The really odd thing to me is that there doesn't even seem as if there's much of a demand for hunting classes, as evidenced by decline of permits. The government isn't even making a case that this is somehow for the public good. This is for the good of government coffers.
Shecky,
Simply because the article cited does not quote the DNR making reference to "the public good" of the proposition doesn't mean there isn't one. What you are failing to grasp is that 1) game management is an accepted role that the state has taken on, 2) funding for that role has been assigned to sportsmen, and 3) hunters are a primary tool used to manage said wildlife. If sportsmen numbers continue to decline, less revenue and fewer hunters will be available to assist in managing wildlife populations. This will force government to look for other sources of funding as well as other means of managing wildlife populations. This would likely mean higher taxes and quite possibly waste of countless game animals. Such waste is against public policy.
Yes, hunters are in a sense paying for their use of public lands, but even hunters who hunt only on private property are required to take Hunter Safety and buy a license. Further, bunny huggers, bird watchers, campers, farmers and pretty much everyone else benefits from well-managed wildlife, but the financial burden is placed primarily of hunters and fishermen.
While I agree with your sentiment toward encouraging government to cut spending in general, and I agree that tobacco and farm subsidies are a poor use of public funds, I suspect that your objection may arise more from what appears to be an aversion to firearms in the hands of citizens, not government spending. I find this statement by you to be quite telling:
If the government really wanted to keep us all safe, they'd more likely take away guns, than teach them in schools. That would seem the best way for the government to discourage folks from taking the law into their own hands.
I would assert that hunting is a positive activity, that has been tapped to fund necessary governmental activity. It encourages citizens to put surplus game animals to beneficial use, while (hopefully) keeping their numbers at a managable level. Social stigma by hysterical anti-gun activists has resulted in, among other things, "gun-free" schools where children can be expelled for drawing a picture of a gun! God forbid they bring in a picture of their pen pal who is a soldier in Iraq or share a story about their dad taking them turkey hunting.
This foolish "Ooh! Guns are BAD! Guns are SCARY!" pap that is force fed our children wrongly suggests criminality and/or mental instability on millions of law-abiding gun owners. In contrast, a program like this in the schools could (possibly) diffuse the carricature of guns and gun owners, while providing some level of gun safety instruction. By all means firearms need to be respected, and teaching firarm safety is reasonable and responsible in a nation where private ownership of firearms is quite popular. Failure to do so in my mind is plainly negligent, as it would be if we failed to teach children basic traffic safety.
Why is this not the responsibility of parents and actual gun owners, rather than the state?
I would agree with this argument if it was appied across the board, and if so much misinformation had not already been steadily fed to public school students.
First, I would go so far as to say that the entire responssibility for educating a child falls on the parents, not the government. Public schools should be a safety measure to provide basic education to those children whose parents simply cannot afford to send them to a private school and are ill-equipped to home school them. This would be for the public benefit of preventing indigent children from growing up to become burdens on society. That being said, public schools have become compulsory government indoctrination centers, dominated by the Left, and an inordinant amount of time is devoted to social engineering. Schools routinely teach subjects that parents object to, appealing to "academic freedom" and higher social responsibilities. Some examples are amoral Sex Ed, Fundmentalist Global Warmatarianism, and fanatical anti-gun hysteria. These enlightened academics have agressively chased out anyone promoting ideas that contradict their agenda. Just look at how many ROTC groups have been run off campuses around the country.
Since public schools have taken on the broad role they have, seeking to speak authoritatively into nearly all aspects of a child's life, I refuse to agree that I should stay back, and seek to address these issues outside of the schools.
Second, I would wager tht there are plenty of gun owners, as well as organizations who would jump at the chance to assist in funding such exucation programs in public schools.
Finally, I think the idea of using dummy ammo or otherwise disabled firearms is kind of silly. I would much prefer the students handle actual firearms and live ammunition in a controlled environment under the control of trained range personnel. Better to have the kids, with parental permission of course, complete any shooting component of the training at an off-campus shooting range.
-- FLIX
