Ga now allows completion of hunter safety course entirely online

[boxer90]

Have to keep the younger kids engaged and they're doing everything on the internet now. Would rather see no course (just as we don't have safety training for the GWCL) but it's a step in the right direction.

Ultimately we should be entrusting the teaching of proper hunting practices into the hands of families, not the government. And those who don't have a history of hunting in the family can still attend these course and learn the basics regardless of their life schedule or their location in the State. And for the guy who wanted to be an instructor, this possibly gives you an avenue of opportunity. Host the class, teach your heart out, and have your students take a recognized online test for course completion. In fact, if I were going to take an in-person class, I would much prefer that option than what is currently available. It's no different than SAT prep: many people opt for tutors and paid teaching services prior to taking the actual test.

Win/win for everyone as far as I see it.

 

[batoncolle]

It's about time. I know people that want to hunt, but they either don't have the time or can't find a class to even take the final test. One guy I know has been trying for about 2 years now, and I just sent it to him so thanks for the heads up.

I'll now have a chance to help him learn how to hunt.

 

[boxer90]

It's about time. I know people that want to hunt, but they either don't have the time or can't find a class to even take the final test. One guy I know has been trying for about 2 years now, and I just sent it to him so thanks for the heads up.

I'll now have a chance to help him learn how to hunt.

That's been my issue. I've been buying the three-day licenses for years now if I wasn't going to be on family land.

 

[batoncolle]

That's been my issue. I've been buying the three-day licenses for years now if I wasn't going to be on family land.

And that's exactly what he's been doing.

 

[MacTavish]

Double, triple, quadruple-mine was FREE and always will be.

 

[GeauxLSU]

It's about time. I know people that want to hunt, but they either don't have the time or can't find a class to even take the final test. One guy I know has been trying for about 2 years now, and I just sent it to him so thanks for the heads up.

I'll now have a chance to help him learn how to hunt.

I get it, believe me. The answer would be to have MORE classes. We don't have that choice now.
I got in a long um.... 'discussion' .... about this with the head of game management (who essentially writes the regs). I was pushing for a year long mentor's license like an ever growing number of states have. NO class needed, hunt for one year under the accompaniment of a licensed hunter. His answer, perhaps after getting tired of hearing me whine, was to rename the 3 day temporary license to 'mentor's license'. I guess maybe they figured that would generate more revenue than a year long license? Who cares if people with absolutely zero clue are bumbling around alone 'hunting'. What could possibly go wrong?
I get it's not DNR's job/mission to promote hunting or recruit more hunters but this move suggests, again, they are perhaps even less concerned than I feared.

 

[boxer90]

I get it, believe me. The answer would be to have MORE classes. We don't have that choice now.
I got in a long um.... 'discussion' .... about this with the head of game management (who essentially writes the regs). I was pushing for a year long mentor's license like an ever growing number of states have. NO class needed, hunt for one year under the accompaniment of a licensed hunter. His answer, perhaps after getting tired of hearing me whine, was to rename the 3 day temporary license to 'mentor's license'. I guess maybe they figured that would generate more revenue than a year long license? Who cares if people with absolutely zero clue are bumbling around alone 'hunting'. What could possibly go wrong?
I get it's not DNR's job/mission to promote hunting or recruit more hunters but this move suggests, again, they are perhaps even less concerned than I feared.

Well, we do have people roaming around with concealed weapons without any training, and it's resulted in more positives than negatives. If the State wants to enforce certain guidelines on State-owned (WMA) land, I'm good with that. Their land, their right. The chance of some bumbling fellow is why I avoid WMA except for the shooting range and public fishing spots. But if a landowner wants to lease land out to hunters, then that landowner and only that landowner should be responsible for vetting individuals. It shouldn't be left up to a hunting license or a State official to determine who can participate.

Resident hunting licenses are required for all resident hunters 16 years old or older, except when hunting on land owned by them or their immediate family (blood or dependent relationship) residing in the same household.

Either remove the class requirements entirely or change that part of the Statute. If I'm renting out hunting land, I shouldn't be limited to only those with a "license", just as if I'm running a shooting range, I shouldn't be limited to only those with a GWCL. If I visit a friend's property, I shouldn't have to purchase a three-day to stay legal. Take the responsibility of "maintaining responsible hunters" out of the hands of government and put it in the hands of landowners, with the exception of the State-owned WMA properties. It's no different than WMA shooting ranges: they have their rules to participate, and some of which I won't follow on private property, but I abide by their guidelines when I'm using their facilities.

No reason you can't have mentors and guides on WMA hunting grounds if that's the policy they choose to adopt. It might actually be a net positive, but it shouldn't be enforced on private property.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Well, we do have people roaming around with concealed weapons without any training, and it's resulted in more positives than negatives. If the State wants to enforce certain guidelines on State-owned (WMA) land, I'm good with that. Their land, their right. The chance of some bumbling fellow is why I avoid WMA except for the shooting range and public fishing spots. But if a landowner wants to lease land out to hunters, then that landowner and only that landowner should be responsible for vetting individuals. It shouldn't be left up to a hunting license or a State official to determine who can participate.
Either remove the class requirements entirely or change that part of the Statute. If I'm renting out hunting land, I shouldn't be limited to only those with a "license", just as if I'm running a shooting range, I shouldn't be limited to only those with a GWCL. If I visit a friend's property, I shouldn't have to purchase a three-day to stay legal. Take the responsibility of "maintaining responsible hunters" out of the hands of government and put it in the hands of landowners, with the exception of the State-owned WMA properties. It's no different than WMA shooting ranges: they have their rules to participate, and some of which I won't follow on private property, but I abide by their guidelines when I'm using their facilities.

No reason you can't have mentors and guides on WMA hunting grounds if that's the policy they choose to adopt. It might actually be a net positive, but it shouldn't be enforced on private property.

That's hardly a comparison. I'm infinitely more confident in 'untrained' citizens walking around the streets not TRYING to shoot something than I am with completely untrained hunters alone TRYING to shoot something in woods (they are generally unfamiliar with). As a landowner you are protected from civil litigation involving a hunting accident by statute. Are you willing to give that up?

 

[batoncolle]

I get it, believe me. The answer would be to have MORE classes. We don't have that choice now.
I got in a long um.... 'discussion' .... about this with the head of game management (who essentially writes the regs). I was pushing for a year long mentor's license like an ever growing number of states have. NO class needed, hunt for one year under the accompaniment of a licensed hunter. His answer, perhaps after getting tired of hearing me whine, was to rename the 3 day temporary license to 'mentor's license'. I guess maybe they figured that would generate more revenue than a year long license? Who cares if people with absolutely zero clue are bumbling around alone 'hunting'. What could possibly go wrong?
I get it's not DNR's job/mission to promote hunting or recruit more hunters but this move suggests, again, they are perhaps even less concerned than I feared.

But the bold is the problem. They not only have not added more classes, but they have been reducing them. In some parts of this state, it is virtually impossible to get in a class because they offer so few, and they fill up so fast.

So if they can't commit the resources, then this is the step they needed to make.

 

[GeauxLSU]

But the bold is the problem. They not only have not added more classes, but they have been reducing them. In some parts of this state, it is virtually impossible to get in a class because they offer so few, and they fill up so fast.

So if they can't commit the resources, then this is the step they needed to make.

I agree it's the problem. That's what I'm saying. They are not committed to hunter education (or recruitment). In reality though, I guess it's not their "job". They are legislatively bound to require it so it appears they are taking not only the path of least resistance but of least effectiveness.
Notice all the online education are third party PAY FOR sites. They are attempting to host "Hunter Education Field Days" but if every class was completely full it would be a tiny fraction of licenses hunters. I bet NONE of those classes will be full (and they are full at 20 students).