4 year olds with guns

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, I agree with this though not to the extent referenced here.

I believe this applies to the welfare of juveniles. In the sense of assurance a child is safe from abuse. Where does one draw the line between family/parental affair and "social contract" security?

How about when the public's resources aren't in play?

For example: if you want t smoke in your house and expose your kids to it, fine by me. Same goes with teaching your kids what's right & wrong & how to worship. None of my business and nobody should care but you.

But the wildlife isn't theirs, or mine, exclusively. It is eld in trust for all people and therefore the regulation of that wildlife must benefit the greater good.

 

[RobG]

Is that why we all hunt, because we need to kill something?

Apparently the people who support this bill believe so. Like I said, children already have other things they can legally kill if it important to the parent that they do so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

My son started hunting with me when he was six. He hunted rabbits and gophers first with rocks & sticks, then BB gun, then 22 cal. He helped me with big game and loved every minute of it. He was not physically, mentally, nor emotionally ready for a big game rifle until twelve, at which time he enthusiastically completed Hunters Safety and time on the range. First year big game hunting he bagged antelope, deer, and elk and now sports a personalized plate that reads "HNTMAX."
Point is; he did not require a hunter apprenticeship certificate and I did not require a piece of paper or a piece of unneccessary legislation to make the decision to take him hunting with me and to instill in him the hunting spirit.

This bill is "feel good" legislation that really is just another "bridge to nowhere" ... with all the accompanying red tape and bureaucracy for what????

 

[PFUNK]

Apparently the people who support this bill believe so. Like I said, children already have other things they can legally kill if it important to the parent that they do so.

I don't think the supporters of this bill are supporters because they want their kid to be able to kill something at an earlier age. Like has been stated, plenty of kids younger than 12 years old are perfectly capable of safely handling a firearm and harvesting game. So why does it have to that they can only harvest nongame? I support allowing younger kids being allowed to obtain licenses and hunt just like any adult can. However, I would not support them being able to do so before passing a thorough hunter's education course without any assistance from anyone else. Like has been said, there are parents who may think their kid is ready to hunt when really they aren't. That is the point of the education course. It is a safety net to make sure the kids are ready. If they prove they have the ability to safely hunt, why not allow them? I was tagging along with my dad for as long as I can remember. I was probably 2 or 3 years old. When I got a little older, I got to bring my pellet gun. When I was 9, I was up to a 20 gauge and hunting ducks and pheasant. I couldn't hunt deer until I was 12. I know I could have safely hunted deer when I was 9 and hunting ducks... but the law wouldn't allow me to. Was I upset about that? No, I patiently waited and understood it was part of the process. Did I sit at home or school every single day during deer hunting wishing I was out in the woods... thinking about what dad might have got... absolutely! Tagging along is great for a kid and certainly keeps you interested, but it is not the same as having your own tag and actually HUNTING. I say let the kids hunt, but I do agree that a safety course needs to be passed first. That'll keep the "4 year olds with guns" from obtaining a license.

 

[cjcj]

With freedom comes responsibility. Heck Ben, laws are for honest people, right? I try to be in the good parenting column.

Thats what it all comes down to!.. Being Honest and good parenting:hump:

I remember being 4 with a Daisy eagle BB gun... going out with Dad and older brothers... I thought I was part of the hunting group killing Doves,..

But now days... you might get a Child -Abuse charge from ... some Gov't Snoot...

 

[1_pointer]

How about when the public's resources aren't in play?

For example: if you want t smoke in your house and expose your kids to it, fine by me. Same goes with teaching your kids what's right & wrong & how to worship. None of my business and nobody should care but you.

But the wildlife isn't theirs, or mine, exclusively. It is eld in trust for all people and therefore the regulation of that wildlife must benefit the greater good.

I agree with the bolded part. However, I don't see how that should or would change depending on the age of the tag holder? Feel free to show me what I'm missing.

 

[thecrittergitter]

Would you like to live next door to these little "Martian" terrors?

The squirrels go through life looking over their shoulders around here.

I'd live next to those terrors... And give them each a license for stray catsLOL

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree with the bolded part. However, I don't see how that should or would change depending on the age of the tag holder? Feel free to show me what I'm missing.

it comes down to 1.) What's the best for the resource 2.) What has society chosen as an appropriate course of action for that resource.

Until very recently, people were content to follow the wisdom that brought us the age of 12, along with mandatory hunter safety as the condition of allowing folks to hunt. Sure some kids are mentally capable of handling the hunt and the kill before that, but the vast majority of children are usually mentally ready around age 12. Same thing for driving. Should parents be the deciding factor when a child is able to drive? Handling a firearm is no less of a responsibility than driving, but I don't see anyone out here screaming that 9 year olds should be given the keys to the buick.

 

[idnative1948]

Totally agree. Same thing happened in my grandson's class I attended with him. I was scratching my head thinking, "What the hey, some of these kids DO NOT want to be here."

Just an observation, but some of the kids in my daughters HE class didn't seem very serious about the situation. Some of the parents less so. Made me wonder why they were even there. And nevous about what may happen if they could get started any earlier. mtmuley

 

[spook12]

it comes down to 1.) What's the best for the resource 2.) What has society chosen as an appropriate course of action for that resource.

Until very recently, people were content to follow the wisdom that brought us the age of 12, along with mandatory hunter safety as the condition of allowing folks to hunt. Sure some kids are mentally capable of handling the hunt and the kill before that, but the vast majority of children are usually mentally ready around age 12. Same thing for driving. Should parents be the deciding factor when a child is able to drive? Handling a firearm is no less of a responsibility than driving, but I don't see anyone out here screaming that 9 year olds should be given the keys to the buick.

Go back and read this thread Ben, I think you will find that the vast majority have stated some 9 year olds are ready to handle a firearm (with a mentor present) even the guys that are against kids gettting tags have stated over and over how kids should be content to hunt small game and predators.
With the statement you just made you have taken this conversation from, should a kid under 12 be able to hunt big game while in the mentorship of an adult to kids under 12 should not handle firearms.

Would you like to provide some proof that ''some kids are mentally capable of handling the hunt and the kill before that but the vast majority around 12.''

There's been a bunch of states that have found this not to be the case.

What makes kids in MT. so far behind their peers in other states?

Common sense tells me that if 10 year olds in midwestern states can safely hunt whitetails on a corn field, then 10 year olds in MT. can safely hunt antelope over a water tank.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Go back and read this thread Ben, I think you will find that the vast majority have stated some 9 year olds are ready to handle a firearm (with a mentor present) even the guys that are against kids gettting tags have stated over and over how kids should be content to hunt small game and predators.
With the statement you just made you have taken this conversation from, should a kid under 12 be able to hunt big game while in the mentorship of an adult to kids under 12 should not handle firearms.

Would you like to provide some proof that ''some kids are mentally capable of handling the hunt and the kill before that but the vast majority around 12.''

There's been a bunch of states that have found this not to be the case.

What makes kids in MT. so far behind their peers in other states?

Common sense tells me that if 10 year olds in midwestern states can safely hunt whitetails on a corn field, then 10 year olds in MT. can safely hunt antelope over a water tank.

What has changing the age of big game hunting done to the mentality of the hunter? From what I've seen, the majority of American hunters seem to think that the kill is the end all, be all of the hunt. We've turned hunting into NASCAR on several fronts. We've abandoned the pastoral view of hunting of Grandpa in his woolies wandering in the woods for fist pumping, adrenaline charged stand sitting. That's the message we give with this kind of bill. It's the end run around the patience and skill necessary to be a successful hunter. It focuses on killing over the conservation of the resource or even the basic understanding of the resource.

Handling a firearm is a major part of hunting, no?

Hunter's safety stresses safe firearms handling, no?

You kill big game if you're nine with a firearm, no?

Big difference between a .22 or 410 or even 243 and a 30-06 & 300 WM, no?

Just because other states do something, doesn't mean other states should follow. I think we can all agree on that. Get a little tired of folks from other states running for our Legislature and saying, "Back home we did it this way."

Well you ain't back home, and we've been handling business better than back home for a long time.

The bill reeks of entitlement mentality to me.

 

[thecrittergitter]

When does the legislation end again...........:W:
Man, can't wait to not have to hear about all this stuff anymore.

That being said, I again would like to say thanks to all the guys that are out there dealing with this crap every day with all those hooligans.....Ben, Fin, Shoots, Buzz, etc, etc.etc...

Suprised you guys can keep your sanity through this....

 

[1_pointer]

it comes down to 1.) What's the best for the resource 2.) What has society chosen as an appropriate course of action for that resource.

Until very recently, people were content to follow the wisdom that brought us the age of 12, along with mandatory hunter safety as the condition of allowing folks to hunt. Sure some kids are mentally capable of handling the hunt and the kill before that, but the vast majority of children are usually mentally ready around age 12. Same thing for driving. Should parents be the deciding factor when a child is able to drive? Handling a firearm is no less of a responsibility than driving, but I don't see anyone out here screaming that 9 year olds should be given the keys to the buick.

Thanks for expounding on your point of view.

 

[spook12]

Fair enough Ben, Then the guys who dont support this bill should just be honest why they dont and quit grasping at lame excuses that have been PROVEN false in other states.

If the resource cant handle the extra pressure then fine oppose this bill.Hell Ben if you can convince me that the wildlife in MT. will be harmed by a few 11 year olds with tags I will be more than happy to shoot a few e-mails off just like I have done on other bills.

While this bill reeks of an entitlement mentality to you it looks to me like one more case of others imposing their values on the individual.

It must be comforting to those who are so sure of what is right in there own mind that they are comfortable imposing those beliefs on others.

I never said MT. should do what others have done, was only pointing out that other states have removed these restraints and to the best of my knowledge they haven't experienced the bloodbath that some have suggested would happen in MT.

 

[Eric Albus]

spook, well put.

Ben,
I fail to see the bill as "an end run to patience and skill", and I also fail to see the "entitlement" aspect of it
....had my boy been able to hunt at age 6 he could have hunted w/ his great-grandpa....how is that for a "pastoral view of Grandpa"?
As to the "stand hunting", what difference does this make? How someone hunts makes them less of a hunter because they have to "stand hunt"? ...i too can do w/out the fist pumping/high five crap when a deer is killed...death of an animal is not something that should be celebrated, death of an animal should be revered.

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[Ben Lamb]

spook, well put.

Ben,
I fail to see the bill as "an end run to patience and skill", and I also fail to see the "entitlement" aspect of it
....had my boy been able to hunt at age 6 he could have hunted w/ his great-grandpa....how is that for a "pastoral view of Grandpa"?
As to the "stand hunting", what difference does this make? How someone hunts makes them less of a hunter because they have to "stand hunt"? ...i too can do w/out the fist pumping/high five crap when a deer is killed...death of an animal is not something that should be celebrated, death of an animal should be revered.

I spent a lot of time with my grandfather in the field. Never needed to plug a deer to appreciate it. This bill is more for te parents, not the kds.

Harley's right. This horse is dead.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This horse is dead.

But what is the prognosis for this bill?

 

[Eric Albus]

agreed, the horse is dead, I can not help what your needs in the field w/ Grandpa were, or how they were/weren't met.... this isn't about "me"...i have no dog in this fight.... for you to say "this is more about parents" is like me saying, "this is more about the kids".... so, we are at an impass?

 

[Gerald Martin]

But.. But... Do it for the CHILDREN... ( in my best imitation of Sally Struthers)

I have to be honest. I haven't read the actual bill that started this thread so I don't really have an opinion on whether or not this particular bill is worth passing or not.

My participation in this particular debate is motivated by frustration at using artificial qualifications to determine when children are allowed to hunt. Since when does a particular number qualify a child as being ready to hunt?
I am all for requiring EVERY child to pass a hunter's safety course and a proficiency test before they are allowed to hold their own license. Whether that can be accomplished at age 6 or at age 15 should be the determining factor of when they can hunt.

As far as whether or not the resource can handle the extra pressure or not. That's why we have professional wildlife managers who dictate what amount of harvest various species can sustain. If that means I can only get one doe tag a year instead of two or three because there are more hunters, so be it.
As far as this being a mechanism for adult hunters to poach on their kid's license, those kinds of individuals will always find a way to cheat the system. There are ways to curb this kind of behavior through eforcement and stiffer penalties. If it wasn't seen as somewhat socially acceptable for parents to fill a kid's tag and the penalties for doing so were stiff, you wouldn't see much abuse.

All in all, I get the sense that those who are against lowering the age of when children can hunt are not approaching it from a management or safety point of view as much as they are from a "that's the way it's always been and we are not going to change it", mentality.