I joined the ranks of accidental activists in January, 2006. A month and a half earlier, on Thanksgiving Day, my cousin’s 14 year-old son had been shot and killed by his own 12 year-old cousin while deer hunting in Northern Wisconsin.
In the weeks that followed, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill allowing 8 year-olds to hunt in the state. The child would have to be accompanied by a hunter as young as 18, called a “mentor.” They would share a gun and stay within arm’s reach. No mentor training would be required for the 18 year-old, nor hunter safety education for the child.
My family and I learned about the bill and decided to oppose it. We wrote letters and op-eds, and contacted lawmakers and reporters. We set up a website, yellowboots. The story really gained momentum when two other events happened. First, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law to keep children in car seats until age 8. You could draw your own editorial cartoon. Also, Dick Cheney shot his friend the lawyer. More cartoons. The bill died in a senate committee. Or so it seemed.
Fast forward to 2009. Now I am fighting a new bill in Wisconsin to lower the hunting age. More research, more calls, some frustration and, always, that persistent gnawing sense of loss. My family and I have the same conviction we had in 2006. Young children and loaded guns do not mix. The venue doesn’t matter.
The bill that we are fighting is Wisconsin’s SB 167 (AB 222 in the assembly.) This proposal will lower the hunting age to 10. The children won’t have to take hunter safety education and the 18 year-old “mentors” won’t need any special mentor training. Once again, they would share a loaded gun and be within arm’s reach of one another. Unnecessary gun handling; point blank range.
The bill is authored by democrats, who control both houses. The governor is also a democrat. SB 167/AB 222 is being fast tracked. The assembly and senate hearings will be held on consecutive days next week, April 29 and 30. Since the committee chairs are the authors of the bill, the committees could vote at the end of the hearings. The bills could then be brought to the floor of both chambers quickly, certainly before the public catches wind of it.
Wisconsin’s proposal is part of a nationwide initiative, called Families Afield, to lower the hunting age requirements in all states. The groups that founded and support Families Afield refer to minimum age requirements and hunter safety education courses as “barriers to hunting.” They offer two arguments for their proposals. First, they say that youth participation in hunting is dropping. It is not. They also claim that young hunters are safe hunters, contrary to reports in Wisconsin.
In recent years, Families Afield promoters have been successful in lowering hunting ages in Utah, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota and other states. Unfortunately, there have been accidents involving young hunters. For instance, a nine year-old hunter in Utah shot and killed his uncle after the hunting age there was lowered in 2006. Two children under 12 were involved in shooting injuries in Pennsylvania after a hunter-mentor program was instituted there the same year. The list goes on. Now, Families Afield is back in Wisconsin.
I hope that when like-minded citizens of Wisconsin read this, they will let their lawmakers know what they think of SB 167 and AB 222. Letters to the editor, electronic or otherwise, are also helpful. Our website contains a wealth of research information that can be helpful to people in any state. It also contains a link to Wisconsin lawmakers to make contacting them very easy. A visit there, along with e-mails and calls to friends, family, and legislators, would be very much appreciated and, together, our efforts might just save a life.