[QUOTE=mthusker;4205770]
Originally Posted by
Topgun 3006
What exactly was hilarious about that comment when it was just a statement of fact?! Pete certainly didn't interject anything like you then stated in your post and it looks like all you're doing is coming on this thread to argue. That's rather ironic when you then make statements about hunters sticking together!
[/QUOTE
How was it a statement of fact? It was opinion, just as he stated in his response. The notion that other states would follow Colorado's lead, I find funny. I was originally defending an individuals right to hunt with dogs, if they so want to. You two might see eye to eye on this subject, but there are many points of views regarding it. I DO defend other hunters, that's how this started. YOU are the one guilty of arguing . Read some of your other post, they tend to be very condescending.
Please go back and reread EVERY post that Pete and I made on this thread. Nowhere did either of us say that dogs shouldn't be used to run bears. Pete stated that it wasn't his thing and even came back to clarify things for you after you started defending things that didn't need any defending. There was nothing hilarious in any of his posts that I can see and I'd like to know how you can say that after reading the thread posts again. YOU were the one that conjectured that other states would follow CO in banning dogs running bears and Pete then addressed that as a misnomer and only more conjecture on your part. I even stated that I might like to try it and also would like to run cats with hounds so that is also certainly not saying that it should be banned. In a nutshell, you took a couple statements completely out of context and ran with it making arguments that didn't need to be made. Pete made a very true post when he stated in post #19: "As I said, and always have. Everybody is free to hunt as they please, but I won't watch methods that I don't agree with. It should have been left right there." Too bad you didn't read and follow that suggestion!