MSSA email list member comment in re HB 382:
---------------------
I would say MSSA should give hearty support. After hearing about this
bill I went on line and did a quick survey and found that Montana is in
the minority for not allowing young kinds to hunt with a parent or
guardian before the legal hunting age for a hunting license. If I
understood what I was reading - a number of states specifically state
that if a hunter is below a certain age they can hunt with out a
license. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/natres/minagehunt.htm . Some
states have no legal minimum but still require a hunter safety test and
I have heard of some kids passing this very young (5-8). What Montana
kid whose parents hunt hasn't begged to shot a grouse with a .22? But
we have to tell them “no”. Why not allow them? Allow the parent, grand
parent, or guardian or delegated adult to make the judgment call. I
think it would be good for Montana and good for hunting.
----------------------
In the latest issue of a newsletter sent out by the Frenchtown School
District there was an interesting segment in it. A first grade
class was asked to write a letter to the President Obama starting
with: Would you please--
Out of the 18 kids that wrote a follow-up to this, 2 kids wrote to tell
their parents to get them a gun. I thought this was very
interesting, especially since they actually put these responses into a
newsletter without censorship.
As far as this bill is concerned, I believe the positive issues outweighs the negative and we probably should support it.
--------------------
I think it’s scary enough out there – and do not support the idea of
young children running around the woods with high-powered rifles.
What would be good is to find an answer for adults who go hunting and
behave as though they are under 13!
Seriously, I do think your reservations are well-founded.
----------------------
My opinion is that hunters under 13 is not a bill that MSSA should expend effort on this session.
If it passes, fine. If not, fine also, as long as your other bills pass.
Maybe you have better luck getting hunters involved, but they simply do
not care at all about gun bills. If it fails, maybe you can get
them to care more.
-----------------------
as to he bill itself, as written it seems a little insane, an infant
could apply and be given a liscence!!. I think that the youth
should be required to pass hunter safety as a prerequisite. let
that be the determining factor as to whether they are ready 'mentally'
to hunt. if they cant comprehend the concepts of hunter safety
then no liscence.
---------------------
I do not support this bill.
If folks want to take their younger kids hunting, great. (Robert has
been going with me and his grandfather every chance he got since he was
9). I think the "hunter recruitment" angle is thin at best.
He is fully recruited.
I think a certain level of maturity is required to participate.
It is not purely safety with me, but that is part of it. I let my
kids shoot at the range (under close supervision of course), but I do
not let them pack firearms in the field. That is the safety
side. I think those arguments carry weight.
The second angle is political. There is potential for a lot of
abuse of those licenses, and a perception or stigma that supporters are
enabling that abuse. I am not worried about the abuse per se, I
am worried about the political stigma and negative press which will
outweigh any benefit. I guess implicit in my analysis is that I
see no, or at least very little, benefit.
-------------------------
You did a good job of summarizing pros and cons. It all boils
down to the parents. Different kids mature at different rates,
but some parents may teach kids how to poach or let the kids alone with
a loaded gun before the kids are ready.
If you take home schooling for example, some kids excel after home
schooling, some do not. The majority of kids who have serious
deficiencies on the GED and other standardized tests are home schooled
kids - so our fried tells us who is a counselor for this
situation.
How do you encourage responsible firearms training? If the
parents are responsible hunters then why not let them pass the skills
on and get the kids in action as soon as the parents feel the kid is
ready.
I guess I lean towards MSSA support, or at least not opposition.
There will always be the odd bad example, and if the bad example causes
a death or accident, then fingers will point to this as being the
problem, but I would guess that most hunting parents are sensible and
responsible.
----------------------
Absolutely no.
13 is questionably young. Younger than that, they should
accompany Dad. Most under 13's cannot hunt yet - it's just too
much for them to do without a nap. This would do more to hurt
hunter recruitment than help because of the bad memories of too long of
a day afield. Let them remember the nice 70-degree hunts with Dad
for upland game and short hunts...
Can you imagine a 9 year old after elk? It would be a disaster and they would never want to hunt again!
-----------------------
I have always took a kid between 5-13 years old with me on
hunting trips and had tell the kids we don't live in a republic
any more and there seams to be someone that knows better then a
grandfather or dad and they all believe they are better teachers then
us parents who lived off the land for years I think you should
support this Bill
-----------------------
I hunted squires and rabbit's with my uncle since I was seven. In the
state I grew up in I could legally get a license at 10 (to hunt with a
supervised hunter). At 12 I could get a general incense. Of course, in
those days, in high school a few of my friends and I use to take our
shotguns to school ( When we got off the bus, we went straight to the
gym and stowed them in our lockers) and until the time change hunted on
the way home after football practice, instead of taking the bus. Look
how times have changed.
------------------------
I do like the apprentice aspect but, kids under 13, is it a way for the
opposition to make us look less reliable on other more important
bills/fights ?
------------------------
X supports the concept ( without reading the fine print ), for all the Pro reasons given, plus one I'm glad you did not write!
We may need every sharpshooting gunner regardless of age to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.
Ever read "Johnny Tremaine" ? It's fiction, but there were plenty of
"kids" running messages, delivering handbills, and shooting from behind
rock walls from Concord back into Boston on 19 April 1775.
Ever see the movie "Red Dawn" ? Also fiction , but the Wolverines were
not just the older kids, and the older kids who become the leaders in
any resistance learned it at earlier ages.
Let's depend on parental discernment and discretion. Parents know their own kids.
Some lean year ahead, it might be the 10 year old with a mini 14 that brings down the meat and keeps some patriots alive.
And somewhere, someday, it may be one good shot between the eyes of
some blaspheming giant Goliath from District of Corruption, from
a kid and his squirrel rifle, that makes the others drop their
weapons and surrender.
As I said, better to not put that out in the open . But if We The
People need to arm and prepare, why an arbitrary age? Some kids are
mature at 8 and have dealt with rattlesnakes and wolves and
bears, and others at 30 wouldn't know anything more than how to
dial 911.
PS - I'm suspicious of everything the NRA says or does. Why bring this
matter up publicly? Why spend legislators' time on something that we as
parents are, or are not, going to do anyway?
I did not ask for a permit to take my sons out hunting. I took them. I
showed them cover near feed and bed grounds, tracking, how sound
travels, and most of that was using field glasses first, and gun
safety, sight picture, trigger squeeze, sighting in, and mucho practice
preceded any trip to where game might be. ( Bears!)
I suppose we still need the NRA and I suppose they still do some good ,
but at this unfortunately late stage in the New World Order folks'
plans to disarm everyone except their commissars, being an NRA
member and having any hunting license is like admitting you own a gun.
Unless someone is a convicted felon or a halfwit, its none of the State's business who has or what kind or where its kept.
The less the state goons know, the more they may respect We The People and our Rights!
Better they assume EVERY Montanan is armed, male, female and child !
As for the NRA proposal, wouldn't simply removing the number 13 from
existing MCA do what they want? Because using any age number is
arbitrary. Some kids are muture enough at 8 and others are not even at
21. And, you didn't ask, but my frontal lobes are 18, like
my balls! The rest of me is all aches and pains!
--------------------------
I'm not particularly in favor of this... What is the minimum age envisioned?
And no hunter safety course? Actually, why not just require an
apprenticeship arrangement for all young hunters -- with the course. When I
was a kid I first hunted big game at 12 in an apprenticeship with my Dad. The
only deer we saw I couldn't find it in the scope and never got it. Got my
first two deer at 13. But I think I was hunting birds with a shotgun a
couple of years before that.
--------------------------
I like the bill, because of the idea of letting a parent be the judge
of their child's ability and awareness. Buck Fever can happen at
13 years old too. I do not like the 'or other adult'
provision. That puts a gap in the supervision that gives me
pause.
Bottom line: If you have time in your schedule to provide support
and you could get the language changed to say 'parent or other
adult-snip legal guardian', I think it would be helpful. As is,
it sounds OK.
--------------------------
I wouldn't want a pre teen making a mistake that could hurt
themselves, someone else or a pet. I don't believe they can be ready in
an uncontrolled environment. I wouldn't expect mssa to oppose but as
long as you are taking a poll, I suggest not helping either.
--------------------------
I don’t believe it should be supported. From what I’ve seen it
will only result in more filled “family” tags and these kids will
eventually wind up hunters anyhow.
----------------------------
I don't really see a down-side. The up-side is minimal, in my view. I
sure wouldn't oppose the bill, so I am inclined to support.
-------------------------
support it!
------------------------
I think this depends how young. I would not be in real strong support
though. The idea of someone much younger than that carrying a rifle
unnerves me a bit. But maybe I've just been exposed to too many people
that don't understand the importance of firearm safety...
-------------------
I recommend that MSSA support this measure. My personal wish is
to have my grand daughter age 19, a Spokane resident, now at U of M be
able to hunt here with me at a reasonable price for
licenses. And next year her brother who is now 17 will also be a
U of M student who I would also like to be able to hunt They will
each contribute about $30K/ year to the local Montana economy.
Neither of them can afford to hunt on non-resident licenses.
Also, I agree with the general need to recruit more new hunters. All this for what it is worth....
---------------------
Speaking of my own experience, and that of my sons. I started
hunting at about 10 years of age, but it was limited to shotgun for
game (birds) and a single shot .22 for gophers and such. I did not hunt
big game until much later. I think this distinction is still valid.
There is a big difference between shooting birds and big game. I would
favor keeping the existing age limitation for big game, but encourage
bird and small game hunting. Most kids like to shoot a gun at just
about anything just to be shooting, and don't need to shoot
a big game animal to be interested in hunting. So this would allow that
without the objections voiced below. Hope this helps the discussion.
---------------------
[My husband] has reservations. One would be the quality of the
adult teaching the kid and another would be whether or not the kid is
mature enough to absorb firearm safety. And what's the point of
hunter safety 2 or 3 years after the fact?
I was shooting long before I took hunter's safety, but I was of a
different generation and always mature for my age. I have watched
rural kids go downhill rapidly character-wise, 4-H and FFA kids
included. Yes, parents have always done a lot of the work for
these kids, but the whole general attitude has changed in kids.
I guess I also am missing the point of the bill - what does NRA hope to
gain with it other than the misplaced idea that it will bring more kids
into active firearm/hunting activities? Kids can go out with
their parents now - I don't see that being able to buy a tag is a good
enough reason for this bill either. I don't recall any accidental
deaths during last year's hunting season, which doesn't mean there were
no close calls, but I'm not sure I'd want to be out hunting if I knew
there were children under thirteen packing loaded firearms when they
haven't even taken a regimented safety class.
I agree that I don't see MSSA opposing the bill, but, personally, I'd
prefer to remain neutral because it is a bill that I don't believe
should be supported. I hope this is a bill that is not going to
pass, and, to my way of thinking, it shouldn't. I've rattled on
long enough.
------------------------
I owned my first 22 rifle at age 6, my first 22/410 at that age and
dozen guns before I was 10 had taken my first deer at age
9. I think that the earlier we get kids involved with
shooting and hunting the better. I am for this....
----------------------
NM law allows kids of any age to get a license so long at they pass
hunter safety, which [my son] did (I believe) at age 9. He shot
his first antelope when 10. I personally would support the bill.
---------------------
Support, but I think 5 years as an apprentice hunter is a bit much
without requiring hunter safety. 1year as an apprentice then require
hunter safety. 5 years as an apprentice to ensure direct supervision
until they mature a bit is OK. Just my $.02
---------------------
I obviously don't live in your state, but you asked for opinions and here's mine.
1. I "got" gun safety before I was allowed to shoot at a live
target. Said target was a gray squirrel, taken at age 6. (As an
aside, while growing up I noticed that my father was less careful about
muzzle direction than I was -- I threatened to stop hunting with him
the next time he swung his muzzle across the plane of my body.)
2. If these kids are going to become hunters anyway, as some suggest,
why is hunter recruitment down in every state? We're certainly not
having fewer kids born.
3. The true greatness of the bill is that the "apprentice" provision is
not age-specific. I have become friends with many adults (and their
kids) who expressed interest in hunting, but were unwilling to spend
all of those classroom hours *before even be allowed to find out if
they liked hunting* or not. Apprenticeship is a powerful and
welcome tool -- the best idea I can identify for recruitment. We just
got our apprenticeship regulation in Virginia... no problems so far,
too soon to measure impact.
4. I've always hated the idea of "tagging along 'til you're old enough
to shoot." Kids have very short attention spans. Get 'em to pop a
squirrel first, THEN have them tag along as a non-shooter on a deer
hunt. But that first squirrel is as important as a first bluegill out
of a pond -- recruitment the natural way.
5. Any father who would use his kid's tag for his own selfishness is
evil. I'm sure that a handful of such people exist, but the argument is
specious -- like saying CCW leads to blood in the streets. Vaguely
possible, but we ain't seen it yet, and that unfounded surmise is
certainly no reason to oppose a bill. Many states have very young age
minimums, and nowhere have I seen this problem reported as a problem to
be addressed. Actually, never heard of it happening at all. Even if it
happens from time to time, the benefits to a whole passle of
right-thinking families far outweigh such abuse of the system.
---------------------
Boy, what a dilemma! The points for both
sides are quite valid. I have one other negative one to add. Children are often
too tiny to handle a larger firearm, even a youth's model. That physical
inability creates a liability for the child's own safety, and further, for an
accurate kill shot to the game animal. Thus leaving the wounded one to go
off and die somewhere, and not have it be available for those who may be able to
be a better shot, and actually harvest that game. I will grant you that some
children are just barely physically able
to handle a rifle, but most are not! Even at 13, many are questionable.
Based on all the pros and cons you presented, I
feel that to take our efforts away from the other legislative proposals that you
have already put forth, it will just be a weakening of the over-all plan.
My vote is to NOT support the House Bill
382. However, if it picks up steam on its own merit, do not
fight against it. If you have to cut and run because of too many like-oriented
bills, cut HB 382, not one of ours.