I agree with most of the repondents here that the WHA is a very bad idea. The fact that it has more appeal to non-hunters or those opposed to hunting is scary. We already have enough fanatics trying to exterminate hunting why give them more ammunition?

I like the Dr Andy's idea of debating - my vote would be to have Uncle Ted debate someone from WHA! I've seen him debate anti-hunting advocates and it reminded me of a bear I saw in Alaska having a chat with a salmon.

Truth be told the irresponsible part of this is that it does nothing to promote ethical (clean kill) hunting. These guys know that when delivering a drug you only need hit the animal, where you hit them isn't that important. So what kind of shot would you take for $1M knowing a bad shot doesn't mean anything worse then perhaps a longer track. You know you aren't killing the animal so why not take that walking away shot, or that head-on shot. How is this a positive for promoting hunting? What would this teach potential new hunters going afield??

I've seen guys posting comparing the WHA to Bassmasters or other fishing tournys - COME ON when was the last time you jerked a lure out of the water cause the fish about to bite it wasn't the trophy you wanted??? Should hunters be allowed to drug every deer they get a shot at, then when they are satisfied with the one they want to keep they can just put it on a stringer??? There is a reason it's called fishing and not hunting!

Maybe those guys were just "fishing" for some way to advocate the WHA.