I've been talking about Kansas a lot...

Spyro, you're right, you're plan would help some people. It would help the people that hunted out of state regularly. It would help the anbody that hunts out of state on a regular basis. But other than that it hurts every else. And vast majority of hunters (as a whole) DO NOT hunt of of state. Now if you looked at Cal. then yes, i'm sure many do hunt out-of-state and that pecentage is higher. It normally would in areas that hunting seems to be much more restricted.

For every person that benefits you could bet 5 people on the other side are getting a chunk of their hunting taken away, if not all of it. Yes your and Taulmans plan is bad for hunting as a whole.

And and when I refer to the "little man" i'm not referring to the person that lives on low income in the hills, I refer to a lot of people. From the hobo that lives in the mountains to the man with 4 kids, 2 weeks vacation, and making more money than you, which neither will hunt out of state. Those are the people that you want to take hunting away from.

Greed, Greed, Greed. Yes I can see where you like Taulmans idea, it benefits you. It's too bad you're thinking about only yourself...

Hunting is a way of life for a lot of people. It's not a 5 or 7 day trip to have fun out-of-state. What if somebody said they were going to take away your kids(if you have any) or your best friend, and let you see them only every once in a while or never? Would you feel threatened or angry? A lot of people feel the same about hunting, not quite to that degree, but I think you get the picture. For me it's easy to see why someone would be offensive when you want to take away hunting from them. Taulman's ideas are those which can be classified as anti-hunting, to the vast majority of the hunting public. It's your choice Spyro, you can either help the avg. hunter or hurt him so you can benefit. Maybe that's the mindset you were raised with, I don't know. I'm glad I and most others here, know the difference though.