Well in most cases and the most obvious one is better field of view. Even if you don't shoot, you are able to see what the dogs are running etc. Also, if the people live in the area then they are use to it because it has been going on for years. If they moved there, they did so willingly, most likely knowing this occurred.

I am not saying that I don't believe you, just that I have been around it for a long time and never seen it. So, do you have any evidence to support this. Any statistics or news paper clippings etc? Guys I am just telling you that it's a slippery slope when hunters start lobbying against other hunters. I would be willing to bet that most of you don't want everyone else telling you how to hunt. If there were significant stats and or data to back up the notion of how dangerous it was then I would concede the point. However, I would be willing to wager than I can find more accidents caused by treestands and non dog hunting related shootings etc than you can dog hunting related shootings. So, are you OK with it if the dog hunters start lobbying to stop treestand hunting? They don't care if you keep hunting but treestand hunting is too dangerous. Some of you might say but treestand hunting I am only putting myself in danger and road hunting you are putting everyone in danger. Well I sincerely doubt anyone has statistical data to back up that point. However, my question is, with modern high powered rifles is it really safer to be 50 ft farther awy from something? I don't hunt off roads and if it dissappears I will not dispear. But, when hunters start lobbying against other hunters I have a problem with that. Primarily, because we are doing to anti's job for them when we do that. What are you guys going to do if this lobbying has a snowball effect and it winds up getting some of your other rights taken away. It's a lot easier for these things to happen when there is some "momentum".