Generally, anytime something comes along that may protect one idiot from harming himself and costing the american taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars - I'm all for it.

From a $$$ and sense perspective: Look at the people who bowhunt. These aren't your white-collar highbrow types- they're po' folks from the patchtowns, trailer parks and backwoods. They don't have $50,000 laying around to pay for a major orthopedic injury.

So what happens when they maim themselves? If they're lucky enough to have insurance - the insurer foots the bill and the costs are diluted throughout the insurance system. End result: Working folks pay. If they have NO insurance? The burden falls squarely on the shoulders of Uncle Sam, and we all pay. That sucks.


Furthermore:

Barrier to entry = Less bowhunters = good thing.

Since it serves as a barrier to entry of the sport, it helps keep the number of bowhunters at a minimum.I don't know about you guys, but when I pull up to the farm gate and seefour other vehicles parked there, I'm not exactly doing cartwheels. There's just getting to be too many damn people bowhunting. They're driving up lease prices, ramping up the pressure on public land - and all that is putting the squeeze on guys like me, who have been bowhunting (largely undisturbed) for god knows how long. Greedy? Sure. I don't care. At least I'm up front about it. LOL

So anytime I can do my part and eliminate the competition, I do it. Joe Schmoe can take up fishing or maybe stay home and watch porno and NASCAR. As long as he's not out there crampin' my style while I'm tryin' to get my bowhunt on, I don't care what the hell he does.

By encouraging people to bowhunt, or making it an "easy" hobby to take up - we're only cutting our own throats. Thus, I like as many barriers to entry as possible - but that's just me looking out for #1.

Big conflicts of interest out there... Lots of pros/cons.