Believe the way Montana did it is the surest way to protect our pursuit of happiness-perhaps we ought to find out 'how' they did and follow that example.

That's been my thought all along Duckstamped, but I haven't heard it brought up in a while. I'll make some e-mails to see why it hasn't been brought up publicly.

One of the concerns I have with environmentalist, is that they are often supporters of animal rights activist. Sometimes hunters throw in with an environmental group to try to preserve lands to hunt, while unwittingly throwing in with folks who do not support hunting. I'm not so sure the line of demarcation is quite that simple between land to hunt, and anit-hunters. If I'm not mistaken, some anti's went after hunting on federal lands not to long ago but were shot down. I'm opposed to the re-indroduction of the grizzly and wolves here in Montana. Population control is one of the major contributions of hunters in America. If wild predators start to do an adequate job of controlling population one of the prime reasons for hunting is compromised, add in the fact that there are fewer big game animals-which translates into fewer tags. There are several very subtle ways for our sport to be attacked. Somebody brought up the mountain lion situation in California, what has this done to mule deer hunting? Second question, is there a group out there the is specifically designed to protect hunting in America?

Very good point about predator re-introduction. Most hunters see it as something else competing with us. It needs to be seen as something that will reduce the hunting opportunity in a particular area due to animal number decline. As far as a group that watches out for hunters, that would be the United States Sportsmen's Alliance and they are the ones that broke this story. If you wanted to give to one group that is a watchdog for us, they are who to make the check out to.

They are in my favorites!