PLEASE READ !!

so is that a bad thing? I could barely understand all that LOL.

I believe it's a great thing to have in place......It really does'nt change anything but kinda protects what we have,But the laws pertaining to hunting and fishing are what we all need to watch and worry about.......Wording in politics is key and most of the time dangerous to the uniformed.....Kinda like the "right to bare arms".....but they want to micro manage it's to the point where you really cant bare anything without this and that and this and that......There's always a law protecting a law,and always a flaw that someone is willing to exsplore.....Trust nobody!

Looks good to me.

It looks good Just always be cautious like Bill stated above!!

Hopefully this will back off some of the bear bills and any other bill we continue to fight. Just because we have our "rights" protected to hunt and fish, doesn’t mean they can’t put forth bill to restrict how we harvest the animal.

As long as you have "subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature" you will have the "antis" finding some naive representative to sponsor a bill. But it is better than nothing I guess.

I know other states have done this, i wonder if after a few years they have had any negative feedback.

The only neg impact is if ya take the power away from the people a committee has your sports fate in thier hands......If 4 of 7 are anti dog we're in trouble! Rather things go to vote!Someone has to be responsable for issues might as well have a say ourselves.....If we completely close the door for the oppose'n side it limits us as well.....No easy way to fight the fight except standing firm and convince'n the public! My whole point behind the last big heated debate on here......How we portray ourselves has the largest impact!And standing united is key!

The biggest problem with that is that the public votes on emotion and we are out numbered by the southern part of the state. At least the legislature listens to facts and usauly consult's inland fisheries and wildlife on these issues. In recent years these law's haven't made it any where in the legislature but they all most got us with the referendom.

Scott,
Very true! but my take on it is, if board members feel the same way as the public, we'd have no say either,..With a big part of them being from the southern part as well...At least we have a fighting chance to campaign if it goes to vote......Dont get me wrong a bill to protect would be great if there was no back door trade off...I agree that up to this point everything has worked in our favor,but I believe thats pure luck so far...All I'm saying is if a few people have all the say on how things are run we might be in trouble.....No right or wrong,just opinions.....With public opinion working against us by vote'n with emotion or a board that might me anti dog......The common denominator is what folks think of us and our dogs and how the sport is portrayed......Thats what we as houndsmen and women need to work on if we want our sport continue......All the back bone in the world,or standing up for what we believe in will do us no good if everyone thinks we're terrible......But if we can change peoples mind by show'n them facts,and what good we do,it would change the play'n field.....Right now we have had a black eye in the sport for a while with little help from data.....and with keeping dogs getting more exspensive by the day,it's become'n a die'n art....We need more then a spread sheet of statistics of harvest to keep this sport alive....I'm all for a bill that would protect us,but just cautious of who's doing the protecting.....

We are in complete agreement that we need to clean up our image as hound hunter's but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. We will never have the money to compete with the HSUS. They have an unlimited supply of money and will lie and distort to pray on the public's emotion's. We have had good success in calling and showing up at hearing's where we are usauly the majority. It just seems to me that it is alot cheaper and easier for us to swing a few votes in the legislature that have to answer to the poeple.Than to convince a population that has no skin in the game to vote our way.

Scott,
UNCLE......LOL...
My point is if the board has 4 of 7 that are anti dog,thats it!.....once gone,its gone.....I agree with ya about it being easier to sway a board or panel,but thats a crap shoot as well.....Your 100% right about us not being able to compete with thier money,and I agree whole heartedly.....but if i was arrested for a murder charge I'd want it to go to jury instead of a judge seal'n my fate would'nt you?

Sprucemountain i have to agree.The committe maybe be only 7 people but im sure the ifw as a whole have some pull over what they think and say, and we the hunters pay their wages.the bioligists have a big input on what they in force and such.Just my opinion and thoughts in the matter,the non hunters are growing in population more then the hunters these days we are out numbered and it will only get worse...

Bill id take a judge over jury ive been on jury selection 3 times in my short time,and i wouldnt want many of the hammer heads deciding my fate.....LMAO

Jr,
I bet if you was face'n capital punishment your council would advise ya differant.....lol...

lol probly right lol,but my god it would be a scary thought