well two problems cascadedad as i see it
1) the rules have already been change based on the F&G proposal
In order for those changes to be invalided then their proposal has to be flawed in reason
So we have to PROVE that their reason was flawed .
I submit that if the documentation was not their to support that proposal then the change would not have been made . So now we have to look at their information and say to the commission ; LOOK , this information is wrong based one XXXXX
Its up to US as hunters to do that , Not the F&G , they have apparently already made there point or the rules would not have been changed based on their proposal .
Things don’t have to make sense to you and I , it has to make sence to the commission . that’s all going to be based on what the F&G proposed in there submission paperwork.
Now IF this will work ? I will again have to agree with you I don’t see how it can make to much of an impact . HOWEVER again . Those who get paid to make such decisions must feel that in some way or as part of the greater schema of things it will..
The time for all that your talking about needed to be done over a year past . That was the time to rebut the F&G proposal .
Now is the time to bring forward information to show that what was accepted was flawed .
2) at the time of my speech , “the first one I posted “ which by the way I got the wrong date its was 7th of march . The numbers of complaints were less the 1000 which was less then 1% of the total hunter numbers and less then 10% of the tag holding muzzleloader hunters .
The reason I worded my speech the way I did was because I didn’t need to tell the commission that , they already new it . It also kept the discussion of compiling numbers out of the meeting at least during my speech as it was not what the meeting was about .
It was a way of saying something , addressing an issue yet not really addressing it at all ..
That is hillarious! To quote you "LMAO". Read it, you're not going to tell them???.......................YOU JUST DID!!!!!!! You really should have someone proof read your speeches.
This is my last post on this subject here, at least for awhile. I have stated my ideas the best I can.
Thanks for posting the speeches. They only confirm EXACTLY what you have been DENYING. Anyone that reads those speeches can see that you are bending their ears toward the traditional side. AND, you yourself while denying that this is a Traditional -vs- Modern issue...........your speeches say otherwise. After reading them, I am completely shocked you posted them. It shows clearly how clouded your eyes are on this.
Now here is why IMO you think this
I don’t think you seeing the bigger Picture here .
Without a idea of what has happened through the years your probably getting the wrong impression.
Past commissions have had a record of simply going with the flow on any given issue . We are not just talking about muzzleloading but everything state wide .
If the money influence or political influence was enough , that’s were they fell . didn’t mater what folks where telling them , what documentation was being provided .
This commission was set up to be a working commission and the commissioners have told us all that’s what they intend to be .
Now I ask you if that’s the case then how can they listen to a small section /% of input over another ? Be that a group of traditional hunter or a group of folks complaining of the change ?
The past decisions have created a problem that this commission has to try and fix . Thus they should IMO listen to those who we as the public pay to study .
Now we as the public may not agree with their decisions ,. However , we also do not have access to all the studies or forecasts that these folks work with every day .
Now the second speech , actually interview was because we were basically asking ? Whats going on here .
I was the one asking the questions . The answers were from a commissioner him self , not from me .
This was all part of the process of understanding where things were coming from , what was true and what was not .
Why would we , We as the IMA and the national TMA ask this ?
Simply because as I said later in the march speech , we were getting two different explanation from BOTH the commission and the F&G .
I personally made call , which I alluded to in my march speech .
I called once as a traditionalist who supported this move base don nothing but removing modern weapons . The answer I got from both was that this was a management issue .
However 3 hours later when calling again under a different name and stating I was a modern hunter wanting to know what was going on , I got a completely different answer .
Then the next day when calling as a general rifle hunter concerned about management I got a third answer ..
Now why is that ?
IMO if this commission is going to be a working commission they need to stand up and say ;This is why , you may not like it but it needs done . With the information provided to us we feel this is the best course of action at this time . END OF STORY.
So if what I said looks like im supporting some agenda im sorry you flat got it wrong as IMO if the commission wants to suport a traditional agenda then they should come right out and say : we are moving back to a more traditional and earlier set of rules for this season .
Say it openly not hide it behind some ruse to gain support of the general public .
I just don’t think to do such a thing is right
Noyna .
You’re a troll and I simply will not address you or your impression of the issues .
IMO you’re here for no reason other then to create conflict in this discussion.
When you achieve some idea of the complexity of this issue and can discuss it in a manor of an adult then we can continue with you
