RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Wow my brain hurts.....

So what some of you are saying is that before an adult human being can shoot a bow and arrow, not a gun....but a primitive weapon...he needs to be REQUIRED, to have a MANDATORY class (read approval) by the state beyond what the state already mandates for hunters safety. Our culture is wacked.

Can you see the American Indians saying...before you hunt in our woods young brave visiting from another tribe...we want you to take a course on safety and pass a proficieny test...lol...

What many of you are missing is everyone on this thread supports the class..supports further education...supports training new hunters... Some of us do not think our rights should be taken away untill we get approval from the state to do something that has been a right since the dawn of man. I don't feel like the state should have to put thier stamp of approval on me in order for me to practice "primitive weapon hunting". Further, if I was a anti hunting lawyer, the VERY BEST THING that could happen in my opinion is any restriction of hunting, such as required/mandated courses for bowhunting. Anything for bigger government, less hunters and more restrictions.

My argument would be "if bow hunting is so dangerous, that the state requires a mandated proficiecy test, safety course, special class before you can use a BOW and ARROW" how much more should the public be worried about hunters using high powered rifles. Shouldn't we require proficeny tests with those? Shouldn't we do background checks before we let people go into the woods to "hunt" with weapons that are far more powerfull than a stick with an arrow? I would pound my chest.... point at the accidents that happen each year with bow and arrow hunting (very low, not including tree stand falls) compared to rifle hunting (much higher) and declare that for the publics saftey we must have more legislation so we know what/where/who is doing with high powered rifles. IF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS SO IRRESPONISBLE THAT THEY CANNOT, WITH OUT THE STATES INTERVENTION/APPROVAL, OPERATE A BOW AND ARROW THEN HOW CAN THEY BE EXPECETED TO BE TRUSTED WITH A HIGH POWERED RIFLE? (there I shouted ;)) Don't think for one second I couldn't spin that like crazy if I was an anti hunter lawyer.

Do those of you who support mandatory classes see how very little faith you put in the the general population of this country? If you do not see that your view of the average joe American is poor, you might want to revisit your values. You are basicly saying, hey, I think the government should take care of them and me...cause we can't do it......its shamefull. If you walked into a Texas 3d bow shoot and stated..."Before any of you guys hunt this year we want you to take a course, pass at profienciey test and have it state approved becuase we don't think any of you are responsible enough to hunt without our intervention"...the looks you would get... but here you are stating that nationally...in every state...thats what should happen.

The very thing you support in order to promote our sport will be the very thing they use against you....

You might say..well...this is mandated for those few who need it but won't take it, not people who go to 3d shoots they of course dont need it but must take it anyway because its mandated... So basicly you are a socialist....everyone suffers in order to cater to the few...or the fears of the few..about what might happen to the few....sigh....[:@]

Eventually, I will have a license to bowhunt, drive, ride a bike, skateboard, surf, ski (with a special class and profiency test to snowboard cause the skiing test was not safey specific enough for snowboarding), rappel, mountain climb, sky dive, drive a quad or off road vehicle, ride a horse (very dangerous in someterrain and if I do itwrongharmfull to animals so lets not forget that activity)or do anything that is moderately dangerous and might cause harm or be deemed to possiblycauseto myself or others. We will license and certifyeveryone as to not offend anyones sense of safety and try to calm all fears.


Furthermore, as to the afformentioned court case huckleberry pinned badger girl in the corner with, I could win that case. Or in the absense of 12 logicaly minded individuals hang the jury.

Flame away....donning asbestos undies...:D

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

So what would be your argument in the court case? How are you going to hang the jury of rational thinking people that arrows sticking out of animals that are suffering badly is not a problem. Flying off on a tangent and screaming about how dangerous rifles are sure won't help help your case.

It can be spun both ways. I think it would be a whole lot easier to spin a group not responsible enough to police what they do over one taking steps to ensure that safe, logical and ethical standards have been set forth and taught to those participating. Take it from someone in a litigous profession, your argument isn't going to hold water. A good attorney would wet himself listening to your argument waiting for a chance to repsond.

How many times have the antis used or tried to use the Hunters Education Program in court as you've stated? It is mandated by the states.Its been around since the 50's, there has been ample time to trash the hunting crowd with the argument. To my knowledge that hasn't been done as it would only prove to further the hunters cause to any rational thinking human.

I'm not a socialist, far from it. But I'm also not missing the forest for the trees.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

If we were in court, you would lose to me so fast your head would spin. I would read your above quote and it would be all over. Question for you : If your above statement is true,besides having manditory classes, how would you accomplish this?

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Considering the effect that mandatory HE has had on youth recruitment in my state I cannot support it, the class should be returned to the schools as an elective like it used to be.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Could you elaborate?

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Try reading his post again;)

Flying off on a tangent about firearms was him playing the role of the anti-hunting lawyer.

An argument in the courtroom could be to point out all the legalprecedents (sp?) for NOT having state approval to conduct moderatly dangerous activities on or off public land involving or not involing public resources.Simply point out to the court that if I have to be approved by the state to bowhunt, then every mountain climber, horse rider, back country hiker, skier, snowboarder, etc. etc. etc. etc.also needs to be babysat by the state. That has been the argument all along. If I want to climb a mountain in a national park, all I need is a permit/license....same goes for remote camping/hiking.

Now I have to go back and amend my letter to include the horse riding example...that was a good one!

I sure hope the legislature reads my letter and starts some mandatory education programs so I can be state certified for horse back riding this summer![:'(]

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Try reading mine again.;)

If you are going to get back in you need to clarify your stance. You are supportive of the HE program, don't have a problem with it being madatory by the state to hunt. You've stated that many times. The bowhunting course is overkill and not necessary and you shouldn't need two programs to hunt.

That said, In many states, three that I have lived in prior to the BE class being implimented you did not need the HE training to obtain a bow license. You needed $20 and fill out a tag. Bowhunting safety, ethics, and shot selection are not taught in the HE courses they are firearms based. The one I took made no mention of archery equipment. Your argument that you already get certified doesn't fit. Why do you need to get a motorcycle license or a CDL when you already have a drivers license? Just more government intrusion or maybe the fact that driving a car a semi and a motorcyle are completely different. Yes you are still driving but the similarities end there.

You've never been to court and been brow beat by a good attorney have you? Honest question? Given a deposition and 8 mos later had to reanswer every question on 15 pages of a deposition. You say one word different on the stand than what was in the deposition and you will discuss that for the next 2 hours. After 2 days of that you credibility is nill and the jury doens't really care what you say because they think you are a liar.

No this is not a court case nor am I going to change your mind. Not my intent. You aren't going to change mine either. What I would like is for people to look at this through not your eyes, but the eyes of a jury, same thing Huckleberry is trying to get across. There are three sides to every story and they all fit the bell curve. 10% don't like hunting period, 10% are in your camp and want no regulation period, 80% in the middle, thisis who you need on your side. The arguments from the outliers fall on deaf ears, the 80% think bothextremes are whacked and look for the common ground. Irregardless of you opinion you need to present yourself and your ideas to be accepted by the middle. They are never going to side with the extremes, period. Democracy, socialism, anarchy, it doesn't matter the extremist veiw will never become mainstream. It doesn't matter if you like this or not. It doesn't matter if you think it is socialistic, or communisitic. What it is, is the reality of the situation. You can either face the reality and work toward middle ground or bury your head in the sand, pretend this is utopia and cut your nose off to spite your face.

This is not the argument and this would be dismissed by a good attorney in short order, depending on how dumb he decided to make you look in the process. Now, lets keep in mind the jury likely does not hunt, they are in the middle. The jury doesn't know anything about bowhunting comared to gun hunting compard to throwing spears or rocks. They were all selected for this very reason. The jury will go into this with two concerns is this a danger to me and is this inhumane.

With your argument you are going to be asked how many people have fallen off of a cliff while rock climbing and killed a hiker below? You will be asked how many back country horse back riders and hikers have fallen on, run over and killed another hiker. You will be asked while camping, hiking, rock climbing, and horse back riding are you using anything considered to be a weapon by the state or by the general populace? You will be asked while bowhunting are you using anything considered to be a weapon by the state or the general populace? You will be asked, since you just agreed that you are, in fact, using a weapon, is that weapon capable of inflicting bodily harm or death upon another person, either intentionally or unintentionally? They won't concern themselves with inflicting death or injury on yourself, that is irrelevant. You will then be asked, since you agreed that you are using a weapon and said weapon is capable of inflicting bodily injury and death on an unsuspecting human, are there any cases on record where someone was either intentionally or unintentionally injured or killed with such weapons? Unfortunately, there are. You will then be asked to explain why gun hunters embrace and support a nationwide safety program and require it of all their participants yet you sit hidden in a tree with a deadly weapon and refuse training? The state has been trying to help in the matter and properly train people but yet you resist. The facts and figures and success of the general HE program will be brought up as to how wonderful the program is yet you still refrain because you don't want the gvmt meddling in your life.

That could and would go on for much longer. You would then be attacked based on the humanity of what you do, you are willing to take an animals life with a weapon, that isalsocapable of taking a human life, and refuse toallot 12 hours, usually broken up into 3-4 segments for education and training. You can't spare 3 hoursper week for onemonth ofyour life to take responsibility for your actions, which ultimately result in death.

See, the anti-hunting lawyers are not stupid. They are not going to blaze into the courtroom, paint a picture of dread, deride hunters and everything they stand for. They will take the middle road. They will not be against hunting, they just want to ensure that it is done in a responsible manner. Since the very people doing it don't, can't and won't agree to do it as responsible citizens then there is just no choice but to not allow it.

You would be painted as an irresponsible slob and you would be the face of the sport. The jury would buy it because you have done nothing to further your cause other than saying I'm smart and good and I don't need anyone telling me what to do.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

Which one shouldI read again, Your Honor?

What did I miss specifically? There is an awful lot of hot air to get through to figure out what I may have missed. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Just as regular HE has not eliminated hunter deaths and accidents,a mandatory bow only course would not eliminate the possibility of wounded animals with arrows sticking out of them...so I guess the rational minded jury would just have to outlaw the sport entirely...rationally speaking.

I have clarified my stance over and over. We simply disagree...no harm, no foul.

Oh yeah, and thanks for saying I look dumb. I thought that was mature of you.

And if having a different opinion from the majority makes me an extremist, then I guess I'm guilty.

My letter is in the mail...I will be sure to keep you posted on the outcome of my request.

Best wishes....

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

The one you quoted. You missed the point.

What you missed specifically is that hunters education is not required to buy a bow license. The hunters education course allows you to buy a small game and rifle big game tags. Some states have/had no requirement to buy a bow license. You keep saying that one class is enough but it doesn't apply to bowhunting.

No where did I say you looked stupid. I said if you went forth with the argument presented a good attorney would make you look stupid. That is their job and they are very good at it. That is the truth. Not a personal shot at you, stating a fact. I've been there.

Now you take your ball and go home. Mature of you as well.

RE: For or Against Mandatory Bowhunter Education
 

I could only see one hole in that argument, those other recreational activities don't include the use of a firearm or bow, in public. Other than that....