In my state, general HE is required for a bow license....so that's the perspective I am coming from. I don't know about many other states, so I can't speak much about that.
My opinion: I think 1 HE courseshould be required for all types of hunting, as it is in my state.
Thanks for clarifying that you were not taking a shot at me personally. SoI guess that a skilled lawyer would also be able to make you look dumb...I can't really pick you apart,because I am not much of a debater, butmaybe a skilled lawyer could. So we are both in the same boat in the courtroom.
I'm not sure what the taking my ball home comment means, but I suspect that it could potentially be immature.
We are coming from different perspectives as that wasn't required in my state.
I agree that HE should be required but also think that unless they mesh the two programs to include both HE and NBEF you should have both. This could easily be done.
A skilled lawyer can make anyone look dumb, that is what they get paid for. I can't explain it to you, something you have to experience yourself. Debate skills do not matter. You answer the questions that they ask you. You try to explain yourself and you will be told nicely one time to answer the question they don't want or care about your explanation. After that it isn't nice and could cost you money in fines. There can't be any holes indiscrepencies in your statements.
As for "take your ball" was made in reference to the repeated snide comments of writing your legislature to beg for testing and requirements on hiking, camping and riding your horse. You got me there, immature, sorry for the comment.
Finally, in the quoted post, I knew what
sign's point was and knew what role he was playing. I was pointing out and referencing what I saw to be a weak arguement. If that was the approach and argument for that topic I figured he/she would play h--- convincing a jury that bowhunting wasn't bad given the scneario that Huckleberry laid out. Guess I wasn't clear in my point.