|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Mar 6, 2007 15:17:37 GMT -5
Maybe this has been done before, I don't know. I am simply asking a simple question here. I was told the OBR was started as a trial itself, so this should be a welcome option. On the one hand are those who want to hunt with a PCR themselves. Then there are also those who have no desire to do that, yet support the choice of other hunters to do so. We then have a middle ground that could care less, either way, as they see no measurable impact from it. Then we have those who simply do not want any changes made, period. Then we have those who have decided to fight this to the bitter end. And a small handful of others who have their own unique perspectives. What I suggest is a trial period. We ALL back it together, it doesn't turn into the ugly public spectacle it is shaping up to be, and we do not further alienate the non hunters and give fuel to the gun grabbers.We all support a trial, and we all live by the results of it when it is over. Suggestions? Problems? Loopholes? Objections?  |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Mar 6, 2007 15:21:41 GMT -5
No, I like bickering.  |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 6, 2007 15:42:24 GMT -5
I would agree to that John. Without hesitation. Largely because unless people went out of their way to cause intentional havoc and find willing patsies to run around with .30-06s and claim they "can't understand the rules", noneof the horror stories they are promulgating will ever come to pass. 2 years ago NY opened a sizeable chunk of upstate NY to rifle hunting. Here is an interesting article that shows what happened when some NY areas went from Shotgun Only to Rifle (though I think they went all the way...) These areas have long been "slug gun" only. The results were one of the safest deer seasons ever. The NY department of environmental conservation article is still available online. www.dec.state.ny.us/website/environmentdec/2006a/deerharvest022106.html |
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Mar 6, 2007 16:01:14 GMT -5
Is NY as flat and open as Northern Indiana ?
I won't be using anything different than I have for the last 25 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 6, 2007 17:04:27 GMT -5
Is NY as flat and open as Northern Indiana ? I won't be using anything different than I have for the last 25 years. No, but then the PCR proposal isn't about lon range, flat shooting cartridges, is it? Obfuscation is unbecomming. |
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 6, 2007 17:18:44 GMT -5
I would rather see the reg. adopted permanently, but if it will
make it easier to get through committee, I will support a trial period. I'm just not sure the ones fighting so hard against it will be willing to make any compromise at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Mar 6, 2007 17:21:07 GMT -5
No compromise for me. Lets just get it passed and move on. h.h.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2007 18:20:00 GMT -5
If the process in place is supposed to cater to the majority, then the rule change needs to happen without a trial period. Just because one small group with vocal leadership is against this change, most people don't care or will support the change as planned. Hang tough and support the process as it's intended to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Mar 6, 2007 18:28:20 GMT -5
Wow.
So far its 11-1 in favor of a trial period.
That's over 90% in favor of.
Still early though, but encouraging.
And I support it fully, but would agree to a trial period in a heartbeat just to undo some of the current seperation of sportsmen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Mar 6, 2007 20:42:36 GMT -5
No thanks.
Right is right and they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 7, 2007 9:19:43 GMT -5
No trial period. Get it passed the first time so we do not have to come back to the table again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Mar 7, 2007 9:51:11 GMT -5
I have zero opinion on this topic..... yawn. I'd rather harvest mine with my bow.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Mar 7, 2007 10:14:30 GMT -5
While I support the inclusion of nearly any kind of weapon for hunting I still understand that a trial period is usually necessary, if only to shut up the naysayers. I would also support a full examination of the data before making a final decision just so there is no doubt. Too bad the OBR was continued without full examination of the data just because a strident few and uniformed others whined for it rather than let it be truly tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Mar 8, 2007 18:28:10 GMT -5
Well, 18-6 now, or 3 to 1 in favor of a trial.
Still good numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by coyote6974 on Mar 8, 2007 22:27:59 GMT -5
They need to just pass it as written.. Then lets move on.
Coyote 6974
|
|
|
|
Post by coyote6974 on Mar 8, 2007 22:29:54 GMT -5
They need to just pass it as written.. Then lets move on.
Coyote 6974
|
|
