yeoman - I have nothing against anyone trying to support their point of view through representatives. But from what I gathered from many of the posts on the Idaho topic was, this whole thing was a bit of a surprise to many of the muzzleloader hunters. Of course, other then those that attended the meetings and voiced their opinion. I am a firm believer that anytime you take a privilage away from someone, you really need to make every possible effort that those being effected have or had a chance to voice their opinion and be involved in the process. This new Idaho change seemed to be more of an after the fact kind of move. And this seems more apparent at the current unrest of the issue.

The problem with polictical pressure groups is,not everyone can or willattend meetings due to other committments. We see this with the animal right activitist a great deal. Someone has a problem with animals. They ask for help to rid them. The PETA people or other such groupsdecide animals have more rights then the general public, they swarm meetings, lobby representative, and through advertizing, spend millions of dollars to get others to see their way. Then try and change laws to express their point of view. What was the other side doing at this time? That is my question. I (again from reading posts) see this happening in the muzzleloader problem with Idaho.

Was this Idaho change ever put as a referendum to the public? Was the public even made aware that this was taking place? Or at least to the hunting population on a whole? If Idaho is computerized like Wisconsin, this would have been simple to send out a survey before the changes were made, to everyone that had a muzzleloading license. They could have gotten a lot of input that way of ALL hunter's opinions, and not suddenly had this whole issue hang in the air. From some of the immediate outrage displayedin responces I read, I tend to think this change was somehow slipped over on the general hunting population. How that happened I have no idea.

Never ever believe that I do not support someone being able to talk to their representatives, voice their opinion, and perhaps get laws changed. That is something I do, and I support. My point was, people in Idaho that had purchased and used inline weapons, and were active in the past hunting season were suddenly told it did not exhist anymore. What do you really think caused this move to happen? At the same time a different faction, those being more traditional in beliefs were handed the gravy dish.

That is what I am against. If the State of Idaho on a whole voted to go tradtional, then that is a good thing. No complaints. But from the uproar that is not the case. I personally have no say in the matter other then perhaps a future hunter wanting to come to the State and spend my hunting dollars.