MSNBC scrutinizes state-by-state youth hunting regulations in the wake of a 15-year-old Washington boy being convicted by a judge on charges 2nd-degree manslaughter for shooting and killing a hiker he thought was a bear.

Says Mike Stuckey in the article:

And while Kales was not old enough to have driven himself to the trailhead, in Washington state there is no minimum age for hunting without adult supervision as Kales, then 14, was doing that day with his 16-year-old brother.

Washington is far from alone in allowing children to hunt with firearms on public lands without adult supervision, an msnbc.com review of state hunting regulations found:

  • Seven states — Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont and Washington — set no minimum age for solo hunting.
  • In Texas, kids can hunt alone when they are 9.
  • In Alaska, Louisiana and Tennessee, the minimum age for unsupervised hunting is 10, in Missouri it’s 11, and in nine other states it’s 12.

The article basically amounts to the same knee-jerk reaction we see after gun incidents like Virginia Tech and Columbine: Highlighting a supposed need for tighter laws because of a single incident.

But there are many hunters who agree with Stuckey and feel that the minimum age for hunting unsupervised should be 14 or 16 or even 18. Some non-hunting advocates even want a minimum age for supervised hunting.

As for me, I agree with the official position of Families Afield: Parents, not politics, should decide when kids can hunt alone.

Families Afield was borne  of an effort to reverse a disturbing trend called the “hunter replacement ratio.” Simply put, the HRO refers to the number of new hunters who are joining the sport for every old hunter that is giving it up. Not surprisingly, that number is less than 1.0. Quite a bit less, in fact. Nationwide, the HRO is 0.69. Meaning that for every 10 hunters leaving the sport, there are about seven new hunters joining the sport. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you chart those numbers, hunting will eventually die out completely.

What do declining hunter numbers mean? We’re already seeing this play out. Most wildlife management across the country is conducted using hunters’ dollars. The same is the case in Tennessee, where the Wildlife Resources Agency operates separately of the rest of state government, and with departments of natural resources in other states as well. Those dollars come from three primary sources: Donations, the federal Pittman-Robertson tax, and (most importantly) the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.

Two of those sources — donations and the P-R tax — are pretty much static. That leaves hunting licenses as the fallback tool for revenue for TWRA and similar agencies across the nation. As fewer hunting licenses are sold, the existing license-buyers have to pick up the slack. Even at our current rate in Tennessee, where an all-inclusive hunting license costs $136 per year, TWRA is expected to be operating in the red within four years’ time. Cuts should be made and doubtlessly will be made, but there comes a point when you’ve sliced off all the meat and are left with the bare bones. It goes without saying that the cost then falls on the license-holders, and the costs of hunting will steadily increase.

There’s another factor as well. It involves politics and the power of numbers. Right now, hunters enjoy a considerable amount of respect from lawmakers at state and federal levels, meaning hunting regulations generally are left intact. The concerns of organizations like HSUS, PETA and others fall on deaf ears more often than not. Following the 2000 presidential election, Gov. Phil Bredesen commented that Al Gore was “one dove hunt away” from the presidency. In other words, if he had courted hunters, he would have won. There’s power in numbers. But as hunting declines, there’s less of a potential backlash for politicians to be worried about, and suddenly the arguments of the animal rights activists will start to carry more weight.

All in all, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the future of hunting. But Families Afield and other conservation groups believe there is a way to reverse the trend, and that basically means relaxing regulations on young hunters. By the time kids reach the age of 14 or 16, they’re already lost to video games and other ways to spend their Saturday mornings.

Here’s what Families Afield found: States with the least restrictions on youth hunting generally have higher HROs, while states with the most restrictions on youth hunting generally have lower HROs. That isn’t always the case; Tennessee, a least-restrictive state, has an HRO of 0.82, while Rhode Island, a heavily-restricted state, has an HRO of 1.06. But in general terms, it’s easy to see the pattern. Some states that enjoy rich hunting heritages also have restrictive regulations on youth hunting, and their HROs reflect that. Consider Montana’s HRO of 0.56, North Dakota’s of 0.53, Idaho’s of 0.41, and Michigan’s nation-worst 0.26. On the other hand, some states lesser known as hunting-rich states but with few restrictions on youth hunting are enjoying higher HROs. Consider Missouri’s 1.16, Oklahoma’s 1.10 and New Hampshire’s 1.09, the three highest HROs in the nation.

That’s a powerful argument for less restrictions on youth hunters. The flip side of the coin is concerns about safety, not only for others in the woods but for the young hunters themselves, if they hunt unsupervised at a young age. This is where parental responsibility comes into play. At what age should hunters be trusted in the woods alone? There is no set age. I was hunting alone when I was 12, and never shot myself in the foot with a gun nor mistook anyone in the woods for an animal. But I know some kids who are 12 that I absolutely wouldn’t trust in the woods with a loaded firearm.

On the other hand, I was boar hunting in the Big South Fork NRRA a few years ago when I came across a middle-aged local minister on the trail with a deer rifle. We talked for a minute, and I asked him if he was hunting deer or hogs. “Aah,” he said, “I’m just hunting for whatever I see. I’m legally blind and just out roaming.” Needless to say, I got out of the area as quick as I could. That man shouldn’t have been in the woods hunting. I know many 12 year olds who I would trust in the woods with a loaded firearm more than I would trust him.

And therein lies the crux of the matter: The vast majority of hunting accidents occur because of irresponsibility, and not because of age. And while it’s true that responsibility is learned over time, most states also require hunter education courses before hunting. A 10-year-old in Tennessee, for example, could theoretically hunt without adult supervision, but must first pass a hunter education course. The course isn’t just a few hours of instruction followed by a certificate. Each participant is tested, and the test isn’t all exactly easy.

There’s more to the responsibility factor than just maturity. In fact, a lot of hunting accidents can be chalked up to pure stupidity. And we can all agree that stupidity doesn’t begin or end with youth or adulthood. A 15-year-old kid in Washington mistook a woman for a bear and shot her. And our vice president shot a man in the face while bird hunting a few years ago. For every story about a kid involved in a hunting accident, there’s one about an adult involved in an accident. Which seems to prove one thing: Even if you change the law to make it impossible for a youth to hunt alone, the hunting mishaps won’t end (even though hunting is statistically among the safest sports Americans partake in). In fact, statistics by the Hunting Incident Clearinghouse bear this out. According to the HIC, 0.000005% of youths hunting supervised or unsupervised will be involved in a firearms-related accident. Compare that with adults, 0.000052% of which (note the one less zero) will be involved in a firearms-related accident.

So this doesn’t exactly seem to be a pressing matter. When it becomes clear that young hunters are causing accidents, I’ll be the first in line to advocate for a minimum hunting age. After all, I’m sharing the woods with them and I don’t want to have a .243 bullet whizzing at my head after being mistaken for a deer.

But let’s consider Tennessee, one of the nation’s least-restrictive states for youth hunters. Here, a child can begin hunting big game at the age of six. And they can hunt alone when they turn 10. When is the last time you heard a story about a kid being involved in a hunting accident in Tennessee?

If it’s not a pressing matter, why hamstring ourselves?