Contributors to this thread:
10 Wisconsin infants buy licenses
Four year old, youngest to register a deer in Wisconsin, and 10 licenses sold to infants. I bet that dad was so proud of little Johnny's first deer. Not that long ago he was just as proud of him pooping on the toilet.
Now come on. How many four year olds do you know, are ready to shoot a rifle? And some say let's let the parents decide when it's time for their kids? I suggest someone decides when it's best to let parents become parents.
There were no accidents involving kids however, and I didn't think there would be, but I still think the rule is a bit silly. This comes from a guy who absolutely appreciates less government involvement.
So,.... the infants, (less than a year of age) bought tags and did not register a deer. Why would parents spend money that way, or did dad kill a deer and not register it? Maybe the toddlers less than a year of age just missed their target.
I don't have young kids, so I have not kept up on the regs, but shouldn't they have to pass a hunters ed class?
So with no age limit, and some kids out there barely strong enough to hold a gun, how many wounded deer you think are out there? 10yrs of age was reasonable. This is ridiculous no age limit.
Hunters are their own worse enemies, not a very intelligent group as a whole.
Some are just born hunters..... complete naturals.
I am working on developing camo strollers with built-in bipods so the little tykes can "bowhunt" with the soon to come out youth crossbows.
Gee, I thought you needed some sort of identification to get a license, including a SSN. I think the SSN is a federal law so dead beat dads cannot get behind on their child support. How many young kids have either of those?
"with the soon to come out youth crossbows."
Ah skook, you're a little late. They already make youth crossbows. Go to your local Cabelas and pick up "The Brood." Should do the trick for your stroller invention.
Mike F's Link
Dad is so excited he can't even hold the camera straight.
Pampers already has blaze orange diapers, so the camo ones won't be far behind. ...NOT! I hope that the individuals that purchased licenses for their infants have some pretty good answers as to why they purchased the licenses. As far as having hunter safety, hunters under the age of 12 are considered "mentee" hunters along with those born after 1/1/1973 who have not passed a hunter safety course. There are also rules that the mentor must follow.
I have attached the link to the regulations.
I would think, that the DNR would be knocking on the door, of the guy who registered a deer, or bought a license for a child under a year old???????????????? they had the break down, on the news this am...... according to the news, they actually registered the deer, but who knows what really happened
Unfortunately, even though the intent is obvious, this law is so narrow minded that it is not illegal to buy a license for a 4 month old. It just maybe that gov. walker actually doesn't mind, as long as someone bought the extra license and paid the $20. Everything, absolutely everything, is for sale these days.
OR.....is the purchasing of a hunting license for an infant ,3 years and younger, a protest to the legislature and DNR as to how stupid this law rally is? Apparently there were 6 such licenses purchased this year. If a parent did register a deer as gh mentioned above for an infant, I surely hope the DNR investigates this, because if they don't it will only get worse from here. Because you know darn well that license was purchased just so dad could have another tag in his pocket. When will this madness stop? Just goes to show how greedy hunters can be.
Kink, I think you nailed it!
So with no age limit, and some kids out there barely strong enough to hold a gun, how many wounded deer you think are out there?
I believe any deer registered by a kid under say 8 or 10 was not shot by that kid. The comment above I believe would matter more for the inclusion of the X-gun for everyone during the archery season. I believe this alone has created a lot of wounded, not found deer in the woods than the youth hunting.
In yesterday's newspaper.
MILWAUKEE — On the heels of a change that eliminated Wisconsin's minimum hunting age, 10 state hunting licenses were sold this month to children younger than 1, according to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources data released Tuesday.
It's not known whether any of the infants actually participated in the hunt.
The documents could have been purchased as mementos for the youngsters. Or they could have been used to register a deer that another hunter killed.
The low-price, first-time mentored hunting licenses carry all the harvest authorizations of a similar adult license.
One deer was registered to a 4-year-old hunter, and seven deer were registered to 5-year-olds, according to state records The harvest records don't indicate who killed the deer.
Don't the regs require that if a deer is shot and someone else tags it that the person that tagged it must be hunting with the person at the time it was shot it? Hunting would mean actually hunting, not just sitting there in their baby car seat waiting for dad to use their tag. Or maybe the registration was a fake registration too. Tickets need to be issued for these cases where deer were registered.
Live2, I know a number of kids under 8 who have killed their own animals. I've been on more than a few hunts with kids of this age and have only witnessed one animal wounded, which was recovered. I have also witnessed many wounded animals from adults. It would be incorrect to assume no kid under 8 can kill their own animal.
Cap, I agree and should not have said "no kids" but I'm sure there are alot of tags bought for the purpose of the extra tag. The wounding comment was from another poster that I had attached. I cannot figure out how to make that writing different from mine. Anyway, I was trying to state that wounding rates would be less of a worry from a kid shooting a deer with a rifle compared to the wounding rates I know are happening with the X-gun inclusion for all.
Jeff- if felons can hunt during gun season without carrying a firearm, surely little Billy, sitting in his car seat can hunt too.
Tweed, correct me if I'm wrong, but they catch a lot of felons that have a gun when they try and buy a gun deer tag. They cannot gun hunt.
"Don't the regs require that if a deer is shot and someone else tags it that the person that tagged it must be hunting with the person at the time it was shot it?"
Jeff, their mentor/parent was pushing the baby buggy during their hunt. LOL.
Wisconsin should have an "embryo only" hunt. Would get more humans involved in hunting, and provide another special season.
What a mess Wisconsin hunters have created!
Live2Hunt- I believe I was mistaken. I was under the assumption that the 2012 rule change allowed felons to get a license and participate in group hunting but not carry a firearm.
Here's the excerpt from the DRN's FAQ:
"Question 4: Can a felon buy a gun-deer license? Answer: State law does not prohibit a felon from purchasing a gun deer license, as long as his/her hunting privileges are not revoked. A felon or other person who is prohibited by state law from possessing a firearm simply cannot possess, control or use a firearm. Beginning April 20, 2012, a gun-deer hunting license now allows the holder of that license the option of using a crossbow or bow and arrow instead of a firearm. So as long as the person’s hunting privileges are still in place, a person can purchase an archery license and hunt with a bow and arrow under the archery season (or a crossbow if age 65 or older or with a crossbow permit), AND/OR can purchase a gun-deer license and hunt with a bow and arrow or a crossbow under the authority of that license during the firearm and muzzleloader deer seasons. A felon can be hunting in a group with others, provided he/she does not place themself in the position of being in possession and control of a firearm, and they may not “group hunt.” Not being able to group hunt means that a felon, or other person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm, may not shoot a deer with a bow or crossbow for someone else to tag, AND may not tag any deer shot by someone else."
What a confusing sentence: " A felon can be hunting in a group with others, provided he/she does not place themself in the position of being in possession and control of a firearm, and they may not “group hunt.”
They make good deer drivers.
the second grade class has voted and its unanimous! they also passed blaze pink and cross bow inclusion...
Don't want this to come off the wrong way but what about lefties buying tags for their infants to show how silly they believe this law to be.
I did see a post of one guy who did buy a tag for his infant and was going to use it as a memory for the baby book that many people now keep for their kids. No he didn't take the infant hunting but it was more of a "future hunter" memento. Not that many of you would know this but they are a great way to capture memories over the years and many parents will give them to their children when they graduate from high school and as a family you can relive all the great memories made over the years.
There have also been some posts about people deciding who should be able to have children. You are the same people who think all the deer in the woods should magically belong to you. Take your opinion and crawl back in your hole! Someone deciding who and who shouldn't have children is a terrible idea.
Brewcrew, have ever heard of sarcasm? I think you took that comment too literal. Now back to my hole!
I do have to ask the way that yoy defend it though? Are you the dad who bought one for his child? I never thought of it as a way to capture memories? Seems like a silly stretch to me?
I'm a father of young children and would probably have bought one if they were available when my two kids were born.
Still too easy to abuse though. Give it a few years and those that are prone to jobbing the system will be taking advantage of this.
@Pete-pec after watching to much Maury and Springer back in the day i've had the same thoughts
I would have bought one for my infant if the law was passed the year that they were born, it would be a good keepsake for them. I also wouldn't expect them to hunt with me, it would be the cheap mentor hunting license $5 or 7 to put with their other baby stuff. Some of you guys are getting pretty worked up over something rather small, I've seen hunting shows from other States that show 4 - 5 year olds shooting their own deer. Most of the time it is over a bait or sendora(??) with the gun in a shooting rest so the kid can aim and shoot themselves without carrying the weight of the gun or worrying about the recoil. My soon to be 14 year old and 11 year old use something to rest their guns on to shoot better, either a rail or shooting stick, heck, most of the TV "hunters" use shooting sticks or rails. One could say that it is unethical to shoot an animal without some type of rest for a more steady/accurate shot.
How many of you have felt the major recoil of a .223 or .243 reduced recoil load? There is no way for a 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 year could ever handle that!
This is something that will pass after a year or two, when the vanity of it wears off, and it will be treated the same as the other 34 States treat it.
Good post Captain? Why, because he agrees with you? Come on man, you want to capture memories? A lock of hair from the child's first haircut, a coin collection from the year they were born, a newspaper from the day they were born, pictures from prom etc. perhaps? But a piece of printed paper from the DNR website to show them you wanted them to hunt so bad, it was predetermined by the parent at birth lol. Man, what a disappointment when the kid decides he didn't want to hunt. This is my exact point. It's a push by adults. Not children. We are instilling adult values unto our children who will do anything to please their parents. Yes, even overbearing parents. I cannot think of a good reason why we wouldn't want these "uber advanced" kids to test out? They are certainly advanced enough to load and shoulder a gun, and kill an animal. Why not take a 100 question written test and field test like those kids at 12 do? The reason is, because they can't. They don't have the mental, cognitive, nor physical ability to do so! Most of the time a child at 4 or 5 is simply pointing a rested weapon and pulling the trigger? Are you a proponent of crossbows? Isn't that the argument most often taken at the disgust for that weapon? I'll say it again, I think EVERYONE should test out. That puts the age limit at a reasonable timeline for those kids who indeed have the capacity to do so, and it weeds out those parents who perhaps are not the best mentors. I do believe there are good parents that have great kids. I understand that all children advance at different rates. I do wish parents would make the best decisions. I believe some will, and some won't. I don't care what anyone says, 4 and 5 is a ridiculous statement to me, that there are indeed parents making some damn foolish decisions. You know my point has never been about safety. It's about morality. It's all a moot point, but had I been on that review board, that would have been my proposed compromise, and I cannot understand how any right-minded adult would argue it?
Pete-pec- you are right on. If any kid passes a written and field test, I would be for it. Anything else is simply asinine.
yes the any-age test out idea is good. Basically eliminate the age restriction but make hunters safety a requirement, even for a mentored hunt
Pete-Pec and RJN, here's a scenario for you. Let's say 5-year old kid learns he has cancer but is a huge outdoors buff and even enjoyed sitting in the woods prior to finding out that he has cancer. As his last wish he wants to participate in the Wisconsin Gun Deer season. If anything else is simply asinine then you are to deny this child. The law currently would allow this 5-year old to participate in the season.
I view a license for an infant as a memento as something they can look at later in life whether they choose to hunt or not. Would I like my kid to one day hunt, yes I would but I'm not going to force it on him. People keep a variety of mementos for a wide range of reasons and I don't care that you don't appreciate it. It means something to me and that's all that matters! I'm sure there are many people here who kept the first arrow or shell casing from the first deer they ever harvested. I know I'm not the only one to hold onto every gun or archery license that I've ever had.
Pete, yes, of course I agree with him. I have no desire for more government over reach and I firmly believe the parent is the best person to make choices for their kids. Why do you or any of the others against this, believe you have the right or the ability or capability to tell others how to raise their kids? The only way I would be against this is if it posed a danger to others and the experiences from other states do not show that to be an issue.
And I believe that's where your wrong Captain. If parents were the best at deciding things....well, read the news. Do you see what parents decide for their kids? Do you see the abuse that kids go through, under their parent's discretion? Why then, do we have a driver's test, or college entry tests, or teachers, or rules? We don't need any of these things, as long as parents approve? I'll tell you who knows exactly the requirements to hunt? A certified hunter's safety instructor. Who might even be a parent himself.
Brewmike- again these are rare kids, So to make it legal for all ages, again simply asinine. Maybe a kids wish is to drive a racecar, fly a plane, etc. There are common sense requirements and tests in place to prove they are ready, hunting is no different.
IF the child turns out to be a hunter, to be able to say he/she has had a deer license every year of their life would be a neat little anecdote.
I can only assume that is why some people bought licenses for their babies.
brewcrewmike, how about if same cancer afflicted 5 year old is a huge Nascar fan and wants to drive 200 MPH at Talladega? How about if said 5 year old loves shark week and wants to scuba dive in a shark cage? How about if he/she wants to skydive, bungee jump, cliff dive...
I think I’m going to invest in Reynolds Wrap stock. Man the tin foil hats here.
What if, what if?
Some of you people are as redicilious as the "citizens" that post on this article on news feeds.
Remember - NO child under the age of fourteen (14) can hunt by themselves. 2 things must first occur! Must be a Hunters Safety Graduate and secondly...a parents permission!!
Minus the above - NO ONE child can hunt by themselves. Doesn't matter what age they are!
A "MENTOR" must accompany the child into the woods and never be more than an arms length away!
Drop time - excellent point ...what if this, what if that.. what if a meteor or drops on earth in the next hour and we all die!! WHAT IF....
A race car, a plane - grabbing at straws and sounding so foolish! Maybe they could get a mentor to be in the racecar or plane....come on people.
Justifying this new law with a dying kids wish was "grasping at straws".
I'm pretty sure that a 5 year old can drive a race car. Planes I haven't a clue. Do we need laws to say kids can't play on top of a roof? Do we need laws against kids using a slip and slide in sub zero weather. How far do we need to go? Parents are generally able to make these calls as part of everyday life. As said the majority of states have no min age and it is working just fine
"brewcrewmike, how about if same cancer afflicted 5 year old is a huge Nascar fan and wants to drive 200 MPH at Talladega? How about if said 5 year old loves shark week and wants to scuba dive in a shark cage? How about if he/she wants to skydive, bungee jump, cliff dive..." There is an organization called "Make-A-Wish" that does just that.
MAW, just like this law, makes these things possible for kids. But, they make it possible for them under rules and supervision. Have you guys bothered to read the law or do you simply type knee-jerk reactions?
It is exactly these "what if" comments that the legislators heard from those opposed to the law. Meanwhile, proponents presented facts gleaned from other states that do allow this. Set your emotions aside and think, if you had to make a decision based on what if's and maybe's as opposed to facts and studies, what would you decide?
CaptMike, I can also argue that hunter retention would be greater if these kids had to wait until 12 or even 10. Anticipation is half the fun. Plus being a little older they would appreciate it more. There are very few kids that wanted to hunt more than me. I was raised in a large hunting family. But I loved those seasons out with my parents, grandpa, uncles where I was made part of the group but couldn't carry a gun. That experience was priceless. I was way ahead of the curve when I started hunting for "real" at age 12. Those gunless deer hunts, scouting trips, small game hunts, and wood cutting trips. Are something I wouldn't trade if somehow able to go back and hunt at age 10 or younger.
Sure you can say the parents know when their kids are ready. But a lot of time with our passions we don't see clearly. Sometimes the kids don't even really want to do it. But they see how "important" it is to Dad/Mom, grandpa, uncle. This was one of those laws that weren't broke, why "fix" it? Then again Blaze pink...
Rut - Actually "blaze Pink" did nothing to "break" the matter of retention - it enhanced it, as well as making for a few good jokes - no harm/no foul!!
Like I have said many times before, children/kids are as different in personality as they are in height. What one likes, the next one does not. We as adults cannot and should not GENERALIZE all kids..."a little older and they appreciate it more"... How does that APPLY to ALL kids - it simply doesn't...maybe some, maybe a lot or maybe just a few - who knows?
And how do we qualify hunter retention being greater if we waited till 10 or 12? How do we do that, seeing all children mature differently and have individual personalities?
No one situation posted here applies to every boy or girl that may become involved in hunting - not one thing anyone has posted qualifies as a general trait shared equally by all children.
That being said, this law ONLY offers the OPPORTUNITY to those parents that feel as PARENTS that their child may like to become involved in hunting wild game or even the shooting sports. PERIOD!
It's not being pushed on every kid - it's not a must do...it's an OPPORTUNITY that some parents may choose to engage in and perhaps many parents may say - NO, way to soon. That is just fine!
This "what if this" and "that" and "racecars" and "flying planes" and "going to the moon in a spaceship" is nothing but useless jibber jabber!
Come on guys we're all smarter than this - a few kids will get involved, just like the 10 year olds and perhaps even fewer.
Mom and Dad make life and death decisions, just about every day of a child's young life - I think they can pull one more out of the hat!
Rut, I'd argue that this is not a mandatory law. Once again, THE PARENT DECIDES. I share some of the same memories you do but just because they were good for you and I does not mean it is right for everybody. There is no one law that is best for each individual. As it is in almost all other aspects of our lives, our parents decide and are responsible for our formative years. I do not believe that every parent should make his child hunt at an early age or even at any age, but I do believe it is best left to the parent to make those decisions.
BT, point being Blaze pink was not needed as this wasn't. You are correct it would be tough to measure hunter retention for those that wait. Just like it is tough to measure it with those that don't. But I can almost guarantee that kids that are older and more mature will appreciate it more. Which will go farther for hunter retention.
Capt...I think we said basically the same thing here? I agree....
So, perhaps it wasn't needed - but the point is ...IT HURTS NOTHING. And maybe in some small distant corner of Wisconsin a couple young ladies think it's "cool" and like it! Great news by me!
Just like this new age law - IT HURTS NOTHING! What harm is done - it's a law. Too many WI hunters it will mean NOTHING! Wont even think about it.
To the, (accept my apologies), "worry warts" just like the 10 year old hunt - this too, will be fine. Some will do it, some will not. It's another opportunity provided to us as parents of children.
Rut says "almost guarantee that kids that are older and more mature will appreciate it more."
No one can say that Rut, unless your hiding a crystal ball somewhere. We will never know that. We can "speculate" at best my friend.
BT, you are correct it is speculation. But think about yourself and others you know. How many things that you love to do, do you not have more appreciation for with age? It's human nature, and that as I'm sure you know in your profession is a pretty accurate indicator.
I'm with those that think these were bought as a momento. No big deal.
https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/moms-wives-and-babies-oh-my.602886/ Wisconsin is being discussed on a simular mi forum. Funny thing is they had same law in 2010 and most have completely forgot already. No baby hunting acidenents for people to remember it by. People in Michigan also buy tags for their infants as momentous and have been a few years now.
The babies hunting, although bizarre, is not one of the main problems facing bowhunting today. That is why even though I think it is dumb, I voted neutral on the subject.
"A "MENTOR" must accompany the child into the woods and never be more than an arms length away!"
Add to that, the mentor can not fill the mentee's tag. Anyone in the mentor program must fill their own tag.
Konk your right! but I think a few here are concerned with the "more tags for Dad" theory! Personally if it does happen and it may very well, it will be a low number that violate.
"if it does happen and it may very well, it will be a low number that violate."
The thing is if we keep thinking that way on this and the registration thing and various others. It will not be a small problem.
I can see the headlines now; Husbands chasing wives as family venison supply dwindles.
I hope those parents taking there very young children out to the woods protect that child's hearing. Daddy's 30.06 could do some real damage to thier kid's hearing when that kid is sitting in a pop up blind playing games on his cell phone.
Good point Per48R - good reminder to all....
Jeff in MN's Link
Any word on their success in bagging the big one?!?
Manitowoc minute facebook video for this week. Part of it covers the infants that bought licenses. Click the link.
Charlie is always funny, New Glarus beer is also part of this one.
New Glarus beer,,,no thanks, anti trapping owner,,,,, she sure is no backer of hunters or trappers,,,,,
GH, good to know. I don't drink it and now I know to keep drinking other brands.
GH-do you know that New Glarus is anti trapping/hunting? I have no idea and I don't like their beer but too often people or businesses get a label they don't deserve. Just curious.
Just an aside-I emailed my representative to the Assembly and another to the author of the bill asking for some logic in voting for the bill-No answer.
LC, they most likely are not overly interested in defending a position after the fact that it has become law.
" they most likely are not overly interested in defending a position after the fact that it has become law." Perhaps so but as a state employee they could take 10 seconds and acknowledge that. The guy just lost a vote and I will inform anyone that is interested....
NEW GLARUS IS ANIT? Damn, I liked the beer. Oh well, not worth drinking it if it means supporting a business like that.
I heard New Glarus was a model Wisconsin business. They take care of their employees with good wages and benefits. Exactly the type of Wisconsin business that should be supported by Wisconsin residents. Why buy an out of state beer when one can support Wisconsin families right here. ;-)
On the other hand, there are plenty of other beer choices that are made in Wisconsin.
Same reason I will never support the Democratic party. Most anti-hunting, trapping, fishing people/org's are Democrat's and I will never support something they support.