Why Do I Need a License to take my grand kids hunting

[ants]

15 years!!!! God Im old

[Youngre911]

Um... Yea I agree I suck at trying to figure out the right words too type. I'm not any good at making my words clear by texting. My question was only asking about the "concept" of this law..... I never asked for clarification of the rules, I never asked for financial advice, an don't need help deciding if it's worth the time with my grandson..... Thanks too the ones who replied who understood my question.... I just thought it was a topic too talk about...I just thought if I brought up a valid question too the group I might have met some new friends to chat with.... I never thought I was going too be bashed for raising the question...

[jrm]

I've been driving for 15 years accident free... why do I need a drivers license?

 

You don't. (Or you shouldn't - you do because the state says you do).

 

It is just that the fees provide a source of revenue the state is not willing to give up. After the initial "road test" which is issued once in a lifetime, the driver license serves no driving related purpose - it does not indicate ability or skill level. It only shows you paid money to receive a card with your name and photo on it.

[ants]

Why are licenses revoked or suspended??

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Why are licenses revoked or suspended??

as a form of non-incarcerated punishment.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Um... Yea I agree I suck at trying to figure out the right words too type. I'm not any good at making my words clear by texting. My question was only asking about the "concept" of this law..... I never asked for clarification of the rules, I never asked for financial advice, an don't need help deciding if it's worth the time with my grandson..... Thanks too the ones who replied who understood my question.... I just thought it was a topic too talk about...I just thought if I brought up a valid question too the group I might have met some new friends to chat with.... I never thought I was going too be bashed for raising the question...

I agree, the whole concept sucks and is anything but an encouragement to get the kids out.

[Youngre911]

Thank you jrm for understanding my question and your reply... That's more in line with what I started this question with. I was feeling pretty ashamed for even asking after getting beat up for, my understanding of the law, or my financial situation, and even questions if I love my grandson..... I will never ask anything again.... Wow.... Lessened learned...

[virgil]

^{I think you have a valid point about the licensne, Youngre.  But, I think you need to have a thicker skin also.}

[mike rossi]

Um... Yea I agree I suck at trying to figure out the right words too type. I'm not any good at making my words clear by texting. My question was only asking about the "concept" of this law..... I never asked for clarification of the rules, I never asked for financial advice, an don't need help deciding if it's worth the time with my grandson..... Thanks too the ones who replied who understood my question.... I just thought it was a topic too talk about...I just thought if I brought up a valid question too the group I might have met some new friends to chat with.... I never thought I was going too be bashed for raising the question...

 

Why are "accompanists" required to have a current hunting license? Maybe to prevent people who lost their hunting privileges from being accompanists and/or they figure if you are assisting in the taking of game, you should hold a current license?

 

 

Edited July 17, 2014 by mike rossi

[bowaholic]

it could have something to do with proving you still are legal to hunt in NY and a good hunting role model as well.  If you are convicted of hunting related crimes your license will be taken away for x-amount of years of for life.  these people aren't the kind we want in the woods teaching the youths because they are most likely going to teach them illegal tactics.  a license shows that you are in good standings with the law and a good role model in the hunting woods.   

[bowaholic]

sorry, should have read more posts haha mike took the thoughts right out of my head

 

[mike rossi]

sorry, should have read more posts haha mike took the thoughts right out of my head

Nothing wrong with an agreement from time to time...  Now please sign our petition and like our face book page before another big blow hits your area...

Edited July 17, 2014 by mike rossi

[Culvercreek hunt club]

And I think a FREE mentor license would accomplish all the above. show up and the info is in the system if you are still able to hold a license  they issue a mentor license that allows you to accompany a youth and assist in the process in a teaching capacity.

[jrm]

Why are "accompanists" required to have a current hunting license? Maybe to prevent people who lost their hunting privileges from being accompanists and/or they figure if you are assisting in the taking of game, you should hold a current license?

 

Another scenario I can imagine is some guy who has not hunted for decades uses a 40 year old license to accompany a grandchild. That wouldn't be an ideal situation and such a person might need to brush up on a few things himself...

 

The "current experience" argument isn't a necessarily valid one.

 

The ONLY requirement for a hunting license is that you took a hunter safety course sometime in your life. You could have taken it last week, you could have taken it 40 years ago. Even at that, the course itself can range from "highly informative" to "a waste of time" to "a place to get bad information." I speak from experience.

 

The test is a joke. Like most state standardized tests, scan the reading material for five minutes and you can pass. Spend more than five and you can ace it.

 

Let's say someone hasn't hunted in 40 years and wants to accompany a grandchild. Let's go even further and say that person shouldn't be hunting at all, no less mentoring. 

 

How does the purchase of a license make the situation any more safe? It doesn't.

 

I get that hunting is considered a "privilege." For that privilege we pay a fee to the state and receive a piece of paper that says the state allows us to hunt. 

 

There are people who have been hunting for 40 years. There are also people who have been hunting for one year forty times. Both can pay the same fee and receive the same license. Safety/skill has nothing to do with it. The license is simply about revenue generation.

 

 

The argument over whether an accompanist is hunting or not is a valid one. There are two sides to that and both have their pros and cons. I'm not sure if there is an answer which would cover every situation. With only one hunter in the party, there would still be the question of the addition tags which serve no purpose. I don't know how DEC complies their statistics, but it would seem there is a potential to skew the numbers if enough non-hunting "mentors" are out there with tags they have no intention of using.

[ants]

as a form of non-incarcerated punishment.

Yeah….and its also a way to keep tract of bad actors..Repeated  traffic violations, DWI's etc…..You lose your license & can't drive. No one would want a person who lost his license, or never had one, to be able to teach a kid to drive. Maintaining a license is just a way of proving you're not a mope & capable of  giving others at least basic instruction.

Im sure Youngre911 is more than capable of teaching his grand kids how to hunt. I would just spend the 22 bucks.

[G-Man]

perhaps your eligable for a reduced or free licence?. I guess the reasoning behind it is the same as why i have to pay huge school taxes when i have no kids in school or ever had childern?

[mike rossi]

The "current experience" argument isn't a necessarily valid one.

 

The ONLY requirement for a hunting license is that you took a hunter safety course sometime in your life. You could have taken it last week, you could have taken it 40 years ago. Even at that, the course itself can range from "highly informative" to "a waste of time" to "a place to get bad information." I speak from experience.

 

The test is a joke. Like most state standardized tests, scan the reading material for five minutes and you can pass. Spend more than five and you can ace it.

 

Let's say someone hasn't hunted in 40 years and wants to accompany a grandchild. Let's go even further and say that person shouldn't be hunting at all, no less mentoring. 

 

How does the purchase of a license make the situation any more safe? It doesn't.

 

I get that hunting is considered a "privilege." For that privilege we pay a fee to the state and receive a piece of paper that says the state allows us to hunt. 

 

There are people who have been hunting for 40 years. There are also people who have been hunting for one year forty times. Both can pay the same fee and receive the same license. Safety/skill has nothing to do with it. The license is simply about revenue generation.

 

 

The argument over whether an accompanist is hunting or not is a valid one. There are two sides to that and both have their pros and cons. I'm not sure if there is an answer which would cover every situation. With only one hunter in the party, there would still be the question of the addition tags which serve no purpose. I don't know how DEC complies their statistics, but it would seem there is a potential to skew the numbers if enough non-hunting "mentors" are out there with tags they have no intention of using.

 

.

See what I bolded above that you said, well if I take a hunter out with bird dogs, I am not greatly increasing that persons chances of killing game? Or if I guide him on a waterfowl hunt? I would say I certainly would be contributing to the taking of game. Tags, what are they?

[mike rossi]

And I think a FREE mentor license would accomplish all the above. show up and the info is in the system if you are still able to hold a license  they issue a mentor license that allows you to accompany a youth and assist in the process in a teaching capacity.

 

This would be another "program"; which will not only cost money to administer, it might also require legislative approval and/or budget approval, which is just more opportunity for politicians; outdoor magazines, and sportsmen's organizations to grandstand and give a big illusion of action while failing to address more important things and use the conservation fund more wisely.... Come to think of it, considering all of that, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this proposed at some point...

[bubba]

and we get no federal money with a free license.  Man 22 bucks for a big game license to be legal has turned into a 5 page debate.  

[mike rossi]

and we get no federal money with a free license.  Man 22 bucks for a big game license to be legal has turned into a 5 page debate.  

 

Sooner or later the FWS would question if the costs associated with administering such a program under the justification it is hunter education or recruitment violated assent legislation. The next question would be the effectiveness of the program. The FWS then might disqualify the state from Pitman Robertson grants for diverting license money outside the realm of wildlife restoration, in which a small amount, I believe 1% may be used to administer hunter ed/recruitment/shooting ranges. All the sporting community would read and hear is that there is a problem with "language in the budget"....

[G-Man]

An amendment to state constitution for right to hunt, and then if we had an actual game comission making the rules and regs for hunting and fishing instead of a bunch of legislators making them this would be a lot easier to solve with a mentor requirement/licence.

[jrm]

.

See what I bolded above that you said, well if I take a hunter out with bird dogs, I am not greatly increasing that persons chances of killing game? Or if I guide him on a waterfowl hunt? I would say I certainly would be contributing to the taking of game. Tags, what are they?

 

I did not deny your point. As I wrote, it is a valid argument and I don't think there is one answer that covers all situations. No reason to create conflict where there is none.

 

The original question was regarding deer hunting. When you purchase a "big game" license, you receive a deer tag(s) regardless of what you actually hunt. Duck hunters receive a deer tag with their NY license. Mentors who guide their grandson on a hunt receive a deer tag. If tags issued vs tags reported are used as any sort of metric, the information is skewed. More information on tags can be found on the DEC website. The information there is pretty clear.

[Five Seasons]

skimmed this thread, so I'm not sure if this was part of your question or has been answered, and I guess it's a question of my own. I don't think you need a license if you're not carrying a firearm, similar to being in a boat with others fishing and you not having a pole. Your grandson would, but that's part of teaching him the "right thing to do". But lets be honest, we were all 6 years old shooting birds in the woods with our bb guns were we not?

[jrm]

and we get no federal money with a free license.  Man 22 bucks for a big game license to be legal has turned into a 5 page debate.  

 

Who says the original question (which was a valid one) has anything to do with $22? Sometimes it is the principal.

 

Either way, the OP never claimed to have any problem spending the money or getting the license. The question was the reasoning behind it. So it actually seems that the state is the one being petty by wanting to milk (tax) an extra $22 out of an already overtaxed person.

 

 

Sooner or later the FWS would question if the costs associated with administering such a program under the justification it is hunter education or recruitment violated assent legislation. The next question would be the effectiveness of the program. The FWS then might disqualify the state from Pitman Robertson grants for diverting license money outside the realm of wildlife restoration, in which a small amount, I believe 1% may be used to administer hunter ed/recruitment/shooting ranges. All the sporting community would read and hear is that there is a problem with "language in the budget"....

 

 

You make a big unsubstantiated assumption regarding the cost of such a program. I don't see how the printing of a small card ends up being a fiscal nightmare.

 

If these programs are so costly to administer, why not just raise the license fee to $30 or $35? Heck, that "just" another few dollars, right? Why should anyone be concerned about that - just pay the money, its for a "good" cause. At least that's what the "just pay the $22" crowd should be saying.

Edited July 18, 2014 by jrm

[bubba]

Ok so as I said the 22 bucks is no biggie. I offered to pay it. My other question is how does one qualify for the mentor license you are pushing for. Do you have to list the people you plan to mentor. I can see people lying to get a free license. Just saying. Pay the 22 bucks go out with your grandson who knows you may decide to hunt again