OK, here goes.

About your opinion with my experience with the public being very very limited.

I spend 90% of my time in front of the public dealing with issues such as HAZMAT, WMD, and Occupational illness,disease, and deaths, with consultation, seminars, and training. Issues highly charged, contentious, and having greater consequence than hunting issues. I have traveled the world, filled in 2 passports with visas and entry stamps, and numerous states. I racked up 30,000+ frequent flyer miles in less tnat 2.5 months. Currently I am in Dallas temporarily in front of the public doing the same. Again, Read the thread "Kansas Hunters Getting Screwed". All this has been stated before and you are rehashing the same old tired issues, and p-poor opinions. There are a lot of people that agree with my arguments and deductions.

So you got that one wrong.

So you see I do get "out of the house", and I do talk to other hunters and firearms enthusiaists. As for your talking with "real hunters". I checked out the websites you frequent. 90% of the respondants are bowhunters, so you see your basis is biased. I did not include heresay in my statements such as you did. But I will do so now. At the highpower lines of the gun ranges I visit and frequent the hunters I talked with (I guess they are not REAL hunters since they use firearms in your opinion) support the unitizing 100%, as well as expanded season and land accessibility with increased population trends, which we have in the state. Big Suprise huh?

Just because someone picks up a bow does not automatically make them:
a) Ehtical
b) Keeper of the moral high ground
c) Super hunter
d) More concerned with conservation and deer herd
And just because someone picks up a rifle does not make them devoid of those qualities. According to your posts and others, and your opinionated reasoning, that is in fact what you are stating. That firearms hunters are a bane to hunting in Kansas. Read your posts, read others posts. That is why I M responding.

As for your dressing me down about anti-hunting groups and "giving them ammunition". What the hell do you think you have done? There is a much larger group out there and they are Anit-gunners, and there is a lot more of them than ARs. You (and others like you) paint with a broad brush firearms hunters as taking long shots (200-300 yds you said), that they are unsafe, and that firearms are irresponsible, and a negative impact on the resource. That the character of a firearms hunter is to shoot at anything. Look at all the anti-gun crap that has been said by BOWHUNTERs in the State of Kansas in order to justify their position and keep an exclusive season. This excuse of "I gun hunt too" by you is thin. Here is some news for you, Firearms hunters do not aspire to become bowhunters. Mainly because shooting a gun is FUN. Archery is NOT the epitome of hunting. If you firearm hunt successfully, you have to allow deer to get just as close in order to selectively hunt. Close deer bring in the far deer, very simple, and it is such great fun and a GREAT RUSH. Our national spirit for life, hunting, and liberty is inextricably linked to firearms, not bows and arrows. I suggest you check at some of the things you and others have stated (IN THE STATE OF KANSAS), and see how similar it is to the language of the anti-gunners. It is worse at times than some anti-gun groups. I would stongly suggest you can the malarky on that.

The truth is much different. National surveys show that the majority of shots from hunters on deer is in the 75-150 yd range. There are just too many varibles for a 200-300 yd shot, and it gets lower percentage return. Again, if you were a firearm enthusiastist, you would know that 75-150 is optimum for bullet performance, velocity, wind deflection, shot, placement, and is a whole lot more fun letting them get close, than the reach out an touch something shooting. In Unit 19 where you stated this, the majority of the land is not suitable for such shots WHERE THE DEER ARE. There is timber, obstructions, etc. Many places a 200-300 yd shot is physically infeasible in that area where there would be deer. I know, I lived in the Lawrence-Topeka area for 12 years. Agian, your opinion, does not fit the facts, nor the real life conditions. It is just something you believe after "talking with someone".

Additionally my informant in KDWP (and a bowhunter) tells me that you are wrong about Unit 19 being bad for management. It seems KDWP is about to make a statement about what a success it was in terms of more hunter access, recuction of the doe population without undue stress on the herd in terms of quality. Seems the Buck/doe ratio for firearms was around the 50/50 split again. So you are wrong on that as well. Again, you did not check facts, but stated an unsubstanciated opinion.

BTW, I am not "jealous" of "your season". Because, it is not "your season". These things are not nor should be carved in stone. If management is to manage, then the flexibility in season length and placement is a must. The seasons whatever they are belong to the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. Not bowhunters, not firearms hunters, not outfitters, not AR or anti-gunners, but to all, and is stipulated and directed by the majority, not just one group. It is based on management goals and data illustrating the conditions present. And rights and laws are to be EQUALLY APPLIED by US Constitution, and not for some inane reason. And the logic that bowhunting in Kansas needs to have a 2.5 month season and the rut because the of "challange of the sport because of success rate", is under serious trouble. Since firearm success rate is below archery in the state, does that me firearm hunters should get 2.5 months and the rut now???? HMMMMMM????

As for "political blowback'. Check the bowsite threads. The KBAers are not happy with the effect of what their efforts provided. Even they are saying "KBA's reputation in the legislature is mud because of the actions and statement of members interacting with members of the legislature". Did you know in the last legislative session that KDWP was barred from many Rep and Sen. offices. That they lite into a lot of Senators and Representatives. Did you know the amandment that preceded SB 363 was a proposal to smoke out the bowhunters in the KDWP employ, a political fishing trip??? Very good authority I have this on, whether you believe it or not.

SO, do not profess to me you have the moral, factual, or cultural high ground on this issue. You do not. And I do represent a majority, not you and your little group *****ing about doing what every hunter in the state has to do. So suck it up!

And this is a gun rights issue. I want more new hunters. Most new hunters are firearms hunters. The NRA president Dean Keane stated the need to expand opportunity and the need to protect the weekend firearms hunter as a policy for the NRA. This group is the largest in NRA and the nation, and is the biggest supporter of 2nd amdn. rights issues. If you look where CCL do not pass, there is a strong archery provision in those states. Coincidence, I think not. You see by denegrating the firearms hunter in order to save your exclusive hunting privlige, your group undermines 2nd amend issues.