Try reading mine again.

If you are going to get back in you need to clarify your stance. You are supportive of the HE program, don't have a problem with it being madatory by the state to hunt. You've stated that many times. The bowhunting course is overkill and not necessary and you shouldn't need two programs to hunt.

That said, In many states, three that I have lived in prior to the BE class being implimented you did not need the HE training to obtain a bow license. You needed $20 and fill out a tag. Bowhunting safety, ethics, and shot selection are not taught in the HE courses they are firearms based. The one I took made no mention of archery equipment. Your argument that you already get certified doesn't fit. Why do you need to get a motorcycle license or a CDL when you already have a drivers license? Just more government intrusion or maybe the fact that driving a car a semi and a motorcyle are completely different. Yes you are still driving but the similarities end there.

You've never been to court and been brow beat by a good attorney have you? Honest question? Given a deposition and 8 mos later had to reanswer every question on 15 pages of a deposition. You say one word different on the stand than what was in the deposition and you will discuss that for the next 2 hours. After 2 days of that you credibility is nill and the jury doens't really care what you say because they think you are a liar.

No this is not a court case nor am I going to change your mind. Not my intent. You aren't going to change mine either. What I would like is for people to look at this through not your eyes, but the eyes of a jury, same thing Huckleberry is trying to get across. There are three sides to every story and they all fit the bell curve. 10% don't like hunting period, 10% are in your camp and want no regulation period, 80% in the middle, thisis who you need on your side. The arguments from the outliers fall on deaf ears, the 80% think bothextremes are whacked and look for the common ground. Irregardless of you opinion you need to present yourself and your ideas to be accepted by the middle. They are never going to side with the extremes, period. Democracy, socialism, anarchy, it doesn't matter the extremist veiw will never become mainstream. It doesn't matter if you like this or not. It doesn't matter if you think it is socialistic, or communisitic. What it is, is the reality of the situation. You can either face the reality and work toward middle ground or bury your head in the sand, pretend this is utopia and cut your nose off to spite your face.

This is not the argument and this would be dismissed by a good attorney in short order, depending on how dumb he decided to make you look in the process. Now, lets keep in mind the jury likely does not hunt, they are in the middle. The jury doesn't know anything about bowhunting comared to gun hunting compard to throwing spears or rocks. They were all selected for this very reason. The jury will go into this with two concerns is this a danger to me and is this inhumane.

With your argument you are going to be asked how many people have fallen off of a cliff while rock climbing and killed a hiker below? You will be asked how many back country horse back riders and hikers have fallen on, run over and killed another hiker. You will be asked while camping, hiking, rock climbing, and horse back riding are you using anything considered to be a weapon by the state or by the general populace? You will be asked while bowhunting are you using anything considered to be a weapon by the state or the general populace? You will be asked, since you just agreed that you are, in fact, using a weapon, is that weapon capable of inflicting bodily harm or death upon another person, either intentionally or unintentionally? They won't concern themselves with inflicting death or injury on yourself, that is irrelevant. You will then be asked, since you agreed that you are using a weapon and said weapon is capable of inflicting bodily injury and death on an unsuspecting human, are there any cases on record where someone was either intentionally or unintentionally injured or killed with such weapons? Unfortunately, there are. You will then be asked to explain why gun hunters embrace and support a nationwide safety program and require it of all their participants yet you sit hidden in a tree with a deadly weapon and refuse training? The state has been trying to help in the matter and properly train people but yet you resist. The facts and figures and success of the general HE program will be brought up as to how wonderful the program is yet you still refrain because you don't want the gvmt meddling in your life.

That could and would go on for much longer. You would then be attacked based on the humanity of what you do, you are willing to take an animals life with a weapon, that isalsocapable of taking a human life, and refuse toallot 12 hours, usually broken up into 3-4 segments for education and training. You can't spare 3 hoursper week for onemonth ofyour life to take responsibility for your actions, which ultimately result in death.

See, the anti-hunting lawyers are not stupid. They are not going to blaze into the courtroom, paint a picture of dread, deride hunters and everything they stand for. They will take the middle road. They will not be against hunting, they just want to ensure that it is done in a responsible manner. Since the very people doing it don't, can't and won't agree to do it as responsible citizens then there is just no choice but to not allow it.

You would be painted as an irresponsible slob and you would be the face of the sport. The jury would buy it because you have done nothing to further your cause other than saying I'm smart and good and I don't need anyone telling me what to do.