Wayne,

Again, your responses and non responses point directly at your contempt for our current PGC. Whenever these type of discussions come up, it seems that your desire is to remove game agencies from the process of regulating hunting with a preference for political regulating of hunting.

You said I wish to circumvent the process. Not all all. I have been clear on the process. This issue and the SH issue must go through the legislature. That is the process and I work to move the process forward using facts that are available. Yes, it is my desire to remove politicians from directly regulating hunting. They remain the overseer which is what their role is.

You refuse to address why it is the person when the discussion is gun rights, yet point to then gun when it is regarding hunting.

I made a post that points out some of the confusing laws that already exist for hunting in this state. All aremfree to disagree but as with any ,message board there is going to be discussion on some of these posts. I am not the "king" or whatever term you used. Just trying to debate and understand others points of view.

Again, your responses and non responses point directly at your contempt for our current PGC.

 
As already stated and explained, I said that wasnt the case...and so what if it was?   We the hunters should still have the say regardless of who I trust or don't trust.   Thats the point and all that matters anyway.   This is currently not a pgc issue.   And WE should have that say.  NOt one or two legislators...and one or two dont have the say.   Not pgc.   US.   Not because I dont trust them...Which I dont.    But because it should be our call regardless!   How much clearer can that be stated?    There is no reason for the legislators to start the process going through process to giving pgc the ability to implement it, if the support from us isnt there!
 
And you arent fooling anyone, the only reason you think it should be given to pgc is because you saw how the crossbow deal went.    The majority of sportsmen clearly were not for it, even according to the commissioners themselves...Yet commissioners said right out they didnt agree with the hunters views so passed it anyway.   Not representing constituents desires is always a concern when political appointees are the ones circumventing the system.   Thats not just a pgc issue, thats an issue with any politically appointed commission that has power.   Thats why they cant act alone and just do anything they want any time they want no matter what.   Sorry.  Not reality.  And for good reasons.     
     
 "Whenever these type of discussions come up, it seems that your desire is to remove game agencies from the process of regulating hunting with a preference for political regulating of hunting."
 
Last I checked, thats the way the system was set up, and for a reason chief.    I fully support pgc having the right to govern over this if its determined there is a large majority support among hunters for possibly implementing it and that is voiced to the leislator through input given,  hearings etc...   And not before. 

"You refuse to address why it is the person when the discussion is gun rights, yet point to then gun when it is regarding hunting. "
 
Keep repeating that mistruth.   You have a history of doing that during your tantrums when people dont agree.   Ive seen this time after time.   With the Sunday issue and with the crossbow issue.
The question was answered best in posts 17 and post 24 yet again on page one.   Dont like the answer, as the Russians would say....tough shytsky.

Imho, the issue it that a few of you same self appointed "hunter activists" just need to H.u.s.h.!  lol.   Constantly looking for causes to champion and bring up controversial ranks splitting issues on the message boards, getting the topics feet wet before launching your tirades on the legislators trying to ram-rod issues through.   
 
But no more arguing from me on this.   Even you should realize you have a snowflakes chance in hades on this'n.
 
Good luck with your efforts   N'at.   Youre gonna need it. lmao.

wayne c

The question was answered best in posts 17 and post 24 yet again on page one.   Dont like the answer, as the Russians would say....tough shytsky.

 
Now on the issue of why you blame the person on one occasion and the gun on another, the best I could tell was that you justified why it is the person that matters and not the firearm on gun rights issues is because owning semi auto firearms is a right. Am I correct on that? If so,  I am right to assume that you feel that only because of the second ammendment to the Constitution, citizens should be able to own semi automatic firearms? If that is correct then I understand why the shifting blame.

Good luck with your efforts   N'at.   Youre gonna need it. lmao.

 
Thanks. I realize that I am going to need it, LOL. But, I am seeing attitudes shifting a bit on this topic. So, in the end, we are closer than we were a few months ago.

wayne c
You decide on a pose for that 'yote yet?

 
Why yes I did. Moving right to left in a trot. Left front leg back and off the ground. Slight left turn to the head with ears natural and not alert. Some grass bending left to right to make it appear the coyote is moving into the wind. Old, weathered fencepost behind the head with some rusty wire as if the dog is working a old fenceline.
 
Now, if the coyote comes out looking like a coyote I will be a happy man.

late summer.