Printable View
Particularly younger generations? What a ridiculous generalization and an absolute load of BS. I know and have witnessed plenty of irresponsible hunters, and believe me, most of them are from older generations. Just because a guy has been nonchalantly waterfowl hunting for 30+ years doesn't mean he's a responsible hunter.Quote:
Originally Posted by northernympher
Just to break the "trend", I'm 22 years old and I don't need any handouts.
-Nick
Hello Guys,
This would appear to be more complicated than first expected.
There are several areas of concern from what I have read so far:
1) Let us not discourage individuals from getting started in hunting.
2) Let us cover everything there is to know ... not going to happen ... unless it is broken down into sections and the individual can select which sections will apply to his/her interests.
3) Let us have "more courses" vs "no more courses" on identification.
4) Let us leave it to the individual to learn what there is to learn.
I agree with Fenelon (Post 10) regarding having a general ID module in the hunter training course.
I agree with Jaycee (Post 21) regarding taking a "waterfowl identification course" prior to applying for a MGBP for new hunters but this would probably have to be available "online" so that individuals in remote areas could take it. Great White has alluded to this (Post 27).
Note to Gadwall regarding (Post 26) ... individuals can buy the WHC "duck" stamp without applying for the MGBP.
I agree with Dyth Bringer (from "A Tundra Swan Season In Ontario" thread) that a "hands on" course may be required for Tundra Swan hunters in order to get this proposal accepted. However the OFAH is not interested in this proposal and the Long Point Waterfowl position is (in essence) to let the Americans harvest all the Tundra Swans as I have documented in a letter posted in the above mention thread.
I took my hunter safety course way back in 1978 and there was no identification section included other than human vs moose, human vs deer and human vs bear. I think that was just in case the human was not wearing "hunter orange" during hunting season.
On that note a "thank you" to Dead Ringer for starting this thread.
Jerome
That's a pretty bold statement / opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by northernympher
And I wouldn't be so quick to paint the "younger" generation with the same brush, last I checked, when we read about all these charges, seems to be the "older generation" are the ones in the "wrong" but I also don't go on to say it's only older people that cant handle guns safely.
These types of things know no age group, you are either responsisble or you're not, whether your 24 or 42.
As I stated, I don't think a mandatory course will fix the issue, you either care enough about the topic to take it upon yourself, educate yourself and make those educated decisions / shots in the field. Or you don't care and will only do bare minimum to pass the course, then toss the knowledge and keep doing what you're doing.
I agree. When my grandfather was alive, he routinely would ask how my hunting was going and when we discussed it, he would come up with a un-ethical, even illegal ways to put an animal down (the oddest one was when he told me I should go into the back woods behind his place with his .303 and get a deer out of season and we lived in a shotgun only hunt area for deer and his reasoning was no one will know). I would never hunt with him because he simply didn't care about the laws (for instance lead shot for waterfowl), he did what he thought was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurkeyRookie
dyth
No better experience than in the field to learn your ducks, much better than a classroom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprite
Couldn't agree more with you Nick!! I am also in my early twenties and believe that many of people our age and from our generation are some of the most ethical, conservation minded and hardcore hunters out there!!! Especially when it comes to waterfowl hunting and waterfowl conservation! I too have witnessed most unethical hunters being of older generations with the attitude of " of done it this way for 30 years so screw any law that says i can't" we have more power and tools at our disposal now to teach the next generation of gunners to be even a step more conservation minded. I like to think we are advancing forward and not back...... I know numerous old farmer type guys around here that give me crap when i pack up my dekes after shooting my limit saying who cares about a limit shoot as many as you can!! " and why didn't you shoot those turkeys while you were out there" no turkey season where i hunt......
My Opinion - it's not required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Ringer
Read a book. Look at pictures. but nuts to taking a mandatory waterfowl ID course.
It was well covered on my hunters course - my instructor was HUGE into waterfowl. I found it fun and looked into it later on - ON MY OWN TIME.
But no, I dont think there should be a mandatory waterfowl ID course.
Waterfowl ID? Nope!
How about actually shooting a gun to get a PAL/hunting license?
I really cant believe a person can get a firearms license, or hunting license, without firing a shot. Thats just crazy IMO!
When I took my course 23 years ago, we did it at a gun club, and shot trap, skeep, and 25m .22 cal. It wasnt mandatory to shoot well, but it was a good experience, and great way to learn the different actions.
How about a course on judging distance? Most guys dont know 40ft from 40yds.
S.
I came from a place with very liberal gun laws. Anyone without a criminal record can buy a gun (even a pistol), guns don't have to be locked at home and concealed carry is easy to obtain. When taking the hunter's ed course there, we had to live fire a rifle and bow at still targets and a shotgun at skeet. Again, marksmanship wasn't the test, safety was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
I'm not debating whether the US gun laws or Canadian gun laws are better. That's pandora's box.
But I found it rather odd when I moved to Canada, which is more gun-safety conscious, and took the PAL course to legally own a firearm here, that we didn't fire a shot. So you want us to learn about guns so that we are safe, but letting us feel what a gun does when fired is a bad idea under controlled conditions? You'd rather give us a license to shoot said gun and try it out on our own without an instructor around? Just seemed counter-intuitive to me. The instructor agreed.
Jerome, you're welcome. I have taken the liberty of abridging your message above to concentrate on the areas I will discuss. No offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddy Boy
First, I knew this was going to be a ball of string. So long as everyone stays civil, I think it will be a good time. Great ideas can come out of conversations like this.
For the record, I like the idea of a mandatory waterfowl course. I dislike the actuality of it.
1) Agreed.
2) Find me someone who knows all there is to know about waterfowling and I'll pay for your license next year. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates
Every day in the field is a learning experience, so a course that covers everything would be infinite. That said, I think that many of the key facets of safety, conservation and maybe even tactics could be covered with enough depth to vastly improve upon major mistakes afield.
3) Political debates like that are rarely ever settled. Minds have been made up and aren't likely to change. This is why I dislike the actuality. It is counter to the fundamental views of many hunters.
I was not pleased to hear that I had to cough up hundreds of dollars to take a course to learn how to hunt and shoot after having done so in another jurisdiction and compiling 15 years of experience. It is tough to decide where the line should be drawn. As said above, will a fishing course be next?
4) The reason I said above that I like the idea is that the general premise is that individuals can choose whether to be legal or not. They can choose to learn ID and not shoot too many black ducks. They can choose to take that risk and if they get caught, they are punished for their choice. But I have been checked by a LEO once in 5 years of waterfowling here. So the tail end of that argument falls apart when the chance of getting caught nears zero.
I'll add another theme to the list, 5) a course will never replace practical in-the-field training.
My response to 5) is that I agree. But it may supplement field experience. For the first decade of my waterfowling life, I only hunted with my old man. He was a great father and I appreciate all that he taught me. But my knowledge base had the same gaps his did. We mostly only ever shot ringers and mottled ducks. He excitedly identified his first good drake GWT as a cinnamon teal. Upon retrieving a headless hen pintail, he thought it was a hen BWT. We knew what we knew and knew nothing new. I supplemented that knowledge base via books and the net and was able to teach him about new species. We encountered those new species due to a combination of experience (I started scouting new habitats) and supplementary knowledge (learned new tactics online and in books/mags). I have also learned tons from fellow hunters both afield and online.
Some of us are motivated to seek out that info. It's out there. DU has a duck ID quiz. The wing ID guide is online and free. Books like "The Lemaster Method", "The Duck Hunter's Bible" and "The Ways of Waterfowl" are great resources. Not a month goes by that some magazine or website isn't sharing recycled decoy spread ideas like Cosmo shares "new" bedroom tips. But there isn't a single source to pool it all together in an organized manner.
On a side note: I just cracked open my copy of "The Ways of Waterfowl" and found a note from my late father. He must have written it in there after he gave it to me and it was on my bookshelf, because I've never seen it before and I've been through that book plenty. He may not have been a duck aficionado, but he sparked my waterfowling passion and encouraged me to add to what he taught me. I am grateful for that and try to carry on by mentoring hunters each season. But we experienced (note I didn't say expert ;) ) hunters can't take all of the newbs afield.