>Probably not very long 1911. Are
>you suggesting that making it
>archery only will increase those
>incidents of dragging dead deer
>past houses more-so than with
>rifle hunters in the mix??...or
>was that just a jab
>at in-considerate bowhunters that have
>done that in past on
>the front? Don't paint us
>all with that brush man!
>There are plenty of in-considerate
>hunters to go around-archery, muzz,
>and yes rifle. Please don't
>start the "which hunter group
>is the most considerate, ethical,
>and law abiding" debate-it's in
>poor taste! (especially on a
>HUNTING website)
Are you kidding me??? I didn't mention a thing about hunting method period. Furthermore, I didn't even mention that anyone had done anything in bad taste after harvesting an animal to warrant a legitimate issue there. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty anti hunters period who may have just got their foot in the door by restricting hunting.
I don't have a dog in the fight there be it archery, muzz, or rifle. Don't hunt there, never have. Might in the future who knows. I am simply stating it is bad ju-ju. We give an inch and historically they'll take a mile. Some will never be satisfied until is it shut down completely. All they have to do is modify the complaint from potential danger to potentially little Johnny and Sally Sue seeing a deer harvested.
You are right about it being HUNTING. My comments were directed at HUNTING and not about method. This compromise simply sets a bad precedent for hunters period regardless of method.
The historical trend seems to be limitation and not expansion of our hunting heritage and not the other way around.
Those 'suggestions' were your words, not mine. I wrote what I wrote and nothing more. We could also suggest that this new limitation implies that somehow all rifle hunters are too brain dead to keep from shooting up houses, which would be equally careless to suggest or assume. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Don't make assumptions and take offense when non has been either implied nor given.