Message from DNR to Hunter Safety Instructors

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/enforcement/safety/hunted.htm Safety Course

Definitely Humor Guys N Gals!

McX said:

Take the WisCarry class Shotgun is offering and shut the hell up, i plan to.............take the class.........not the shut the hell up part.

poor attempt at humor, lost in translation.

Click to expand...

Phred, I can guarantee you McX wasn't saying this to anyone in particular and that it is humor! He directed his comment at himself as well.

Carry on!

Quick question... does Wisconsin allow handgun deer hunting?

Brass Magnet said:

I'm not going to flame you.

I think handguns are used for hunting too and since this is a CARRY bill and not merely a CCW bill, it would make sense to have an hour on how to safely handle a handgun in the HS course. In fact, it's kind of silly that it is't in there now. I don't remember it being touched on at all when I was in HS.

I don't think anyone is talking about turning HS into some sort of CCW course, just basic safe handling of another weapon than can and will be carried.

I'm not the only one to hunt with a handgun occasionally am I?

Click to expand...

What can/do you hunt with [an openly carried] handgun? Just curious.

[added on edit]

skidmark said:

I'm going to disagree with you all.

It seems DNR is tasked with providing Hunter Safety education. They do that. Their mandate does not cover concealed carry training, whatever that may turn out to be. They are up-front with telling folks that is the situation.

Now, Wisconsin may decide that a DNR Hunter Safety class will suffice for the edication/training needed to comply with the new CCW regulation - or they may decide it does not. If it qualifies I am sure they will be pleased to see so many "new hunters" signing up. If it does not, they will miss out on an opportunity to gain some small amount of additional revenue.

What amazes me is that this is OCDO, a site dedicated to Open Carry, and here are a bunch of folks whinging about concealed carry. There are many sites that focus on concealed carry, and they are all atwitter with the impending CCW permit that folks in Wisconsin will be applying for.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

That.

DrTodd said:

Quick question... does Wisconsin allow handgun deer hunting?

Click to expand...

Wisconsin allows hunting with a handgun, Large and small game.

If you havn't tried it, please do. I find the challenge stimulating.

JJC

DNR Is Staying With It's Mission

WI DNR is just staying true to its' mission and trying to prevent the Hunter Safety Course from morphing into a CCW class. I agree that DNR Certified Hunter Safety Instructors should stay true to the required course outline, just as NRA Instructors must stay true to the NRA Course Outline when teaching an NRA Course. However, that does not prevent a CFP Instructor from using NRA Materials to teach firearms familiarity and safety during a CFP Course (provided it is clear that the class is not an NRA Class).

Carry on

wrightme said:

That.

Click to expand...

Ergh....We have to get a license if we want to OC in many places we can't now. There has been talk about CC, yes, but the majority of the talk is still focuing on OC.

Once again, SB93 is a carry bill, not a CCW specific bill.

JJC said:

Wisconsin allows hunting with a handgun, Large and small game.

If you havn't tried it, please do. I find the challenge stimulating.

JJC

Click to expand...

It's fun and less weight to carry as you hike through the woods and swamps.

JJC said:

Wisconsin allows hunting with a handgun, Large and small game.

If you havn't tried it, please do. I find the challenge stimulating.

JJC

Click to expand...

I've hunted deer with a revolver here in Michigan for about 7 years... I've been successful every time. I know that some states don't allow this; if Wisconsin nonresident licenses aren't cost prohibitive and in honor of your cc law, maybe I'll have to try it there, too.

I find using a handgun makes me a much better hunter. I try to take shots that are within about 50 yds and if I'm not sure about the placement, I won't take the shot.

OT, I guess I was really trying to ask if Hunter Safety discussed handguns at all... since I now know they are allowed.

In Michigan's forum you will find that cc and OC go hand in hand. This is particularly true for two reasons: nonresidents need a home-state permit/license even for mere possession/OC in Michigan and, people with a CPL, or the nonresident equivalent, can OC in the Michigan areas in which CC is prohibited. So at least here, the degree that a license to conceal facilitates OC, I don't think the owners will mind.

DrTodd said:

I've hunted deer with a revolver here in Michigan for about 7 years... I've been successful every time. I know that some states don't allow this; if Wisconsin nonresident licenses aren't cost prohibitive and in honor of your cc law, maybe I'll have to try it there, too.

I find using a handgun makes me a much better hunter. I try to take shots that are within about 50 yds and if I'm not sure about the placement, I won't take the shot.

OT, I guess I was really trying to ask if Hunter Safety discussed handguns at all... since I now know they are allowed.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the other instructors here in Wisconsin, but to answer your question for my classes, the answer is yes, I go over safety aspects of a handgun. I also stress that one needs to be 18 years old to hunt with an handgun.

JJC

JJC said:

I can't speak for the other instructors here in Wisconsin, but to answer your question for my classes, the answer is yes, I go over safety aspects of a handgun. I also stress that one needs to be 18 years old to hunt with an handgun.

JJC

Click to expand...

Your last sentence is an excellent point. OR

Brass Magnet said:

I'm not going to flame you.

I think handguns are used for hunting too and since this is a CARRY bill and not merely a CCW bill, it would make sense to have an hour on how to safely handle a handgun in the HS course. In fact, it's kind of silly that it is't in there now. I don't remember it being touched on at all when I was in HS.

I don't think anyone is talking about turning HS into some sort of CCW course, just basic safe handling of another weapon than can and will be carried.

I'm not the only one to hunt with a handgun occasionally am I?

Click to expand...

i carry my OC pistol while hunting if i had one come in close enough i would or would not use my handgun (wink wink)

jpm84092 said:

WI DNR is just staying true to its' mission and trying to prevent the Hunter Safety Course from morphing into a CCW class. I agree that DNR Certified Hunter Safety Instructors should stay true to the required course outline, just as NRA Instructors must stay true to the NRA Course Outline when teaching an NRA Course. However, that does not prevent a CFP Instructor from using NRA Materials to teach firearms familiarity and safety during a CFP Course (provided it is clear that the class is not an NRA Class).

Carry on

Click to expand...

I don't really have a dog in this fight, being how I'm not in or from Wisconsin, but I believe this post highlights exactly what it is your DNR is trying to do. The Hunter Safety Course is just that, a Hunter Safety Course. Even if it touches on safety/operation of handguns in relationship to hunting, hunting with a handgun is an entirely different animal than using/carrying a handgun for self defense. In addition, hunting laws and wildlife laws are usually a totally separate section/chapter of statutes than unlawful use of weapons laws, and defense of justification laws. In a nutshell, delving into aspects of defensive carry, to any degree, would be well outside the scope of a hunter education course.

I had a similar discussion sometime back with a person regarding the NRA Pistol Course. He felt it necessary to blame the NRA that their Basic Pistol Shooting course didn't go far enough to cover various aspects of defensive pistol use, calling it "dangerous" to folks who took the class in order to qualify for a CCW permit in various states. He made it out as if it was somehow the NRA's fault that various states decided that the NRA Pistol Course would satisfy their statutory training requirements to obtain a CCW permit. Of course, I had to remind him that the NRA never made any claims that the Basic Pistol course is a suitable course to prepare students for the pragmatic world of concealed carry or self-defense. Those subjects are completely outside of the scope of the course. The fact that the course meets the mandated CCW course requirements in various states is completely coincidental and had nothing to do with the NRA.

The bottom line is, legislators often pass laws that don't withstand the scrutiny of common sense and logic. Expecting the DNR or the NRA to modify course curriculum in order to be more relevant to a subject said curriculum was never designed or developed to address, is not really a valid expectation, IMHO. There are plenty of other topic-specific courses out there that meet or exceed the statutory training requirements of various states, that would be a much more suitable for folks who are really interested in relevant training. For the guy who just wants to save a buck, well, he's probably always going to seek out the minimum requirement at the lowest price.

Good Points Made Here

cshoff said:

I had a similar discussion sometime back with a person regarding the NRA Pistol Course. He felt it necessary to blame the NRA that their Basic Pistol Shooting course didn't go far enough to cover various aspects of defensive pistol use, calling it "dangerous" to folks who took the class in order to qualify for a CCW permit in various states.

The fact that the course meets the mandated CCW course requirements in various states is completely coincidental and had nothing to do with the NRA.

The bottom line is, legislators often pass laws that don't withstand the scrutiny of common sense and logic. Expecting the DNR or the NRA to modify course curriculum in order to be more relevant to a subject said curriculum was never designed or developed to address, is not really a valid expectation, IMHO. There are plenty of other topic-specific courses out there that meet or exceed the statutory training requirements of various states, that would be a much more suitable for folks who are really interested in relevant training. For the guy who just wants to save a buck, well, he's probably always going to seek out the minimum requirement at the lowest price.

Click to expand...

+1 my friend.

I agree and I too have faced similar criticism. As this forum is foremost a teaching tool, lit me make some things perfectly clear about NRA Firearms Courses:

NRA First Steps Pistol is an extremely basic course designed for those who have never handled a firearm or never handled a Pistol. The course teaches the very inexperienced student basic handgun familiarity and safety concepts along with very basic marksmanship skills. There is no tactical or legal training and while it may satisfy the training requirements of some states, it does not prepare the student for the real world of personal defense.

NRA Basic Pistol Course is designed for the novice, marginally experienced shooter or those who wish to enhance their marksmanship skills. The course teaches the inexperienced or marginally experienced student basic handgun familiarity and safety concepts along with enough marksmanship skills to qualify for the very first NRA - Winchester Marksmanship Rocker. It is an excellent refresher for the more advanced student. This course contains no tactical or legal training and while it may satisfy the training requirements of some states, it does not prepare the student for the real world of personal defense.

NRA Personal Protection in the Home is a tactical course that teaches how to assess cover and concealment in the home and introduces the student to the "double tap" method of firing a handgun. It also teaches safe room concepts, in-house situational awareness and includes a presentation of Federal and State Firearms laws by an Certified trainer. (In the case of Utah, that is typically a UTAH BCI Certified Concealed Firearms Instructor or attorney - who is not the primary course instructor.) The course emphasizes home firearm safety concepts, particularly if children are living in the home.

NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home is a tactical course very similar to PPIH except that cover and concealment outside are taught as is the "double tap" method of firing a handgun. It also teaches situational awareness outside the home concepts and includes a presentation of Federal and State Firearms laws by an Certified trainer. (In the case of Utah, that is typically a UTAH BCI Certified Concealed Firearms Instructor or attorney who is not the primary course instructor.)

Both PPIH and PPOTH require that the student have first taken the NRA Pistol Course. And, both courses would qualify as BASIC tactical courses but are not intended to prepare a student beyond a very basic understanding of tactical concepts. For training in gun fighting, fast draw from concealment, or multiple simultaneous threats, you need a specialized course, typically offered by ex-military or other qualified instructors.

Just as each person is responsible for their own training (beyond minimum requirements by State), each person is responsible for the level of training that they believe is right for them. Some people believe themselves to be self-qualified and thus will take only the minimum level of instruction required by their State's laws. Others are already better qualified than many "instructors" by virtue of their recent training (retired LEO with SWAT comes to mind). Still others will slowly come to the realization that additional training will greatly benefit them.

Ideally there should be NO training required to carry.

Since we don't advocate for mandatory training, why should we be advocating that a symbolic training class that DOES satisfy the requirements be expanded?

Anyone that feels they need training can go seek it in whatever type/form they need.

If you ask me, since we needed a symbolic "magical" training requirement to appease all the RINO's, liberals, and others who couldn't find freedom or accountability if you gave them a dictionary bookmarked to the page and highlighted, the quickest, easiest, least expensive possible course to satisfy the states bull$hit mandate should be embraced by us.

Anyone who wants to satisfy the bull$hit training mandate inexpensively, take hunters safety.

Anyone who feels they NEED advanced training on defensive use of a handgun, go take a different course. There are plenty out there.

jpm84092 said:

+1 my friend.

I agree and I too have faced similar criticism. As this forum is foremost a teaching tool, lit me make some things perfectly clear about NRA Firearms Courses:

NRA First Steps Pistol is an extremely basic course designed for those who have never handled a firearm or never handled a Pistol. The course teaches the very inexperienced student basic handgun familiarity and safety concepts along with very basic marksmanship skills. There is no tactical or legal training and while it may satisfy the training requirements of some states, it does not prepare the student for the real world of personal defense.

NRA Basic Pistol Course is designed for the novice, marginally experienced shooter or those who wish to enhance their marksmanship skills. The course teaches the inexperienced or marginally experienced student basic handgun familiarity and safety concepts along with enough marksmanship skills to qualify for the very first NRA - Winchester Marksmanship Rocker. It is an excellent refresher for the more advanced student. This course contains no tactical or legal training and while it may satisfy the training requirements of some states, it does not prepare the student for the real world of personal defense.

NRA Personal Protection in the Home is a tactical course that teaches how to assess cover and concealment in the home and introduces the student to the "double tap" method of firing a handgun. It also teaches safe room concepts, in-house situational awareness and includes a presentation of Federal and State Firearms laws by an Certified trainer. (In the case of Utah, that is typically a UTAH BCI Certified Concealed Firearms Instructor or attorney - who is not the primary course instructor.) The course emphasizes home firearm safety concepts, particularly if children are living in the home.

NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home is a tactical course very similar to PPIH except that cover and concealment outside are taught as is the "double tap" method of firing a handgun. It also teaches situational awareness outside the home concepts and includes a presentation of Federal and State Firearms laws by an Certified trainer. (In the case of Utah, that is typically a UTAH BCI Certified Concealed Firearms Instructor or attorney who is not the primary course instructor.)

Both PPIH and PPOTH require that the student have first taken the NRA Pistol Course. And, both courses would qualify as BASIC tactical courses but are not intended to prepare a student beyond a very basic understanding of tactical concepts. For training in gun fighting, fast draw from concealment, or multiple simultaneous threats, you need a specialized course, typically offered by ex-military or other qualified instructors.

Just as each person is responsible for their own training (beyond minimum requirements by State), each person is responsible for the level of training that they believe is right for them. Some people believe themselves to be self-qualified and thus will take only the minimum level of instruction required by their State's laws. Others are already better qualified than many "instructors" by virtue of their recent training (retired LEO with SWAT comes to mind). Still others will slowly come to the realization that additional training will greatly benefit them.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Just a quick note, as to the bolded points above, keep in mind that there is no NRA requirement that the person who teaches the legal portion of either course NOT be a primary instructor in the class, only that such person does not teach that portion of the course in his/her capacity as an NRA instructor (they must meet one of the other qualifying criteria). In addition, the person must be certified to teach that area of law by the state in which the course is being conducted, so a Utah BCI instructor, for example, couldn't instruct the legal portion of either course if it was being conducted in any state other than Utah.

As to how advanced or intermediate either class actually is, the PPITH is certainly intermediate level. PPOTH, on the other hand, goes much farther into tactics, technique, and mindset and starts to get into the a number of "advanced" defensive shooting techniques. I've had students take the PPOTH course from me, for example, who described it as being at least as comprehensive, if not more so, than some the first level "advanced" courses they had attended with non-NRA (LE or former Military) instructors. I think the instructor(s) conducting the class makes a big difference as to just how much a student really gets out of it.

Shotgun said:

No, I only meant we should be grateful for the forbearance of the Admins for allowing us to deviate so much into CC. I think we can take advantage of their generosity for a while, but eventually they'd like to "return to our previously scheduled show."

Click to expand...

WHY?

As others have already pointed out, Act 35/SB 93 allows us to get a CWL license which expands our ability to OPEN CARRY greatly.

I still have a bad taste in my mouth from when Jon refused to deal with Spartacus. That whole situation was handled very poorly.

Wisconsin Carry said:

Ideally there should be NO training required to carry.

Since we don't advocate for mandatory training, why should we be advocating that a symbolic training class that DOES satisfy the requirements be expanded?

Anyone that feels they need training can go seek it in whatever type/form they need.

If you ask me, since we needed a symbolic "magical" training requirement to appease all the RINO's, liberals, and others who couldn't find freedom or accountability if you gave them a dictionary bookmarked to the page and highlighted, the quickest, easiest, least expensive possible course to satisfy the states bull$hit mandate should be embraced by us.

Anyone who wants to satisfy the bull$hit training mandate inexpensively, take hunters safety.

Anyone who feels they NEED advanced training on defensive use of a handgun, go take a different course. There are plenty out there.

Click to expand...

The thing is, whether you agree with it or not, training DOES serve a purpose. While I agree that mandates are unnecessary and unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that training is neither unneeded or "symbolic". A responsible adult should see the NEED for training based on a real assessment of their current knowledge base and skill set, whether the state requires it or not. Additionally, such training should be high-quality, professional, and relevant to the subject matter, whether state requires it to be or not.

If you are going to be "made" to "sit through" a training class, I don't understand why you would take one that has no relevance to the subject at hand just to spite the state. Seems counter-intuitive to common sense.