My daughter is 12. She can't remember where she left her shoes last
night, much less the underwing pattern of a flying duck she saw two
years ago!
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Alistair McKeough
<> wrote:
> I think you can't shoot until 12, but you can get the ID test nailed a
> couple of years earlier.
>
> On 7 February 2012 08:13, Bill Stent <> wrote:
>>
>> I understand that psychological studies show that males are incapable
>> of rational judgement until they're about 23, females younger. This is
>> one reason why young males kill themselves in cars so often.
>>
>> But a ten year old with a shotgun sounds like a script for a horror
>> movie. This is less than half the age of reliable rationality.
>>
>> Are these people serious?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
>> > Yes, the younger the better as always. The page you referred to earlier
>> > says 12 is the minimum, so perhaps there's some confusion between states,
>> > or
>> > perhaps it's changed recently.
>> >
>> > Peter Shute
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Alistair McKeough
>> > Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 7:29 AM
>> > To: Peter Shute
>> > Cc: Dave Torr; Dimitris Bertzeletos; Birding Australia
>> > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Duck shooting season- There's an
>> > identification test?
>> >
>> > Field & Game is encouraging those over 10 to gear up now by passing the
>> > test:
>> >
>> > " If you are over the age of 10 years and you have an interest in
>> > [killing] waterfowl, you may obtain your waterfowl identification
>> > certificate right now. Once you have the certificate, keep it safe and
>> > record your registration number where it can be found quite easily. In
>> > recent years changes to the way WIT's are recorded have created some
>> > problems for hunters seeking a current duck hunting license in some areas."
>> >
>> > Nothing like encouraging people to gear up as early as 10 for when they
>> > can start shooting live animals for sport.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7 February 2012 07:24, Peter Shute
>> > <<>> wrote:
>> > When the test first came in, people I know who had been duck shooting
>> > for years had to buy the training video in order to be good enough to pass
>> > the test. I would imagine therefore that they're a lot better at id in
>> > flight than they were before, which is a good thing.
>> >
>> > The video is called "Ducks in Sight". I've got a vague memory of seeing
>> > it for sale at the BOCA shop, so I get the impression it's useful for
>> > learning id.
>> >
>> > I don't think they're required to ever sit the test again, so just like
>> > a drivers' licence, there's nothing stopping people who've forgotten
>> > everything they learned from shooting/driving regardless. But the tests do
>> > stop those who can't be bothered learning id from ever getting a licence,
>> > so
>> > I imagine there are far less illegal species shot by mistake than there
>> > were
>> > before.
>> >
>> > How many are shot anyway, I don't know. Those collected by volunteers
>> > are probably a small percentage of the total, given how many shooters use
>> > private wetlands. I'm guessing enforcement is the problem now, not id
>> > skills.
>> >
>> > Peter Shute
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From:
>> >> <>
>> >>
>> >> <m("lists.vicnet.net.au","birding-aus-bounces");">>]
>> >> On Behalf Of
>> >> Dave Torr
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 6:34 AM
>> >> To: Dimitris Bertzeletos
>> >> Cc: Birding Australia
>> >> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Duck shooting season- There's an
>> >> identification test?
>> >>
>> >> Anyone who wants to drive a car has to pass a test, but the
>> >> evidence is
>> >> that it doesn't help some people drive safely. I assume the
>> >> duck shooting
>> >> test is likely to be even less of a success!
>> >>
>> >> On 7 February 2012 02:35, Dimitris Bertzeletos
>> >> <<>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Hello all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I've just learned that there's an identification test that
>> >> waterfowlers
>> >> > need to pass before they can shoot in the field. Anyone
>> >> have any idea how
>> >> > stringent this is? Evidence suggests not stringent enough...
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> > D.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ===============================
>> >> >
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> >> > send the message:
>> >> > unsubscribe
>> >> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> >> > to:
>> >> > <>
>> >> >
>> >> > http://birding-aus.org
>> >> > ===============================
>> >> >
>> >> ===============================
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> >> send the message:
>> >> unsubscribe
>> >> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> >> to:
>> >> <>
>> >>
>> >> http://birding-aus.org
>> >> ===============================
>> >>
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > send the message:
>> > unsubscribe
>> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > to:
>> > <>
>> >
>> > http://birding-aus.org
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > send the message:
>> > unsubscribe
>> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > to:
>> >
>> > http://birding-aus.org
>> > ===============================
>
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
