ORIGINAL: mez
Correct, not an official duty, a privilege being extended to hunters by the gvmt. to use their land. Becasue it is their's, they get to decide the rules. So yes, the public domain argument does apply here. You won't be granted immunity because you don't agree with their logic or classes. Were you going to present your side and try to get this changed I'd suggest you come up with a better argument and reason than I don't think I should have to.
Of courseTHEY get to decide the rules...but in a democracy, I am a part of THEY! So I have a right and responsibility to contribute to THEIR decision.
The public domain argument basically says that the govt. has an obligation to ensure safe and responsible use of public resources. That argument does not apply here, because that obligation is ALREADY being met with EXISTING hunter's ed programs. In case you missed the original topic, we are not discussing whether hunter's ed classes ought to be mandatory. They already are and I support that. The discussion is whether or not an additional bow hunter course ought to mandatory for bow hunters.
The public domain argument was settled "back in the 50's" when hunter's ed programs started. And now that they are probably universally mandatory, the public domain issue is fully satisfied in my opinion. Why has no one addressed this yet? Does anyone think that the current hunter's ed program does not satisfy the govt. obligation to ensure safe and responsible hunting?