ORIGINAL: Badger_Girl93
ORIGINAL: mez
So what would be your argument in the court case? How are you going to hang the jury of rational thinking people that arrows sticking out of animals that are suffering badly is not a problem. Flying off on a tangent and screaming about how dangerous rifles are sure won't help help your case.
Try reading his post again
Flying off on a tangent about firearms was him playing the role of the anti-hunting lawyer.
An argument in the courtroom could be to point out all the legalprecedents (sp?) for NOT having state approval to conduct moderatly dangerous activities on or off public land involving or not involing public resources.Simply point out to the court that if I have to be approved by the state to bowhunt, then every mountain climber, horse rider, back country hiker, skier, snowboarder, etc. etc. etc. etc.also needs to be babysat by the state. That has been the argument all along. If I want to climb a mountain in a national park, all I need is a permit/license....same goes for remote camping/hiking.
Now I have to go back and amend my letter to include the horse riding example...that was a good one!
I sure hope the legislature reads my letter and starts some mandatory education programs so I can be state certified for horse back riding this summer![:'(]
I could only see one hole in that argument, those other recreational activities don't include the use of a firearm or bow, in public. Other than that....