I’d put wager my vote on the longer complex process. Seems more beneficial for the entire public (those who do and don’t have a hunting permit).
My friends (who aren’t on this forum) really want a range open for the general public without the need for such permits, and I agree with them.

Appears to be a tradeoff here with the hunting license requirement since it's on conservation land.  I see it as a simple range project that is likely to be implemented if a hunting license is required.  Or a long complex government process that is less likely to happen if a hunting license is not required.

It's not JUST a hunting license requirement, if that article was correct. It also requires that the only firearms allowed to be used are those deemed appropriate for hunting, i.e. no .22LR rifles or pistols, etc. I don't know what the caliber requirements are for hunting handguns (or rifles for that matter). Since that has always been the requirement for shooting there it seems the only thing that has been gained is there will be some sort of formal "official" designation and maybe some kind of "improvements"? Anybody know the details?

I attended the meeting and provided testimony.  It seemed that the DLNR board was supportive of the idea of the range.  We must understand that there needs to be a reasonable justification for DLNR to appropriate lands, meaning actually designate lands, dedicated to this project.  It isn't just the shooting area itself, but it also incorporates up to 1 mile of lands as a backstop.  If we consider all of the backlash over the attempted range on the Kona side, this is a huge step in the right direction with a simple swipe of a pen.  People need to think bigger picture here.  Proof of concept may lead to talks of expansion or a greater overall acceptance of a project.  The DLNR NEEDS a specific reason to make this happen without all of the associated controversies.  Who can complain about the ethical harvest of game animals and safety of hunters in a designated hunting area?  Good reasons to make it happen.  I had more significant conversations but that is best left to another discussion elsewhere.

That is already the policy for that area. The occasional "inspections" by agents of the state would cite people unless they had hunting licenses and were using hunting-caliber-approved firearms. So what has changed?

General "target shooting" or more correctly target shooting to confirm function/accuracy of the weapon and proficiency of the hunter was not allowed prior.  This lead to a very untenable position for the DOCARE officers when it comes to enforcement.  Changing the wording here gives them far more flexibility in how they deal with shooters at this site.  It also allows for funds to be actually dedicated to this project, but there MUST be a justifiable reason that bypasses more scrutiny.  I think this is absolutely an imperative when it comes to hunting and hunters.  If it one day makes things more acceptable for conversations about a general public shooting area, then that is great.  If people cannot envision a bigger picture, then they can just stay behind their keyboard and complain.  DOCARE officers and the DLNR are not the problems here.   

I attended the meeting and provided testimony.  It seemed that the DLNR board was supportive of the idea of the range.  We must understand that there needs to be a reasonable justification for DLNR to appropriate lands, meaning actually designate lands, dedicated to this project.  It isn't just the shooting area itself, but it also incorporates up to 1 mile of lands as a backstop.  If we consider all of the backlash over the attempted range on the Kona side, this is a huge step in the right direction with a simple swipe of a pen.  People need to think bigger picture here.  Proof of concept may lead to talks of expansion or a greater overall acceptance of a project.  The DLNR NEEDS a specific reason to make this happen without all of the associated controversies.  Who can complain about the ethical harvest of game animals and safety of hunters in a designated hunting area?  Good reasons to make it happen.  I had more significant conversations but that is best left to another discussion elsewhere.

Good points.

It is easier for the rabid haters of the NRA and firearm owners  to prevent ANYTHING rather than an expansion of something the already exists.

I do not like to be bothered as I do not hunt, but got my thumb out and did the online Hunter Education course.  Now to find out about the "in-person" exam thing next week.

Sounds good.  Also, there may be options for say a 100% online Texas non-resident Hunter Safety course and then filing the exemption request via Hawaii in order to purchase a Hunting License in Hawaii.  I hold a Texas hunters ed cert.

Sounds good.  Also, there may be options for say a 100% online Texas non-resident Hunter Safety course and then filing the exemption request via Hawaii in order to purchase a Hunting License in Hawaii.  I hold a Texas hunters ed cert.

Texas is no longer 100% online, it was changed and now requires the online participants to do a in person field day, similar to the Hawaii online process.