Syracuse.com - Guest column: Bowhunter says DEC's special youth firearms weekend "makes me sick"

[Doc]

I thought the BO was mandated for the junio hunters in teh regular season. I seem to recal that from last year.

But why is it mandated in some cases and not in others? What is the logic behind the mandate and why aren't the bowhunters under a B/O mandate for those 3 days? Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems like mixed messages and conflicting regulations on exactly the same issue.

[Doewhacker]

Well if they meant that the mentor has to be able to instantly grab and restrain the youth, why did they go through all the suplementary jargon. Obviously if the intent was to keep a situation where you can physically restrain someone, they pretty much have to be "in sight", and close enough to talk, and radio wouldn't even be a question. I interpret their idea of physical control is as they described it .... I can see them and I can talk to them. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to specify a distance? I am positive that there will be many who read it the way I read it .... and why not? They have left the door open for that interpretation. Plus, I am still not sure that interpretation isn't exactly what they meant.

Do you really think there would be any way possible to enforce such a law regaurding distance from hunter to mentor?

[Doc]

Do you really think there would be any way possible to enforce such a law regaurding distance from hunter to mentor?

Absolutely, I could tell at a single glance whether they were in compliance. 10 -15 feet, you pick it. And it would be as easy to enforce and with absolutely no question about the definition of the requirement.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Well if they meant that the mentor has to be able to instantly grab and restrain the youth, why did they go through all the suplementary jargon. Obviously if the intent was to keep a situation where you can physically restrain someone, they pretty much have to be "in sight", and close enough to talk, and radio wouldn't even be a question. I interpret their idea of physical control is as they described it .... I can see them and I can talk to them. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to specify a distance? I am positive that there will be many who read it the way I read it .... and why not? They have left the door open for that interpretation. Plus, I am still not sure that interpretation isn't exactly what they meant.

I interpret that as being about at arms reach maybe a little more. Like I said, just not on the other side of a structure, or in two different blinds, etc. I didnt mean the youth had to be sitting in the mentors lap lol.

[Doewhacker]

I would say that part is more to drive home the idea that you must be with the youth and not let them hunt on their own, no need for an exact foot away maximum.

But then again I don't feel the need to over analyze every thing either.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Doewhacker

[Doc]

I interpret that as being about at arms reach maybe a little more. Like I said, just not on the other side of a structure, or in two different blinds, etc. I didnt mean the youth had to be sitting in the mentors lap lol.

If they intended them to be in arm's reach, why are they complicating the issue with the "within sight" addition and the within talking distance phrase, and the no radio jargon? All of those things indicate some separation is allowed and expected. What is wrong with just saying "within reach". They always seem to have to throw in some kind of confusing nonsense that always leaves questions.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I agree. Like I said though, different blinds, etc. Say you put a 20 foot rule in, and the mentor sits in a blind 18 feet from the youth hunter. They would be legal, but not able to communicate without a radio, making physical control all but impossible.

This is all just MY interpretation of why though.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

But why is it mandated in some cases and not in others? What is the logic behind the mandate and why aren't the bowhunters under a B/O mandate for those 3 days? Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems like mixed messages and conflicting regulations on exactly the same issue.

I don't understand it either, But if you are waiting for me to be surprised that somethin NY was involed in does'nt make sense....don't wait...lol. They could screwup a free lunch. Maybe they want us bow hunters to be able to identify THEM in the woods, and like Doe said...run the other way.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Doewhacker]

If they intended them to be in arm's reach, why are they complicating the issue with the "within sight" addition and the within talking distance phrase, and the no radio jargon? All of those things indicate some separation is allowed and expected. What is wrong with just saying "within reach". They always seem to have to throw in some kind of confusing nonsense that always leaves questions.

I don't see it as confusing at all. Close enough to talk is simple to understand, physical control is simple to understand, with in sight is simple to understand.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I did like the fact that the mentor can't be hunting.

[Doc]

I would say that part is more to drive home the idea that you must be with the youth and not let them hunt on their own, no need for an exact foot away maximum.

But then again I don't feel the need to over analyze every thing either.

I actually like the "within reach" idea. You never know when physical action might be required to stop an impending shot choice error. That wording is exactly what should have been used. That's better than a distance thing and a lot clearer than the way they left it. Anyway, it is what it is. I just hope that all the mentors figure out what it really all means.