son.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> Doc,
> 
> You are making the "most" sense of anyone else here, but you throw the red herring of 18 year olds with little experience into the mix. By doing that, you are essentially stating that there is really no difference between the maturity levels of 10 year olds, 18 years olds, or 25 year old (yahoos). We all know that this is not true.
> 
> Everyone recognizes a minimum "age of accountablity" with respect to kids. They need to grow beyond their Seseme Street years.. I admit that "some" kids do this sooner than others, but we cannot make laws that apply to ALL kids by using the superior ones as the example, can we?
> 
> Hunter Safety programs have proven to drastically reduce the number of hunter caused firearms accidents. Any program is better than NO program, and the STATES are the ones that implemented the requirement. Dozens of lives were lost each year in Michigan until this program went into effect... now the occurance rate is quite minimal... a handful, maybe.. some years one or none.
> 
> I am quite familiar with Nugent's position on this issue. He advocates NO AGE LIMIT anywhere. He is extreme and he is foolhardy, imo.
> 
> I encourage you to keep working on your model to bring children into the hunting world safely. I appauld your efforts and agree with your approach.


Thanks, FreeSpeech, and I do believe that unrestricted kiddies in the woods is not the brightest idea to come down the pike. However, I would favor the age limit reductions, provided a mentoring program with supervision is implemented. Experience and practice makes a hunter safe, not necessarily age. Safety has nothing to do with age. We have heard the stories of those wonderful 4 year olds who have saved their parents' lives by calling 911. Some older folks have a hard time doing that, despite having a cell phone on them. This is not a maturity thing, it is an education/ reinforcement thing. 

However, I am completely with you regarding pushing safety, and considering the NSSF studies indicating that kids who are properly trained in firearms safety (not hunting, firearms) are some of the safest and most responsible firerms handlers we have today. We can apply these conclusions to hunting as well, but the mentoring programs need standardization for maximum effectiveness and assurances of results. I do not believe this is an issue of calibur size or power. Rather, I firmly believe that good education and reinforcement go farther than making an arbitrary determination based on age. After all, we can all agree that people mature at different rates. Studies say that girls mature faster than boys. Do we have one age minimum for girls and another for boys? Fair is fair, right? - I' sure the NOW gang would appreciate that one .
Age limits are not necessarily a bad thing, but let's also bear in mind that kids a lot younger than 12 or even 10 hunted with firearms 100 years ago, and beyond. Of course, they did this to help their families survive through filling the ice box or cold cellar with meats, but, this was highly successful, without issues back in the days of free-for-alls (no hunting seasons). Maturity didn't seem to be an issue then. What has changed is education and parental involvement. That is why I firmly believe that education and reinforcement is the way to go, not setting age limits that preclude parents from making a decision to permit their child to hunt.
Which leads me to my ultimate reason for mentoring. Many parents today are simply too self-absorbed in the rigors of daily life to do those things (involvement with their kids education) that were once done "eons" ago. Plenty of people (sportsmen and women) volunteer their time to help in this area, but many of the laws preclude a mentor from getting involved. These laws need to change to allow someone who is not related or considered the legal guardian to provide this education/ reinforcement work. Clubs are drooling to get this one done. We need the laws changed to permit this to occur. Then, we can address many of the concerns in spades, and the woods become safer with a solidly trained future generation.


----------



## centerx

More near sided thoughts on hunting. 

Nobody is proposing letting 10 year olds run around the woods without a parent behind them. If the parents allow such a thing to occur then they are the ones that should be regulated not the children. If the parent is behind them every step of the ways there is less dangers involved then the drive to get there. Don't give me "the you can't see what's through the scope argument" what is through the scope is a big brown animal hopefully. Anything else in the horizon or around the target as it measures as a concern with "normal " sighting tactics needs to be handled with the naked eye or binoculars. In fact arguably leaving one hunter free to focus on the animal and then another to scan the horizon for a flash of hunter orange or a car coming down the road I say can make for a SAFER hunt 

On a side note if the parents do not take them hunting or do not oversee there children's hunting endeavors I do not want the first time a child handles a firearm in the hunting woods is when he is a cocky 16 year old out impressing his friends.

Every child I have met that has been involved with the lifestyle for as long as possible has been a safer and more well rounded hunter. On the other hand I have seen many adults in there 20's pick up hunting or the first time and were complete idiots.

Yeah I know that it would appear that many little league parents are blind to there Childs ability but for the most part. The arguments I have seen in the stands involved fairness and the arguing of calls. NOT the fact that Johnny is better then the other players. In addition those types of parents are not involved in the hunting lifestyle much as well. Just like a former pro picture could honestly asses and coach his sons ability so can thousands of "pro" or at least diehard hunters


----------



## Fitch

*Age restriction*

I agree with there being an age restriction in concern for my own safety. (remain clam keep reading) I think the age should be kept low, 8 or maybe 10, at that time the parent at that time can make a decision. To me this would a nice compromise. I agree that the goverment should be kept out of this, but we all have to admitt that we know at least one example family where kids get what ever they want with no sign of discipline in sight. You know this is going to carry over to the woods. I personally don't like it but will except it in moderation in the name of safety.

Freespeech, I think what are fellow hunters are trying to get across here is, if you give them an inch they will take a mile. If they had thier age restriction they wanted we would have to be 18 or 21 to hunt. Then they just have to hope we are interested in other things by then.

There's my .02


----------



## bow weevil

FS DB,

I am not going to change your mind. Thats pretty obvious. There is no ammount of education that will satisfy you enough to allow a young man to go out hunting with his father. Unfortunately you are probably Peta's best friend right now. If they can dramatically reduce the hunting population, they will have little trouble banning other forms of hunting until it is banned completely. The best way to reduce numbers is to outlaw childrens involvement. So in the future, if you are sitting at home, eating tofu and sprouts, remembering how good backstrap used to taste, don't start pointing fingers.

By the way, I would still like you to show me something that says that an educated and supervised 9 year old is more dangerous than an adult just bought his first rifle, passed the hunters saftey course a week prior to opening day, and is on his first hunt. You among others want children banned. it is unfortunate that you can't see how it will adversely effect our sport.


----------



## centerx

All things being equaled. Which is a competent hunter overseeing the effort of a beginning hunter to harvest deer who on the following list should we exclude.

An fathers 8 year old?

A gang member who is being rehabbed and is out on a hunt with his "big brother" mentor

A 15 year old with downs syndrome

A fathers 10 year old

A blind hunter.. Yes there are "vision impaired" adult hunters

A fathers 12 year old

16 year old who wants to start hunting because it looks cool and his 16 year old buddy "mentor" who has been hunting with dad since 14 years of age is going to show him

From some of these comments it looks like a 8 year old 10 year old and perhaps 12 year old with direct parental oversight are the ones that can't go out ..

But the Gang Banger, Mentally and Vision impaired and a 16 year old and his "buddy " with a few years of experience is in. Or is it more reasonable to assume that all groups may be capable and it is not up for you or me to decide

That's the problem


----------



## buckcrazyhubbs

*Age means nothing*

I am an eighteen year old kid and have been shooting bows and guns since i was four. i always had a parent with me until i was 12 but after that it was my own choice if i wanted a parent with or not. If the kid isn't responsible enough then it is up to the parent to decide that not up to people that look at the youth of today and see drugs and alcohol. is that a problem with some youth? Yea but what about the kids that go home early on friday nights so they can be in the woods before light? I live in rural minnesota and when me and my friends want to hang out more often than not it involves hunting or fishing. Age doesnt mean anything what really matters is a persons willingness to accept responsibility for their actions and choices. I think that nuge is completely right.


----------



## 460461whatever

*to refraise and add*

After five years of going along on hunts, my nine year old was asking to shoot something besides targets. He carried his .22 last winter for rabbits, and now my 20ga. for pheasants and ducks this fall. MN doesn't allow children under 12 to hunt big game, except turkeys now may be taken by 10 year olds (a step in the right direction imo). The state also doesn't allow children under eleven to take formal safety training. I think this is good in one way. Any children I know under that age that are hunting have been learning how to safely handle a firearm and been shooting regularly with their safety and family oriented parents. It's seems to be a natural order.
As far as maturity equaling safety, my nine year old biggest safety problem, has been while hunting pheasants with a shotgun. Sometimes he can't see through the tall grass.:teeth: So, what FS is probably saying, we should have a minimum height limit also.:teeth: 
Also, put another way, the "squirtgun kid" probably won't be hunting until he passes the easy-to-pass safety training, and will be out on his own, shooting in the wrong direction, as soon as the state says he can. He will because his parents still will not have taken any time with him. He can't be trusted with that squirtgun just as he will never be trusted with a real gun.
Less government = More family


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> FS DB,
> 
> I am not going to change your mind. Thats pretty obvious. There is no ammount of education that will satisfy you enough to allow a young man to go out hunting with his father. Unfortunately you are probably Peta's best friend right now. If they can dramatically reduce the hunting population, they will have little trouble banning other forms of hunting until it is banned completely. The best way to reduce numbers is to outlaw childrens involvement. So in the future, if you are sitting at home, eating tofu and sprouts, remembering how good backstrap used to taste, don't start pointing fingers.
> 
> By the way, I would still like you to show me something that says that an educated and supervised 9 year old is more dangerous than an adult just bought his first rifle, passed the hunters saftey course a week prior to opening day, and is on his first hunt. You among others want children banned. it is unfortunate that you can't see how it will adversely effect our sport.



I almost thought that a civil discussion might be within your capabilities, but I guess I was mistaken. You keep talking about your own son, which is fine, but I've been teaching kids hunter safety for 16 years and I can tell you that they are all NOT like your son. (or any of you other guys either..)

You all want to use the best examples of youth to make rules that will also apply across the board. You are willing to suffer the mistakes that the Squirt Gun Kid makes by hoping that his bullet hits someone else, not you. I think you are a bit cavilier with MY safety.

Yeah.. I am PETA's best friend... sure... you think that by associating me with that crowd that I will magically feel embarrassed and come around to your thinking? What a weak minded way to attempt a rational discussion. Sometimes I fear that people like you are teaching today's youth anything. Your emotion and "I want what I want" mentality overshadows your ability to make reasonable risk assessments.

The biggest problem with reduction in hunter numbers is not PETA, its the disappearance of huntable habitat. Sub divisions, farm lease rate that have gone through the roof. Hunting is being snuffed out by greed, not by PETA.

PETA is an extremist whacko group that mainstream people dont pay attention to. I am more concerned with the whackjobs in the hunting community that pass themselves off as spokesmen.

None of you seem to be able to grasp the fact that you cannot make regulations based upon the admirable abilities of your own child. You have to make them based upon the abilities of the Squirt Gun Kid. You guys started out by saying "Let the Parent decide" This is folly, and thats what I am arguing... somewhere along the way, (probably because I disagreed with you) you assign me a life membership in PETA. What a sorry excuse for a debate.


----------



## DwayneR

Hello FreeSpeech,

FS>>You guys started out by saying "Let the Parent decide" This is folly, and thats what I am arguing...<<

And we are saying Parents know a heck of a lot more about their children than the government does. What I am saying ( I can't speek for others), Government knows diddly squat, and "Assigning a age" is about as worthless as me telling you that your kid has no business with a gun or bow until he's X number of years old.

The issue seem to stem into one of two things. Does the government dictate, or the parents. Government and dictationship is wrong IMO. Yet people seem to like a socialistic type dictatorship... or is moving in that general direction...

FS>> somewhere along the way, (probably because I disagreed with you) you assign me a life membership in PETA. What a sorry excuse for a debate.<<

I read his message a different way Free Speech... He was NOT saying that you liked PETA, and all that good stuff. How I read it, was your way of thinking makes PETA happy, because it supports their way of eroding the rights to have weapons, as well as eroding the rights of hunting. He even explained how PETA and other organizations slowly erode our rights away, by making slow and "Subtle" changes with our laws and legislation piece by piece, until one day... its too late.

If I read it wrong, I apologize.

Dwayne


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> I almost thought that a civil discussion might be within your capabilities, but I guess I was mistaken. You keep talking about your own son, which is fine, but I've been teaching kids hunter safety for 16 years and I can tell you that they are all NOT like your son. (or any of you other guys either..)
> 
> You all want to use the best examples of youth to make rules that will also apply across the board. You are willing to suffer the mistakes that the Squirt Gun Kid makes by hoping that his bullet hits someone else, not you. I think you are a bit cavilier with MY safety.
> 
> Yeah.. I am PETA's best friend... sure... you think that by associating me with that crowd that I will magically feel embarrassed and come around to your thinking? What a weak minded way to attempt a rational discussion. Sometimes I fear that people like you are teaching today's youth anything. Your emotion and "I want what I want" mentality overshadows your ability to make reasonable risk assessments.
> 
> The biggest problem with reduction in hunter numbers is not PETA, its the disappearance of huntable habitat. Sub divisions, farm lease rate that have gone through the roof. Hunting is being snuffed out by greed, not by PETA.
> 
> PETA is an extremist whacko group that mainstream people dont pay attention to. I am more concerned with the whackjobs in the hunting community that pass themselves off as spokesmen.
> 
> None of you seem to be able to grasp the fact that you cannot make regulations based upon the admirable abilities of your own child. You have to make them based upon the abilities of the Squirt Gun Kid. You guys started out by saying "Let the Parent decide" This is folly, and thats what I am arguing... somewhere along the way, (probably because I disagreed with you) you assign me a life membership in PETA. What a sorry excuse for a debate.


First, I don't believe I brought my son up in a while. I will apoligize if asking for some statistics that you could not provide offends you. I didn't know your feelings could be hurt so easily, and I will be more delicate next time. 

Do you not think that the peta members are are loving the fact that people are wanting to ban even a small number of hunters from pursuing their intrests? The comment was not intended to change your opinion at all, it was intended to point out that you may be be promoting their agenda more sucessfully than they are. 

As for your "people like you" comment, I fear the same thing about "you people." I wonder how many freedoms will be lost by the time my grand children are adults. the people in SF have already passed a law banning handguns in the city. If the NRA doesn't get it deemed unconstitutional, It will surely spread. This is the same "saving us from ourselves" mentality. We don't need to loose any more rights. 

Personally, I feel basing laws on the worst example (sgk) will only remove more responsible people than irresponsible ones. If there is an Irresponsible adult hunter out in the area you hunt, does it really matter if he has a child with him? if the child wasn't there, would he not take the same high risk shot? does a bullet really care who pulled the trigger? Now, if you put a responsible hunter in the same location, supervising a youngster, the responsible hunter will not allow Junior to take the shot, and you can breathe easier knowing you will not spring a leak this day. Its unfortunate that you seem unable to grasp this fact.

It is a undeniable that there are people in the woods that should not be there. That is why I admitted that once general season stats, I hunt private property. Adding a child to the equation will not raise or lower the risk to you while you are in the field. someone hunting will either make good or poor choices. Someone supervising a child hunting will make the same choices.

Again, Neither of us are going to budge on our opinions, so unless you decide to make any other snide comments about my intelligence, I will let you go on your merry way.


----------



## bow weevil

DwayneR said:


> I read his message a different way Free Speech... He was NOT saying that you liked PETA, and all that good stuff. How I read it, was your way of thinking makes PETA happy, because it supports their way of eroding the rights to have weapons, as well as eroding the rights of hunting. He even explained how PETA and other organizations slowly erode our rights away, by making slow and "Subtle" changes with our laws and legislation piece by piece, until one day... its too late.
> 
> If I read it wrong, I apologize.
> 
> Dwayne



You did not read it incorrectly, and you may have explained it a little more clearly than in my last post, Thank you.


----------



## centerx

Wow…

Teaching kids hunter safety for 16 years and You state that most of them are not safe and able to take guidance in the hunting woods like" MOST OF OUR KIDS" In fact you commonly lump them into a category called "the squirt gun kids"??

Why do you torture yourself so teaching all these irresponsible children how to be safe in the woods when obviously they are not capable of doing so even with an adult with 20 years of hunting experience proficient in the use of multiple types of weapons RIGHT BEHIND THERE SHOULDER??


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> First, I don't believe I brought my son up in a while. I will apoligize if asking for some statistics that you could not provide offends you. I didn't know your feelings could be hurt so easily, and I will be more delicate next time.
> 
> Do you not think that the peta members are are loving the fact that people are wanting to ban even a small number of hunters from pursuing their intrests? The comment was not intended to change your opinion at all, it was intended to point out that you may be be promoting their agenda more sucessfully than they are.
> 
> As for your "people like you" comment, I fear the same thing about "you people." I wonder how many freedoms will be lost by the time my grand children are adults. the people in SF have already passed a law banning handguns in the city. If the NRA doesn't get it deemed unconstitutional, It will surely spread. This is the same "saving us from ourselves" mentality. We don't need to loose any more rights.
> 
> Personally, I feel basing laws on the worst example (sgk) will only remove more responsible people than irresponsible ones. If there is an Irresponsible adult hunter out in the area you hunt, does it really matter if he has a child with him? if the child wasn't there, would he not take the same high risk shot? does a bullet really care who pulled the trigger? Now, if you put a responsible hunter in the same location, supervising a youngster, the responsible hunter will not allow Junior to take the shot, and you can breathe easier knowing you will not spring a leak this day. Its unfortunate that you seem unable to grasp this fact.
> 
> It is a undeniable that there are people in the woods that should not be there. That is why I admitted that once general season stats, I hunt private property. Adding a child to the equation will not raise or lower the risk to you while you are in the field. someone hunting will either make good or poor choices. Someone supervising a child hunting will make the same choices.
> 
> Again, Neither of us are going to budge on our opinions, so unless you decide to make any other snide comments about my intelligence, I will let you go on your merry way.



You are hilarious. You infer that Im a PETAophil, you accuse me of eating tofu and sprouts (as if my diet defined my character) and basically being 100% against guns and hunting and then you play all coy and say that you'll be more delicate next time. If you're gonna attempt to hurl insults, then stand behind them instead of denying that you tossed them in the first place.

You did not ask for statistics, you set up an example that any fool would have to answer in your favor. Yes Virginia, the most capable and responsible nine year old, who has been taught hunter and gun safety since he was six months old will be better than an adult yahoo who just passed a hunter safety course by the skin of his teeth and doesnt know how to use the safety on a Winchester Model 94 correctly. There. I admit that. Do you think it is relavent to the discussion?

BTW... my feeling were not hurt, I just get frustrated by hunters who resort to character assassination to get their point across. I have never called for banning ANYTHING in this thread. I call for reasonable standards of demonstrated capability before allowing children to carry rifles. In Michigan we have reduced the number of hunter inflicted wounds and deaths to miniscule amounts via State sponsored, hunter safety programs and legislation that sets some reasonable standards. You think the Parent is the best one to set these standards (or NON standards as the case with the SGK may show). This is where you and I disagree. )I have to take a break for some tofu...) I dont promote a PETA agenda, (and if you read for any comprehension at all, you would have recognized that). You seem to think that my beliefs on gun safety and age of responsibility somehow make me a PETA supporter. I believe that when hunters take myopic positions just to make sure that they somehow dont intersect with a PETA path, they demonstrate their own ignorance.

Question for you. Do you believe that animals should be used for live target practice? Do you believe that you should kill an animal just to see if you can kill it? Do you believe its right to kill just for the sake of killing? (Careful.. this is a trick question.. you have been warned)

If you are worried about your freedoms being lost, then get involved in the legislative process in your state. You cited some legislation that might change the age at which your son can hunt. What is that legislation? Did you do anything to stop it? If so, what?

I didnt say you should base laws on the worst examples any more than I said they shouldnt be based on the best. The SGK is an example of the potential for disaster that would be created by allowing individual parents to make decisions instead of a standard that applied to everyone. You fear a denigration of your freedoms by using a State regulated standard. Your freedoms are lost by not availing yourself of the process and placing a false fear on government in general. Remember, the absense of government and legislation is chaos and anarchy.

I love your examples when you say... "well taught child, responsible adult, perfect attention"...... NO PROBLEM, yet you admit that you flee the public woods for private land when the average Joe Blow goes out to hunt. You make my point and you dont even understand why, and then go on to state that adding a child to the equation doesnt change anything. In essense you claim that a child and an adult have no difference in maturity or responsibility capabilities. I am continually amazed. (Snide remark acknowledged)


----------



## Free Speech DB

centerx said:


> Wow…
> 
> Teaching kids hunter safety for 16 years and You state that most of them are not safe and able to take guidance in the hunting woods like" MOST OF OUR KIDS" In fact you commonly lump them into a category called "the squirt gun kids"??
> 
> Why do you torture yourself so teaching all these irresponsible children how to be safe in the woods when obviously they are not capable of doing so even with an adult with 20 years of hunting experience proficient in the use of multiple types of weapons RIGHT BEHIND THERE SHOULDER??



Wow... you can't read for comprehension either. (I hope this disease isnt contagious)

I didnt say most of them were irresponsible, I said that allowing individual parents to make decisions involving pre teens and rifles is foolhardy. I simply stated my experience with Hunter Safety Instruction as a qualifier that demonstrates some actual hands on experience with the subject. I'm Sorry that caused you to take so many liberties with what I said.

And for the record... its not the kid with tons of experience and a Boone and Crocket guide behind him that Im concerned about. Its the dad who isnt qualified to hunt safely, yet takes his untrained SGK into woods (based upon YOUR qualification that the PARENT SHOULD MAKE THESE DECISIONS) that bother me.

In my years of teaching, I have seen all kinds of different maturity levels. We teach 11-15 year olds. The attention span of many of these younger children is rather short. Some of them are paying attention, some are not. Even with the best of intentions they are not ready to handle a rifle in the woods.

I have seen enough to know that allowing the parent to make decisions that will have the potential to harm an innocent third party is a ridiculous way to run a railroad. You believe otherwise. Wow, indeed.


----------



## Buzzkill

Free Speech DB said:


> In Michigan, last year, a very young hunter who had taken hunter safety was hunting on his parents property and killed himself with his gun while climbing into his tree stand.
> 
> Very sad.



Last year here in Virginia, a Loudoun County Sheriff killed himself with his gun while getting out of his stand. A trained police officer who carries a gun on a daily basis shot himself in the head with a muzzleloader.

Very Sad.

There really should be a minimum age for police officers to hunt shouldnt there?

So your factual support for your asinine argument is to cite one example? Well I matched your one example, so now you need to produce some facts. Show me how a supervised child is more dangerous than any other hunter in the woods. 

You use the driving age argument, well in some states the driving age is 14, in others 15 or 16. Why is a S. Dakota kid more mature than a New York kid? Its just an arbitrary number pulled out of some legislators you know what. There are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who should not be behind the wheel. There are plenty of 30 year olds who should not be hunting. There are plenty of 21 year olds who should not be drinking. 

If a child can pass a hunter safety course and he is supervised in the field then I see no reason that they shouldnt be allowed to hunt. If somebody takes an unprepared 6 year old out hunting and the kid hurts somebody, that parent should be held responsible. Personal responsibilty, not big brother holding my hand and telling me when its ok.

Ben Franklin said it best: *"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*

Thanks, but I'll raise my own child.


----------



## doctariAFC

Buzzkill said:


> Last year here in Virginia, a Loudoun County Sheriff killed himself with his gun while getting out of his stand. A trained police officer who carries a gun on a daily basis shot himself in the head with a muzzleloader.
> 
> Very Sad.
> 
> There really should be a minimum age for police officers to hunt shouldnt there?
> 
> So your factual support for your asinine argument is to cite one example? Well I matched your one example, so now you need to produce some facts. Show me how a supervised child is more dangerous than any other hunter in the woods.
> 
> You use the driving age argument, well in some states the driving age is 14, in others 15 or 16. Why is a S. Dakota kid more mature than a New York kid? Its just an arbitrary number pulled out of some legislators you know what. There are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who should not be behind the wheel. There are plenty of 30 year olds who should not be hunting. There are plenty of 21 year olds who should not be drinking.
> 
> If a child can pass a hunter safety course and he is supervised in the field then I see no reason that they shouldnt be allowed to hunt. If somebody takes an unprepared 6 year old out hunting and the kid hurts somebody, that parent should be held responsible. Personal responsibilty, not big brother holding my hand and telling me when its ok.
> 
> Ben Franklin said it best: *"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
> 
> Thanks, but I'll raise my own child.



Here Here!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## centerx

Free speech I understand your correspondence just fine….

After years of hunter safety you know for a fact that many children should not be in the woods hunting until they are more mature . You also state that it's a safety issue for other hunters more then that of the Childs.

I actually don't disagree but here is the hypocrisy that I can not support..

You state that qualified kids with qualified supervision you have not problem with . It seems like you concerns is the quality of the supervision more then the maturity level of the child. Which I think we can all agree varies greatly.

So in essence we should not be arbitrary ruling out all children hunting with supervision until "X" age but we should be gearing up the quality of that supervision. 

It gets back to my original statements I have seen plenty of Idiot adults out in the woods. In fact a father and son sitting in the same blind hunting deer with a 30-06 give me MUCH less concern compared to the 40 year hunter on the next farm over to me that takes multiple shots at a running deer as it is running over the horizon..

It seems to not be children we need to worry about but the adults doing the right thing whether it's overseeing there children or hunting on there own. I take it since safety is such a overwhelming concern to you as it should be . Better training and a qualifying process for adults to either hunt on there own or to be eligible to "guide" there own children would have much better results and would put you more at ease in the woods.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> You are hilarious. You infer that Im a PETAophil, you accuse me of eating tofu and sprouts (as if my diet defined my character) and basically being 100% against guns and hunting and then you play all coy and say that you'll be more delicate next time. If you're gonna attempt to hurl insults, then stand behind them instead of denying that you tossed them in the first place.
> 
> *You should look back at one of your earlier post about "taking liberties with what I write.", and then read my posts again. I never called you a PETAophil (which is a good one, I like that) a Petard (My personal favorite.) or anything of that nature. I have already explained it once, I am not going to do it again. The Tofu and Sprouts had nothing to do with defining your character, it had to do with handing the Petards their short term goals until that is the only choice we have. Not very likely, but certainly possible. Did you read the complete sentence, or were you just so upset that I would even mention that that you lost all logic and reasoning. I do not feel I "hurled" any insults. If you took them as insults, that is something for you to deal with. I will not apologize for anything after your last two posts.*
> 
> You did not ask for statistics, you set up an example that any fool would have to answer in your favor. Yes Virginia, the most capable and responsible nine year old, who has been taught hunter and gun safety since he was six months old will be better than an adult yahoo who just passed a hunter safety course by the skin of his teeth and doesnt know how to use the safety on a Winchester Model 94 correctly. There. I admit that. Do you think it is relavent to the discussion?
> 
> *lets throw out both extremes then. How about just any responsible experienced hunter supervising a child, Vs ANY new adult hunter. would that be more fair? Either way, I still fail to see how your saftey is being jeapordized by the youth. This is very relavant to the discussion, in fact, It pretty much sums up the discussion. read the first post again.*
> 
> BTW... my feeling were not hurt, I just get frustrated by hunters who resort to character assassination to get their point across. I have never called for banning ANYTHING in this thread. I call for reasonable standards of demonstrated capability before allowing children to carry rifles. In Michigan we have reduced the number of hunter inflicted wounds and deaths to miniscule amounts via State sponsored, hunter safety programs and legislation that sets some reasonable standards. You think the Parent is the best one to set these standards (or NON standards as the case with the SGK may show). This is where you and I disagree. )I have to take a break for some tofu...) I dont promote a PETA agenda, (and if you read for any comprehension at all, you would have recognized that). You seem to think that my beliefs on gun safety and age of responsibility somehow make me a PETA supporter. I believe that when hunters take myopic positions just to make sure that they somehow dont intersect with a PETA path, they demonstrate their own ignorance.
> *no one is resorting to character assasination, I pointed out two things, that you are probably promoting Peta's goals better than they are, and that if it continues, no one will have the choice of eating meat, let alone hunting. Again, not likely, but possible. How can you say you aren't promoting the Petard agenda when you are openly trying to remove a group of hunters from the woods? Not only that, but they are the very hunters that we will depend upon to carry on the sport in the future.
> 
> You are backpedaling now, so lets clarify this, Do you want a minumum age for childred (which would ban younger children from hunting...a ban, if you will), or should it be based on supervision, capability, and the completion of a hunters saftey course, which in my opinion, should be much more involved.*
> 
> Question for you. Do you believe that animals should be used for live target practice? Do you believe that you should kill an animal just to see if you can kill it? Do you believe its right to kill just for the sake of killing? (Careful.. this is a trick question.. you have been warned)
> 
> *I have been warned, but I will answer anyways, what the heck.
> 1. no, I don't. Others may.
> 2. no, I don't believe I should kill an animal just to see if I can to it. others may have different beliefs.
> 3. no, I don't believe it is right, again, others may have different beliefs.
> *
> 
> If you are worried about your freedoms being lost, then get involved in the legislative process in your state. You cited some legislation that might change the age at which your son can hunt. What is that legislation? Did you do anything to stop it? If so, what?
> 
> *read the first post again FS, No, there is no legislation yet, You can bet there will be. When it is proposed I will be agains it, you will undoubtedly be for it, and fortunately, since we are in different states, we will not cancel out eachothers votes.*
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you should base laws on the worst examples any more than I said they shouldnt be based on the best. The SGK is an example of the potential for disaster that would be created by allowing individual parents to make decisions instead of a standard that applied to everyone. You fear a denigration of your freedoms by using a State regulated standard. Your freedoms are lost by not availing yourself of the process and placing a false fear on government in general. Remember, the absense of government and legislation is chaos and anarchy.
> 
> *Your posts indicate you want to keep all children from hunting, because of people like sgk and his parents. if it walks like a duck...*
> 
> I love your examples when you say... "well taught child, responsible adult, perfect attention"...... NO PROBLEM, yet you admit that you flee the public woods for private land when the average Joe Blow goes out to hunt. You make my point and you dont even understand why, and then go on to state that adding a child to the equation doesnt change anything. In essense you claim that a child and an adult have no difference in maturity or responsibility capabilities. I am continually amazed. (Snide remark acknowledged)
> 
> *I don't know if you are reading, or just looking at a few words, so here we go again...
> if a responsible hunter is supervising a child on a hunt, that responsible hunter will not allow a child to take an unsafe shot. Just as the responsible hunter will not take that shot himself.
> 
> If an irresponsible hunter is out hunting, he may take an unsafe shot, such as a horizon shot in your direction. undoubtedly he would allow a child to as well.
> 
> That is my point, I don't feel the child plays into the equation at all. Since there is no law requiring a responsibility evaluation, SGK's dad is out there and there is nothing you can to about it. That is why I hunt private land. Not because there are children in the woods. I have explained this before, maybe this time you will understand what I am saying.*


You have accused me of character assasination, followed it by calling a few of us stupid, and yet seem to think you are taking the higher road. Maybe you need to take a break for a little while.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Buzzkill said:


> Last year here in Virginia, a Loudoun County Sheriff killed himself with his gun while getting out of his stand. A trained police officer who carries a gun on a daily basis shot himself in the head with a muzzleloader.
> 
> Very Sad.
> 
> There really should be a minimum age for police officers to hunt shouldnt there?
> 
> So your factual support for your asinine argument is to cite one example? Well I matched your one example, so now you need to produce some facts. Show me how a supervised child is more dangerous than any other hunter in the woods.
> 
> You use the driving age argument, well in some states the driving age is 14, in others 15 or 16. Why is a S. Dakota kid more mature than a New York kid? Its just an arbitrary number pulled out of some legislators you know what. There are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who should not be behind the wheel. There are plenty of 30 year olds who should not be hunting. There are plenty of 21 year olds who should not be drinking.
> 
> If a child can pass a hunter safety course and he is supervised in the field then I see no reason that they shouldnt be allowed to hunt. If somebody takes an unprepared 6 year old out hunting and the kid hurts somebody, that parent should be held responsible. Personal responsibilty, not big brother holding my hand and telling me when its ok.
> 
> Ben Franklin said it best: *"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*
> 
> Thanks, but I'll raise my own child.



Someone said no one was getting killed. I offered an example. If you dont want examples, dont ask for them.

Driving age in South Dakota... ?? How crowded are the cow paths up that way, huh? Vehicle density mean anything to you? Compare that to New York freeways... apples and oranges.

You guys keep forgetting that my argument has to do with me supporting some sort of recognized STANDARD (which many of you jump to claim that a "qualified kid, with a qualified adult..yadda yadda yadda), while you guys argue that ANY parent is the BEST qualified to make these decisions. You use superlative qualifiers yet argue against them in the next sentence.

Make up your minds. 

Did you really have to use the term "assinine"? Couldnt you find a more acceptable word?

You are quite cavilier about making an adult responsible for a child's critical mistake after the fact.... wow.... make the adult responsible AFTER an innocent person is harmed. You play checkers instead of chess, right?


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> You have accused me of character assasination, followed it by calling a few of us stupid, and yet seem to think you are taking the higher road. Maybe you need to take a break for a little while.


I loved your responses on the "killing animals just to see if you could kill them thing. I agree with your responses. So does PETA. That makes you and me the same in supporting their cause. Hows that feel, huh?


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> I loved your responses on the "killing animals just to see if you could kill them thing. I agree with your responses. So does PETA. That makes you and me the same in supporting their cause. Hows that feel, huh?


except I do not want to ban a group of hunters from taking to the field. 

I don't think Petards completely agree with my responses either. I frequent some ARA forums, even participate the *one* that is willing to allow a hunter into the discussions. Their answers would be nowhere near mine.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> except I do not want to ban a group of hunters from taking to the field.
> 
> I don't think Petards completely agree with my responses either. I frequent some ARA forums, even participate the *one* that is willing to allow a hunter into the discussions. Their answers would be nowhere near mine.


Hey, I used to participate in the Great AR debate on opposing sites too...my responses were usually way off of theirs too... we are becoming buddies, no?

You accused me of being PETA's best weapon for taking a similar stance on the reasonableness of having a minimum standard for when a kid could use a rifle in public. While PETA may have the same thought, the agenda is completely different, imo.

Im just attempting to demonstrate to you that simply having a similar position on one issue doesnt mean that you are helping them in any way, but I suppose you will disagree with that too.

For what its worth, I didnt ask to ban any hunters from the field. I stated a position that argued that PARENTS are not the best qualified to make such decisions, unqualified, with NO further assessment. You guys jumped all over that as if I was dissing our Freedom loving President, who is taking your rights away in small increments as we speak. Patriot Act? Wiretaps without Court order? Incarerating American Citizens for 3 years without charging them with ANYTHING, no habeas corpus, no lawyer, no nothing.... If you wanna talk basic freedoms, lets get to the meat of the subject. My vocalizations of positions on Standardized regulations are part of the America process, but hey... lets not let the State intrude, right?


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> Hey, I used to participate in the Great AR debate on opposing sites too...my responses were usually way off of theirs too... we are becoming buddies, no?
> 
> You accused me of being PETA's best weapon for taking a similar stance on the reasonableness of having a minimum standard for when a kid could use a rifle in public. While PETA may have the same thought, the agenda is completely different, imo.
> 
> *no, but I did say that you were probably thier best friend. Thier agenda is different than yours, I have no doubt about that. However you know as well as I that they will use anyone to get their goals met, and as soon as they are, turn on thier one time allies. If they can get hunters to turn on hunters, they surely will.*
> 
> Im just attempting to demonstrate to you that simply having a similar position on one issue doesnt mean that you are helping them in any way, but I suppose you will disagree with that too.
> 
> *I will. I guess we just look at this differently. if the similar position results in reaching one of their short term goals, it is certainly helping.*
> 
> For what its worth, I didnt ask to ban any hunters from the field. I stated a position that argued that PARENTS are not the best qualified to make such decisions, unqualified, with NO further assessment. You guys jumped all over that as if I was dissing our Freedom loving President, who is taking your rights away in small increments as we speak. Patriot Act? Wiretaps without Court order? Incarerating American Citizens for 3 years without charging them with ANYTHING, no habeas corpus, no lawyer, no nothing.... If you wanna talk basic freedoms, lets get to the meat of the subject. My vocalizations of positions on Standardized regulations are part of the America process, but hey... lets not let the State intrude, right?


The patriot act is a complete different can of worms, I am pretty opinionated on that as well. Probably better left off the forum.

-=Edit oh, the "hunter friendly" site I go to is www.envirolink.org 
In case you would like to check it out.=-


----------



## centerx

"For what its worth, I didn't ask to ban any hunters from the field. I stated a position that argued that PARENTS are not the best qualified to make such decisions, unqualified, with NO further assessment"

Pretty much my point. I don't think I want limits in the form of an age when it gets down to parental ability. 

agin if you put an '06 in a 6 year olds hands you are not the right ADULT for the job why put a level ban on and age for other adults that are quite capable making the right call. I know its safety related as one accident is one two much but again from my observances I have seen father and sons hunting MUCH more safely then other yahoo fathers who won't take there son into the woods because it's a burden to do so. 

Again if you want to somehow restrict hunting rights for the argument of safety then you need to regulate unsafe hunting practices. I'm afraid doing so only leads to a level of regulation that most would not want to see. Now maybe a answered would be something along the lines of a intense training and certification program for adults that want to take youth into the field under the age of 13 or something. Not saying I agree with that but it seems to address concerns much more readily then banning rights across the board. 
.I also think that one could also regulate the acceptable age in more densely populated units of the state. Or perhaps make limited permits available for children under the age of … Ohh pick a random number of 12. Put in for a draw of 3000 youth permits in sparsely populated units perhaps. Again not saying I support such regulation but there are ways to address concerns without statewide bans


----------



## Free Speech DB

> I will. I guess we just look at this differently. if the similar position results in reaching one of their short term goals, it is certainly helping.


Then you are helping PETA also. Just want to make sure you acknowledge that your position on "killiing for killings sake" helps them.

So... do you change your position to make sure that you AREN'T helping them, or do recognize that sometimes, people with completely diffferent agendas and motives, "may" have the same thoughts on some subjects?

If you allow this fear of "incrementalism" to shadow every decision you make, sometimes you toss the baby out with the bath water. If there is a rational reason for your position, that doesnt mean that PETA might not have something rational in their heads either. Its not a black and white world. The important part of all this is being able to articulate your position in a logical manner.


----------



## Free Speech DB

centerx said:


> "For what its worth, I didn't ask to ban any hunters from the field. I stated a position that argued that PARENTS are not the best qualified to make such decisions, unqualified, with NO further assessment"
> 
> Pretty much my point. I don't think I want limits in the form of an age when it gets down to parental ability.
> 
> agin if you put an '06 in a 6 year olds hands you are not the right ADULT for the job why put a level ban on and age for other adults that are quite capable making the right call. I know its safety related as one accident is one two much but again from my observances I have seen father and sons hunting MUCH more safely then other yahoo fathers who won't take there son into the woods because it's a burden to do so.
> 
> Again if you want to somehow restrict hunting rights for the argument of safety then you need to regulate unsafe hunting practices. I'm afraid doing so only leads to a level of regulation that most would not want to see. Now maybe a answered would be something along the lines of a intense training and certification program for adults that want to take youth into the field under the age of 13 or something. Not saying I agree with that but it seems to address concerns much more readily then banning rights across the board.
> .I also think that one could also regulate the acceptable age in more densely populated units of the state. Or perhaps make limited permits available for children under the age of … Ohh pick a random number of 12. Put in for a draw of 3000 youth permits in sparsely populated units perhaps. Again not saying I support such regulation but there are ways to address concerns without statewide bans



So, at some point, you are willing to allow for a stringent certification program for the adults who are making these decisions, correct? I could be swayed by that argument.... dont let just ANY parent make life and death rifle decisions for children, but rather, make sure the adult is qualified to make it first. I think that is a good compromise position.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> So, at some point, you are willing to allow for a stringent certification program for the adults who are making these decisions, correct? I could be swayed by that argument.... dont let just ANY parent make life and death rifle decisions for children, but rather, make sure the adult is qualified to make it first. I think that is a good compromise position.


Which goes back to some of the things in NYS already on the books. In order to supervise your child in the field, the supervisor must also hold a hunting license. They may need to hold that license for at least one year, prior to supervising.

Education and reinforcement is the key. This is why I am very supportive of a mentoring program, using the conservation clubs as the vehilce for this (inclduing club members acting as mentors/ supervisors in the field.) Oftentimes, these clubs are the source of Hunting and Firearms Safety Instructors. Just about every Rod & Gun/ Conservation Club has at least one instructor on the membership roles. Best part is we can do this without having to hire "professionals", the clubs do this for free. Perhaps an incentive for the Clubs sponsoring mentoring programs (like a tax credit or something, must think about it) to encourage clubs to offer programs such as this in their immediate communities.

Before this can happen, we must get the laws changed as to who can supervise a young hunter in training. Gotta add the qualified mentor, which, since each club already knows this about their members, the process for finding "qualified mentors" is simplified, versus having the average joe public volunteer to do so (act as a mentor.)


----------



## Buzzkill

Free Speech DB said:


> Someone said no one was getting killed. I offered an example. If you dont want examples, dont ask for them.
> 
> Driving age in South Dakota... ?? How crowded are the cow paths up that way, huh? Vehicle density mean anything to you? Compare that to New York freeways... apples and oranges.
> 
> You guys keep forgetting that my argument has to do with me supporting some sort of recognized STANDARD (which many of you jump to claim that a "qualified kid, with a qualified adult..yadda yadda yadda), while you guys argue that ANY parent is the BEST qualified to make these decisions. You use superlative qualifiers yet argue against them in the next sentence.
> 
> Make up your minds.
> 
> Did you really have to use the term "assinine"? Couldnt you find a more acceptable word?
> 
> You are quite cavilier about making an adult responsible for a child's critical mistake after the fact.... wow.... make the adult responsible AFTER an innocent person is harmed. You play checkers instead of chess, right?



Ahhh, there you go with your broad brush again, yet not suprisingly your post is devoid of facts to support your postition. Show me some stats that show younger hunters constitute this threat you suggest. 

Your rebuttal to the driving age issue is comical. So vehicle density is the issue? That must mean that hunter density would determine if a child can hunt, right? Also, is the entire state of New York a paved metropolis, or are there rural areas there? Nice try, but as usual you dodge the point in a failed attempt to support an indefensible position.

I think alot of parents make bad decisions, BUT THAT IS THEIR RIGHT AS PARENTS!! Do you think some faceless government flunky is better qualified to make the decision?!? I make bad decisions, you make bad decisions, it is part of human nature, but unless we are allowed to have free choice, and suffer the consequences for those choices, we are not really free are we?

So I take it your goal is to make the government responsible for all your decisions to absolve you from responsibilty? I mean, why stop at them deciding when your child is old enough to hunt? Im not sure you should be deciding what to have for breakfast. You might choose something unhealthy, or take too big a bite and choke, surely you dont want to be responsible for that? You can have your local compliance officer bring you a nice big mugful of Soylent Green then drive you to work because heaven knows you cant be trusted to drive, after all you could make a mistake a kill somebody.

You're damn right I believe in personal responsiblity! Do you even read your posts before you submit them? You make no sense at all! Don't you realize that people make "critical mistakes" every day that harm others? Its a shame but that is life. How is a supervised child making a mistake different than an adult making the exact same mistake? Adults hunters accidentally shoot others hunters hundreds of times every year, sad but true. They need to be held responsible for their negligence. The same as if it happened while a father and son were hunting. So, judging by the logic you display in your posts, I guess chess and checkers are a little advanced, maybe you should try Tic Tac Toe. 

Oh, and what was wrong with asinine, I thought it fit perfectly:

as·i·nine
ADJECTIVE:
1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior. 

Maybe you just misunderstood the definition? Try spelling it right when you look it up.


----------



## DwayneR

Hello Buzzkill,

BK>>So I take it your goal is to make the government responsible for all your decisions to absolve you from responsibilty? I mean, why stop at them deciding when your child is old enough to hunt? Im not sure you should be deciding what to have for breakfast. You might choose something unhealthy, or take too big a bite and choke, surely you dont want to be responsible for that<<

Watch it there Buzz... he will do to you what he did to me... Start implying that you are an Anarchy supporter... 

Dwayne


----------



## centerx

Well I don't know if I would support such a thing or not as I would have to see the proposal.

However if a states age limit was 12 and I had to do some special certification or qualification to take my 9 year old out. Assuming of course I thought that particular child would be ready to handle such an adventure I would not be objectionable to spending some time proving my qualifications to do so. I think it would be best tied into some mentor program so you could be "certified" to take other youth out in the future as well

I would also support heavy fines for being ...Oh let's say anymore then 20 feet away from such a youth while handling a firearm. Bows would be a different story.

Bottom line stay by the side of that youth and guide that 8 year old through the process of properly harvesting an animal with a firearm or face monetary penalties if discovered not doing so. Heavy ones.. You don't want to place an 8 year old into the bush and then climb up in a tree stand 30 yards away to conduct your own hunt while "overseeing" that 8 year old with an '06 . If a warden come up on such a situation $500.00 penalty and loss of hunting privileges for a year would not concern me one bit as it pertains to firearm use and Big Game hunting….


----------



## bow weevil

centerx said:


> Well I don't know if I would support such a thing or not as I would have to see the proposal.
> 
> However if a states age limit was 12 and I had to do some special certification or qualification to take my 9 year old out. Assuming of course I thought that particular child would be ready to handle such an adventure I would not be objectionable to spending some time proving my qualifications to do so. I think it would be best tied into some mentor program so you could be "certified" to take other youth out in the future as well
> 
> I would also support heavy fines for being ...Oh let's say anymore then 20 feet away from such a youth while handling a firearm. Bows would be a different story.
> 
> Bottom line stay by the side of that youth and guide that 8 year old through the process of properly harvesting an animal with a firearm or face monetary penalties if discovered not doing so. Heavy ones.. You don't want to place an 8 year old into the bush and then climb up in a tree stand 30 yards away to conduct your own hunt while "overseeing" that 8 year old with an '06 . If a warden come up on such a situation $500.00 penalty and loss of hunting privileges for a year would not concern me one bit as it pertains to firearm use and Big Game hunting….


Personally, I would rather the state not set an age limit, but still have the same requirement you mention in the beginning of the post. the way I see it, all a person would have to do is wait until the child reaches the predermined age and all of the sudden he would be ready enough to satisfy the state. I would rather have all ages "prove" they are responsible enough to go hunting, and that should entail more than an 8 hour course. I really would have no problem if it was 6 months of saturday classes. I mentioned it before, even a semester course at the community college with time divided between classroom, shooting range, and field instruction. 

Basically my opinion hasn't changed from my first post. Banning youth will solve nothing, and probably have negative results down the road. The solution is education.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> Personally, I would rather the state not set an age limit, but still have the same requirement you mention in the beginning of the post. the way I see it, all a person would have to do is wait until the child reaches the predermined age and all of the sudden he would be ready enough to satisfy the state. I would rather have all ages "prove" they are responsible enough to go hunting, and that should entail more than an 8 hour course. I really would have no problem if it was 6 months of saturday classes. I mentioned it before, even a semester course at the community college with time divided between classroom, shooting range, and field instruction.
> 
> Basically my opinion hasn't changed from my first post. Banning youth will solve nothing, and probably have negative results down the road. The solution is education.


So.. I state that individual parents may not be qualified to make decisions involving the readiness of their 12 year olds and that some sort of minimum qualifications regarding age is appropriate. 

YOU HATE THAT, yet you are willing to subject any young hunter-to-be with a requirement that they prove they are ready by having them attend 6 months of Saturday morning classes to satisfy your own requirements.

I get confused here so easily. First you dont want any qualifications other than parental consent, then you say every kid should get a PhD in hunting and gun handling.

Im all for teaching young hunters. Im all for providing a standardized curriculum, Im all for hands on teaching in the field, yet when I attach a minimum age requirement, you guys go all government paranoia on me.

Whats a fella to do?:embara:


----------



## Free Speech DB

centerx said:


> Well I don't know if I would support such a thing or not as I would have to see the proposal.
> 
> However if a states age limit was 12 and I had to do some special certification or qualification to take my 9 year old out. Assuming of course I thought that particular child would be ready to handle such an adventure I would not be objectionable to spending some time proving my qualifications to do so. I think it would be best tied into some mentor program so you could be "certified" to take other youth out in the future as well
> 
> I would also support heavy fines for being ...Oh let's say anymore then 20 feet away from such a youth while handling a firearm. Bows would be a different story.
> 
> Bottom line stay by the side of that youth and guide that 8 year old through the process of properly harvesting an animal with a firearm or face monetary penalties if discovered not doing so. Heavy ones.. You don't want to place an 8 year old into the bush and then climb up in a tree stand 30 yards away to conduct your own hunt while "overseeing" that 8 year old with an '06 . If a warden come up on such a situation $500.00 penalty and loss of hunting privileges for a year would not concern me one bit as it pertains to firearm use and Big Game hunting….



20 feet away? You may as well be 20 yards, or 20 Leagues.... an eight year old with a .270 that is any more than 20 inches away from an adult is crazy, if you ask me.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> So.. I state that individual parents may not be qualified to make decisions involving the readiness of their 12 year olds and that some sort of minimum qualifications regarding age is appropriate.
> 
> YOU HATE THAT, yet you are willing to subject any young hunter-to-be with a requirement that they prove they are ready by having them attend 6 months of Saturday morning classes to satisfy your own requirements.
> 
> I get confused here so easily. First you dont want any qualifications other than parental consent, then you say every kid should get a PhD in hunting and gun handling.
> 
> Im all for teaching young hunters. Im all for providing a standardized curriculum, Im all for hands on teaching in the field, yet when I attach a minimum age requirement, you guys go all government paranoia on me.
> 
> Whats a fella to do?:embara:


 

No age limit, but tougher hunters saftey classes. 

I never said no qualifications other than parental consent. I never said that a 12 year old should be running free out on the woods with a deer rifle, and I don't exactly consider 6 months of saturdays (that would only be about 24 classes.) a PhD.

I am not going to repeat everything I have typed here. so If you are confused, read my posts again, and hopefully things become clearer.


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> No age limit, but tougher hunters saftey classes.
> 
> I never said no qualifications other than parental consent. I never said that a 12 year old should be running free out on the woods with a deer rifle, and I don't exactly consider 6 months of saturdays (that would only be about 24 classes.) a PhD.
> 
> I am not going to repeat everything I have typed here. so If you are confused, read my posts again, and hopefully things become clearer.


Whats becoming increasingly clear is that the mortal cry against the STATE having any regulatory role in the decision to qualify young hunters as to safety and readiness is growing weaker as the discussion hones in on the topic.

You guys aren't against having some minimum standards established by THE STATE, you just dont want the "age" to be one of them. This discussion started because I objected to letting the parent make the ultimate decision as to when the Squirt Gun Kid was ready to go afield; not BowWeevil's kid, or any other mucho responsible kid (with mucho responsible, hunter educated dads), but the SGK with his drug tempored, beer swilling, 60's liberal parent.

If the SGK's dad decided that junior was ready with only a minimum of familiarity with guns and hunting, you would be stuck with your own rules... Dad makes the call.... I still object and confusion can be a two way street in many cases.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> Whats becoming increasingly clear is that the mortal cry against the STATE having any regulatory role in the decision to qualify young hunters as to safety and readiness is growing weaker as the discussion hones in on the topic.
> 
> You guys aren't against having some minimum standards established by THE STATE, you just dont want the "age" to be one of them. This discussion started because I objected to letting the parent make the ultimate decision as to when the Squirt Gun Kid was ready to go afield; not BowWeevil's kid, or any other mucho responsible kid (with mucho responsible, hunter educated dads), but the SGK with his drug tempored, beer swilling, 60's liberal parent.
> 
> If the SGK's dad decided that junior was ready with only a minimum of familiarity with guns and hunting, you would be stuck with your own rules... Dad makes the call.... I still object and confusion can be a two way street in many cases.


FreeSpeech, again, this is not an issue of age, but proper training. If the parent believes the kid is ready to hunt, this should trigger the enrollment in the training process, not simply "here's a gun, hit the woods." This is how NYS currently works. Although kids cannot hunt anything in NYS until age 12, they can take their hunter's safety course at age 11. The issue is big game hunting. A kid can hunt with a gun or bo for small game at age 12, but cannot hunt deer with a bow until 14, and with a firearm at age 16. This, despite takig the same hunter's safety class (there aren't different classes in NY, beyond the additional bowhunter training course).


----------



## Free Speech DB

doctariAFC said:


> FreeSpeech, again, this is not an issue of age, but proper training. If the parent believes the kid is ready to hunt, this should trigger the enrollment in the training process, not simply "here's a gun, hit the woods." This is how NYS currently works. Although kids cannot hunt anything in NYS until age 12, they can take their hunter's safety course at age 11. The issue is big game hunting. A kid can hunt with a gun or bo for small game at age 12, but cannot hunt deer with a bow until 14, and with a firearm at age 16. This, despite takig the same hunter's safety class (there aren't different classes in NY, beyond the additional bowhunter training course).


I have no problem with a parent making the decision to start the training process at any age. I have a problem with a parent deciding that junior is officially "ready to hunt with a rifle" whenever "they" determine so.

I think that 12 year olds are old enough to hunt big game with a bow. Its a 20 yard weapon. Same with a shotgun and bird shot... a 40 yard weapon... their target is close and the range of the projectile extremely limited. 

If parents want to start training their kids at seven... great, they just need to make sure that their seven year old has the reading comprehension skills to retain the lessons, and the lack of "ants in their pants" to sit through the material as its being presented to an older, more mature audience.


----------



## Beer Volcano

DB, you should change your name to "free speech about Ted Nugent".

You've got 4700 posts & 98% of them are about Ted Nugent. Have you sought psychiatric help for your problem? :thumbs_up


----------



## Free Speech DB

Beer Volcano said:


> DB, you should change your name to "free speech about Ted Nugent".
> 
> You've got 4700 posts & 98% of them are about Ted Nugent. Have you sought psychiatric help for your problem? :thumbs_up



Ah.. Beer Volcano... I see that you are using the TNUSA Dont Talk Back approach, Line 5 from their Official "I Cant Debate" playbook.

Rule 5: If you cannot dispute what is being said about St. Ted, attempt to slander the opposition or question their integrity.

Line 6: If you are unsuccessful with Rule 5, attempt to get the thread blocked or have the opponent censored. Getting them bannned is even more effective.


Good Luck, Beer V....


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Speech DB said:


> I have no problem with a parent making the decision to start the training process at any age. I have a problem with a parent deciding that junior is officially "ready to hunt with a rifle" whenever "they" determine so.
> 
> I think that 12 year olds are old enough to hunt big game with a bow. Its a 20 yard weapon. Same with a shotgun and bird shot... a 40 yard weapon... their target is close and the range of the projectile extremely limited.
> 
> If parents want to start training their kids at seven... great, they just need to make sure that their seven year old has the reading comprehension skills to retain the lessons, and the lack of "ants in their pants" to sit through the material as its being presented to an older, more mature audience.


Excellent. Now we're cookin'. The program (mentoring program) would need to be designed for kids, not simply follow the hunter's safety courses geared at a more adult audience. Also, I am a FIRM believer that you will have a harder time successfully introducing a child to the lifetime pursuit of hunting when deer is the first hunting experience they receive. Start with squirrels and rabbits and birds. Small game offers more action, lesser need to sit still, and some great exercise for father/ son, mother/ daugther, mentor/ child, etc. When the young hunter has agined a little knowledge about hunting through the small game pursuits, bring him or her into the woods for the deer, passing down tactics and "what it takes" to be a successful deer hunter. In NYS, I would like to see 12 yr olds able to hunt big game with archery, 14 yr olds with firearms. But I would really want the mentoring program to start up as soon as we address the current laws. AFter all, we're talking about getting these new hunters at a young age, and the program should be geared specifically for the younger aged kids. I will provide a more detailed proposal for folks to review (including the legislators) after Jan 15.


----------



## hellfire

there are so many variables as far as where the child is hunting...I agree don't give a kid a rifle in a densly populated area...most hunting accidents are caused because the hunter doesn't know what's in the backdrop...before you even hunt it scope out the area, find out if there are any houses ,schools or other buildings where people congregate in close proximity.

We have a issue as to whether or not the parents are able to train their kids good enough about safety...safety is the key...a persons life cannot be brought back, and it only takes a mere second to take it...I agree that 12 is old enough but only after taking a approved hunter safety course and alot of target practice on a range before the youth should be allowed in the woods,accompanied by a experienced hunter of course.

I have brought kids out hunting and the major obstacle I have found is keeping their attention as we all well know there is alot of waiting, and kids are just naturally full of energy and can't sit still as long as a seasoned hunter can...as we wait I try to teach them other things about the forest and the natural order of things in the wild...and also have found many kids are interested in survival skills, they should know this if they ever get lost...have a plan for those down times when the children will get bored...bring a compass and teach them how to use it, show them what kind of plants are good to eat should they ever need the knowledge for survival.Show them how to make a shelter, how to start a fire , any skill that will help them if the need ever arises. There is alot more to hunting than just going out shooting ....in conclusion and above all teach safety!! the stories of a kid shooting into the bushes because he heard some rustling and finding out he just shot his friend are far too many.


----------



## DB biteme

Free Speech DB said:


> I strongly encourage parents to get their kids into hunting at an early age. Take them with you, teach them woodslore and animal habits. Let them shoot a shotgun (limited downrange lethality) and when they have reached a maturity level that is reasonable (14 years perhaps with direct hands on supervision) let them graduate into a rifle that can kill at 400 yards.


Your logic is flawed in the sense that the majority of hunting fatalities are well within shotgun range.With you being a Hunter ed. instructor you would know that,but maybe your trying to push an agenda instead of truth by twisting things around because you have an axe to grind.

I for one believe it should be up to the parent to decide when a young person is ready for the responibility to hunt and handle firearms.We need less government intrusion and more freedoms,like speech,firearm rights,etc.Just like cars and teenagers,there far more fatalities with cars and teens compared to firearms.The difference is,with firearms your right there with your child,unlike leaving them run unsupervised in a car.When my kids are old enough and I feel they are responsible enough,I will have confidence in them while they look through that scope with me right behind them or by their side.My youngest is 3yrs. old and he has been with me on the trapline since he was 3mo. old,and he has gone with me on deer hunts since he was 2yrs old.He has sat on my lap while I've shot a coyotes in my traps with a 22.BTW,22's carry for a mile or more sometimes.He has gone with me squirrel hunting and just plain out in the woods.And I like that freedom and the fact that I am preparing him for the day he shoots his first animal at whatever age I FEEL he is ready and not sooner.


----------



## doctariAFC

hellfire said:


> in conclusion and above all teach safety!! the stories of a kid shooting into the bushes because he heard some rustling and finding out he just shot his friend are far too many.


Where are you getting the information to make this type of statement about young hunters? This happens with older hunters hunting solo, without the training in safety beyond a hunter's safety course and being of age to buy a license. Kids (young kids, under age 16) in most States cannot hunt alone, rather they must be supervised in the stand by their parent, guardian or relative with permission to take the kid out, in writing from the parent/ guardian.

So, I guess I am at a loss by this statement. Please explain


----------



## Free Speech DB

DB biteme said:


> Your logic is flawed in the sense that the majority of hunting fatalities are well within shotgun range.With you being a Hunter ed. instructor you would know that,but maybe your trying to push an agenda instead of truth by twisting things around because you have an axe to grind.
> 
> I for one believe it should be up to the parent to decide when a young person is ready for the responibility to hunt and handle firearms.We need less government intrusion and more freedoms,like speech,firearm rights,etc.Just like cars and teenagers,there far more fatalities with cars and teens compared to firearms.The difference is,with firearms your right there with your child,unlike leaving them run unsupervised in a car.When my kids are old enough and I feel they are responsible enough,I will have confidence in them while they look through that scope with me right behind them or by their side.My youngest is 3yrs. old and he has been with me on the trapline since he was 3mo. old,and he has gone with me on deer hunts since he was 2yrs old.He has sat on my lap while I've shot a coyotes in my traps with a 22.BTW,22's carry for a mile or more sometimes.He has gone with me squirrel hunting and just plain out in the woods.And I like that freedom and the fact that I am preparing him for the day he shoots his first animal at whatever age I FEEL he is ready and not sooner.



Does it give you a certain passive agressive pleasure to sign on a forum with the screen name you have chosen? Is this the level of discussion you hope to create, or are you just wishing that at some point you will graduate from NeverLand and grow up to be an adult?

My agenda has to do with placing reasonable limits and certain minimum requirements on the age that a child can be legally using a centerfire rifle while hunting. If that causes you to resort to the taunting that you chose, I guess I have to resign myself to the fact that the world is full of immaturity, and that I know many 12 year olds who have progressed beyond the "bite me" stage in their development.


----------



## bow weevil

Free Speech DB said:


> and that I know many 12 year olds who have progressed beyond the "bite me" stage in their development.


This is exactly why I am against setting age limits, as only the responsible young men and women will be removed from the woods. At least you see the reasoning behind my stance. Thank you DB.


----------



## hellfire

Was bad choice of wording...I should have said people instead of kids....just trying to emphasize safety ...will proof read my posts in the future...here's a article that might interest you...from 2003 but only real numbers I could find


http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=4301


----------



## Free Speech DB

bow weevil said:


> This is exactly why I am against setting age limits, as only the responsible young men and women will be removed from the woods. At least you see the reasoning behind my stance. Thank you DB.


No need to thank me Bowweevil... I said I know many 12 year olds who dont resort to "bite me" when they are in a discussion. I also know many 12 year olds who think that sort of think is really cute... I dont think its reasonable to base life and death decisions on the notion that you will only have the former in the woods, and that the latter will magically not appear next to them with a wildcat load in the chamber...


----------



## doctariAFC

hellfire said:


> Was bad choice of wording...I should have said people instead of kids....just trying to emphasize safety ...will proof read my posts in the future...here's a article that might interest you...from 2003 but only real numbers I could find
> 
> 
> http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=4301


Yes I have seen this article. Nice that it is still out there to be consumed.

I'll get some info regarding some serious research by the NSSF, which supports their Families Afield program, and the push for solid mentoring programs. This is what we need, in conjunction with lowering the hunting age. IMO, we cannot effectively have one without the other.


----------



## doctariAFC

*Some Great Info*

Below is the link to the NSSF research portion of their site. SOme of the info is resrtcited, while other parts are available for general consumption. I'll get with Glen this evening/ tomorrow for some more in-depth information regarding youth and hunting/ firearms safety.

Anyhow, peruse at your leisure...

http://www.nssf.org/member_idx.cfm?AoI=member


----------



## DB biteme

Free Speech DB said:


> Does it give you a certain passive agressive pleasure to sign on a forum with the screen name you have chosen? Is this the level of discussion you hope to create, or are you just wishing that at some point you will graduate from NeverLand and grow up to be an adult?
> 
> My agenda has to do with placing reasonable limits and certain minimum requirements on the age that a child can be legally using a centerfire rifle while hunting. If that causes you to resort to the taunting that you chose, I guess I have to resign myself to the fact that the world is full of immaturity, and that I know many 12 year olds who have progressed beyond the "bite me" stage in their development.


For someone with the screen name Free Speech,you sure are bent on imposing regulations on everyone else.BTW,my screen name has nothing to do with this thread.Speaking of immature,I seen your rants on the thread that was axed and the other comments you have about Nugent,you obviously have it out for the guy.You also side stepped what I said about accidents and teen drivers and the fact that most hunting fatalities are well within shotgun range.As a matter of fact the fatalities that occured this year would prove that.But your not about facts are you.I know your type,they think regulating everything promotes responsible conduct.Take your own advice and move beyond the 12 yearold stage,but your type thrives on bs dont it.

*** Let's not spiral into the personal malarky regarding legislative debate and differences. I am quick to pull the EOP trigger in this forum. doctariAFC ***


----------



## Free Speech DB

DB biteme said:


> For someone with the screen name Free Speech,you sure are bent on imposing regulations on everyone else.BTW,my screen name has nothing to do with this thread.Speaking of immature,I seen your rants on the thread that was axed and the other comments you have about Nugent,you obviously have it out for the guy.You also side stepped what I said about accidents and teen drivers and the fact that most hunting fatalities are well within shotgun range.As a matter of fact the fatalities that occured this year would prove that.But your not about facts are you.I know your type,they think regulating everything promotes responsible conduct.Take your own advice and move beyond the 12 yearold stage,but your type thrives on bs dont it.
> 
> *** Let's not spiral into the personal malarky regarding legislative debate and differences. I am quick to pull the EOP trigger in this forum. doctariAFC ***


I obviously have a strong opinion about Nugent based upon personal experience and a good memory of behavior and events. I also have experience teaching youth hunter safety that includes 11-15 year olds. I base my comments on what I have witnessed in terms of maturity levels and work in the field. You know nothing of me and to think that you can type cast me based upon a few words written here, is simple hubris.


----------



## J. Wesbrock

> I obviously have a strong opinion about Nugent based upon personal experience and a good memory of behavior and events.


Dalton?


----------



## DB biteme

Free Speech DB said:


> I obviously have a strong opinion about Nugent based upon personal experience and a good memory of behavior and events. I also have experience teaching youth hunter safety that includes 11-15 year olds. I base my comments on what I have witnessed in terms of maturity levels and work in the field. You know nothing of me and to think that you can type cast me based upon a few words written here, is simple hubris.


I've been reading your posts not on just this thread but others and can tell you, your not a person I'd trust teaching my kid hunter ed.With your low view of kids and there intelligence,I'm surprised they let you teach it.PETA loves people like you.Buh bye!:thumbs_do


----------



## DB biteme

J. Wesbrock said:


> Dalton?


I do believe so.


----------



## Free Speech DB

DB biteme said:


> I've been reading your posts not on just this thread but others and can tell you, your not a person I'd trust teaching my kid hunter ed.With your low view of kids and there intelligence,I'm surprised they let you teach it.PETA loves people like you.Buh bye!:thumbs_do


Yeah well... my view is based upon experience, and its not a low view, its a realistic evaluation of the maturity level of 12 year olds, especially in a state like Michigan that has 750,000 hunters in the woods on opening day.

Do you always try to win arguments by injecting the "PETA LOVES YOU" theme?

You're much too easy.


----------



## Free Speech DB

J. Wesbrock said:


> Dalton?



You must be a Dont Talk Backer.... say hi to the gang for me.


----------



## psychophant

*...*

I am dismayed to see the level of discourse regarding this controversial subject. It reminds me of another place where differences of opinion cannot be raised without getting a STFU or BS slammed in your face.


----------



## Beer Volcano

I wonder if the parents of the kids that you "teach" know of your helpless addiction to message boards that have ted nugent in the subject line.

You desperately need a woman or at the least some new material.


----------



## stringshoota

*Free speech for some?*



Free Speech DB said:


> Does it give you a certain passive agressive pleasure to sign on a forum with the screen name you have chosen? Is this the level of discussion you hope to create, or are you just wishing that at some point you will graduate from NeverLand and grow up to be an adult?
> 
> My agenda has to do with placing reasonable limits and certain minimum requirements on the age that a child can be legally using a centerfire rifle while hunting. If that causes you to resort to the taunting that you chose, I guess I have to resign myself to the fact that the world is full of immaturity, and that I know many 12 year olds who have progressed beyond the "bite me" stage in their development.



Wow DB why would you critisize others who are just excersizing their right to Free Speach. You find fault in others when you have a habit blasting some by stooping to judge and display their personal life for your own agenda.Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

As for the hunting age doesn't the thought of a parent deciding his kids can hunt at a young age scare you when some parents have no business in the woods or behind a gun.Would we also consider allowing a parent to let a younger person drive earlier than 16 when studies show they have a higher accident rate now.Yes even after a parents decision and the train and pass or fail class may help.Do you have any idea of how many kids slip through the cracks of basic education now.Do you want some of these kids slipping thru the trees and approaching your stand.A kid may be able to exersize self control and learning to get thru a hunter edj. class but will he be able to do that when buck fever sets in and he takes those first shots with so much excitement.Check all the new med. diagnosis of children now. Do you think the kids will remember to take those meds before heading hyper full force for that first hunt.Sure a supervised hunt with parents in first years would help but look how many parents have trouble supervising their children out of the woods.


----------



## Beer Volcano

It isn't about parents, guns, hunting, fishing, archery or anything other than his obsession with a bowhunter rockstar


----------



## Free Speech DB

Beer Volcano said:


> I wonder if the parents of the kids that you "teach" know of your helpless addiction to message boards that have ted nugent in the subject line.
> 
> You desperately need a woman or at the least some new material.


Ah.. an armchair psychoanalyst... University of MatchBook Cover?

You lost, Beer V? Shouldnt you be reporting your triumphs to the BB's at Dont Talk Back?

Question for you... If you believe so strongly in Guitar Hero's, how strongly do you believe in the Family Values Hype that Nugent has fed you? Lets talk about that one for a minute, huh?

Or how about his speech that guarantees that all of the money donated to Kamp for Kids went directly to the kids... lets discuss that one... 

Or how about how Nugent claims he supports Police officers, yet when one was killed in Washington DC a few years back, Nugent said he deserved to die for being inept with his weapon...

Or how about Nugent's military record... oh.. thats right.. he didnt have one...yet he claims a mighty soldierly alliance in his old age... 

Its time for you to go get reinforcements, Beerbuddy... Red Rover Red Rover, send some BB's over....


----------



## Free Speech DB

stringshoota said:


> Wow DB why would you critisize others who are just excersizing their right to Free Speach. You find fault in others when you have a habit blasting some by stooping to judge and display their personal life for your own agenda.Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.
> 
> As for the hunting age doesn't the thought of a parent deciding his kids can hunt at a young age scare you when some parents have no business in the woods or behind a gun.Would we also consider allowing a parent to let a younger person drive earlier than 16 when studies show they have a higher accident rate now.Yes even after a parents decision and the train and pass or fail class may help.Do you have any idea of how many kids slip through the cracks of basic education now.Do you want some of these kids slipping thru the trees and approaching your stand.A kid may be able to exersize self control and learning to get thru a hunter edj. class but will he be able to do that when buck fever sets in and he takes those first shots with so much excitement.Check all the new med. diagnosis of children now. Do you think the kids will remember to take those meds before heading hyper full force for that first hunt.Sure a supervised hunt with parents in first years would help but look how many parents have trouble supervising their children out of the woods.



Everyone is entitled to Free Speech in America... howver, when someone challenges the thoughts of those using their free speech, its called debate. Its a healthy part of the process, yet you seem to not be able to discern the difference.


----------



## Beer Volcano

LOL, you're so predictable....

NUGE HAS BABY OUT OF WEDLOCK

NUGE STEALS MONEY FROM UNSUSPECTING SHEEPLES

NUGE IS NO COP

NUGE NEVER SERVED

BLAHBLAHBLAH

GoGoGopher take your meds now.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Beer Volcano said:


> LOL, you're so predictable....
> 
> NUGE HAS BABY OUT OF WEDLOCK
> 
> NUGE STEALS MONEY FROM UNSUSPECTING SHEEPLES
> 
> NUGE IS NO COP
> 
> NUGE NEVER SERVED
> 
> BLAHBLAHBLAH
> 
> GoGoGopher take your meds now.


#1 Truth, huh? 
#2 Stealing is such a strong word. 
#3 Of course Nuge is no cop.. he never was, truth again, but I dont think I brought that up, right?
#4 Nuge never served, another truth... to claim he could have won the Viet Nam war single handedly if he had... oh my

Are you having fun yet?


----------



## stringshoota

*Free speech*



Free Speech DB said:


> Everyone is entitled to Free Speech in America... howver, when someone challenges the thoughts of those using their free speech, its called debate. Its a healthy part of the process, yet you seem to not be able to discern the difference.


So from what you just tried to do when you blasted DB biteme when he was just debating with you was ok.But others who do not meet your requirements for a debate are not wise enough to join you in a discussion when their views do not meet your criteria.


----------



## Beer Volcano

Free Speech DB said:


> Are you having fun yet?


The mere site of you typing those words is fun.

Give us some new stuff since you're all on the inside.


----------



## stringshoota

*last thought*

One more thought about the origininal topic.
Whenever you comment about the actions or rights of another mans son or daughter its a thin line to walk.And stepping across it is sometimes wrong as no one should know their own childs abilaty better than their parent.And for a very large part hunters are good sportsman and will lead their children in the right direction.
Now I politely yield the floor to others and apologize to some who thought I may have gotten off topic.I was just spewing out some words so fast while pickin chicken I did not realize I got so much grease on the keys,No more time to talk gotta clean this up before the wife sees.

seeya


----------



## Tim4Trout

Folks,

Please, I would personally appreciate it if we could refrain from turning any debate here in this thread into a " Ted Nugent argument ". Thanks in advance.

-----

Are we talking more about removing *all* restrictions on hunting as it pertains to age -- or -- simply lowering minimum age requirements to allow those youths who do indeed incur enough maturity to be able to handle firearms in an acceptable responsible manner, but who may be currently restricted from hunting by government regulations, the opportunity to hunt ? Note --- I am not opposed to required passage of hunter education and direct supervision requirements for hunters under perhaps a certain age.

In terms of what Free Speech DB has brought up, while there is always the potential for something unfortunate to occur, a question that needs to be asked is ... Should millions of youths, who it has been said many time are hunting's future, and who may indeed be mature enough to safely handle firearms, ( such is best judged IMO on an individual basis ) be restricted from hunting because there is a potential, based upon hunters safety statistics, for a few to incur problems ? 

Remember that the handful of youths that unfortunately become involved in "hunting incidents" will often garner much more much media attention than the many youths who hunt without incident.

Remember that if 12 year old " Johnny Youth " is prohibited from hunting due to age restrictions, not only does it mean that he can not legally enter the woods by himself with a loaded firearm in quest of game, but it also means that regardless of whether he incurs maturity and responsibility, he can not participate, in terms of carrying and possibly firing a weapon, in any special supervised youth hunts either.

-----

Of the unfortunate hunting incidents that do involve youths ( In particular where the youth is the one who discharged the weapon ) what percentage involve lack of what should be construed as proper adult supervision ?


----------



## Free Speech DB

stringshoota said:


> So from what you just tried to do when you blasted DB biteme when he was just debating with you was ok.But others who do not meet your requirements for a debate are not wise enough to join you in a discussion when their views do not meet your criteria.


I blasted DB BiteMe for his childish screen name. I didnt say he couldnt use it, I just pointed out what it made him look like in public. I have no difficulty keeping the focus on a topic, but when someone thinks they need to make things personal, I have no problem providing a rebuttal that addresses their need. In this case, the obvious BiteMe comment disguised as a screen name was rather blatant to me. If you believe that Mr. DB BiteMe was addressing someone else, it sure would be a strange coincidence, huh?

There is no criteria for debatable input other than this... when you put something in writing, especially your opinions about a controversial subject like the worth of Ted Nugent, you are giving others tacit approval to agree or disagree. Disagreement may come in the form of response that obliterates the foundation of that opinion. Dont mistake this as an implication that the author was not "wise enough", only that someone else had more accurate information. Sometimes its just a question of how much information you have been exposed to. Remember.. there is always someone smarter somewhere... always. If you close your mind to believe that you have the last and best knowledge available, you set yourself up for failure. I am sure that there are many people smarter than I am. I have learned to listen when I come across them. Its not a bad philosophy to follow.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Beer Volcano said:


> The mere site of you typing those words is fun.
> 
> Give us some new stuff since you're all on the inside.


Okay... the latest that I have heard was his rant at the NRA convention that essentially said that people should violate the civil rights of car jackers, robbers, and rapists by killing them on the spot.. no judge, no jury, no trial. This is a direct violation of the Constitutional guarantees that provide that a man.. any man in the United States is legally INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

Nugent's comments may have gotten a huge nod from the convention crowd, but it was clearly an indication that his emotional outburst had only been sifted through a reality filter for a nanosecond...and that causes him to appear the fool.


----------



## Free Speech DB

Tim4Trout said:


> Folks,
> 
> Please, I would personally appreciate it if we could refrain from turning any debate here in this thread into a " Ted Nugent argument ". Thanks in advance.
> 
> -----
> 
> Are we talking more about removing *all* restrictions on hunting as it pertains to age -- or -- simply lowering minimum age requirements to allow those youths who do indeed incur enough maturity to be able to handle firearms in an acceptable responsible manner, but who may be currently restricted from hunting by government regulations, the opportunity to hunt ? Note --- I am not opposed to required passage of hunter education and direct supervision requirements for hunters under perhaps a certain age.
> 
> In terms of what Free Speech DB has brought up, while there is always the potential for something unfortunate to occur, a question that needs to be asked is ... Should millions of youths, who it has been said many time are hunting's future, and who may indeed be mature enough to safely handle firearms, ( such is best judged IMO on an individual basis ) be restricted from hunting because there is a potential, based upon hunters safety statistics, for a few to incur problems ?
> 
> Remember that the handful of youths that unfortunately become involved in "hunting incidents" will often garner much more much media attention than the many youths who hunt without incident.
> 
> Remember that if 12 year old " Johnny Youth " is prohibited from hunting due to age restrictions, not only does it mean that he can not legally enter the woods by himself with a loaded firearm in quest of game, but it also means that regardless of whether he incurs maturity and responsibility, he can not participate, in terms of carrying and possibly firing a weapon, in any special supervised youth hunts either.
> 
> -----
> 
> Of the unfortunate hunting incidents that do involve youths ( In particular where the youth is the one who discharged the weapon ) what percentage involve lack of what should be construed as proper adult supervision ?



Tim... good questions... of course, none of us can predict the future, so it is obvious that any of my comments are based upon my own conjecture and experience with the age group in a hunter safety context. It doesnt mean that my opinion is the correct one, it only means that its my "input" to the discussion, input that makes others take pause to think.

In some states, like Texas... you could eliminate any age requirement and still not set up a potentially dangerous situation.. there is virtually no public land, and the existence of leases that encompass thousands of acres make any errant bullet extremely unlikely to hit anything other than a cactus or a corn feeder. In other states like Kansas... there are relatively few hunters in the woods, but in states like Michigan, which has huge deer hunter numbers and huge tracts of public land, the potential for error is much much higher.

Michigan has succeeded in almost eliminating hunter firearms incidents since the implementation of hunter safety requirements. The requirements that are on the books today are testimony to scores of lives saved. Some people are willing to sacrifice a few of those lives in order to relax the current regulations. I am not one of those willing to do that. The arguments for reduced age limits are based primarily upon making sure that younger kids can get involved in hunting at an earlier age. My opinion is that you can get them involved, take them with you, do everything in the hunt except let them shoot a centerfire rifle before they are 14. The avid sportsmen dads are already doing this.

My biggest objection to the questions posed here have to do with allowing EVERY individual parent to make this critical decision. Parents are not objective about the capabilities of their offspring. Objectivity is a very important part of putting a gun in the hands of a child, in my opinion. I respect the manner in which you posed your position.


----------



## doctariAFC

*The Last Word*

In think this is a good place to end this debate. The bottom line in all this is that Government cannot nor should not make decisions for Parents. This is the parent's right and responsibility, and simply due to some parents who lack responsibility and parenting skills, we ought not toss the baby out with the bath water.

Youth hunters are safe hunters, provided we, as sportsmen and women, step up to the plate and proactively get the kids involved in a solid hunting/ firearms safety training program at the local conservation club level. More than enough proof exists showing that kids who are properly mentored (even simply properly taught), with additional reinforcement are the safest hunters in the woods, bar none. This carries on throughout their adult hunting lives.

Is Nugent correct? To a degree, but unfettered kids in the woods is not necessarily beneficial, to the kids, the woods, the wildlife, other hunters and the sport of hunting in general. Teaching is the key.

I will post for all of you to read the draft proposal I am authoring. We will have a new debate on that one when it is completed.


----------

