This thread has taken quite a few interesting turns - makes for good reading on my lunch hour.
I might as well add a couple of thoughts to the mix:
Its the same way between Traditional and a Modern ML hunter. Traditionalists want to see how close they can get. While a Modern ML'er want to see how far away he can get and still hit the target.
That may be true for some, but I think for many (including me), getting close or getting far away isn'treally the issue; it'sgetting the deer down.
It's just that certain weapons allow that goal to be accomplished at a longer range. Personally, I like to bow hunt (close range), ML hunt (moderate range), and centerfire hunt (medium to long range). My goal in each season is to enjoy the outdoor experience, and hopefully, harvest a deer - or 2.
This is a win-win-win solution for everyone. Hunters get more hunting opportunities with a more variety of weapons. States revenues will increase due to more stamps being sold, and Retailers and Manufactureres sales and revenues increase due to more types of weapons are being sold and used to hunt.
The only problem with this statement is that the bottom line for the state is also money - just like it is for the manufacturers. The state is going to provide - read, "dictate" the seasons that will bring in the most revenue for its coffers. It may diffeer from state to state, but I really think that in most states, trying to balance the budget has become much more important than trying to balance the herd. And it's WAY more important thantrying to make a certain group of hunters (or even any of them) happy! I'm thinking that if a state sees the opportunity to actually INCREASE revenues through the implementation of a certain type of weapon or season, or whatever - that's what they're going to do regardless of what the hunters want.
BTW - paco97 - I ain't picking on your ideas to the exclusion of any others, it's just that yours are the closest ones to the end of this thread - - No offense meant.