cjhills wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 amIt would be fairly likely to pass. The gun lobbys don't care about hunters and the population is going more toward neutral on hunting. It is relatively easy for anti hunters to get the neutrals on their side. It would seem like it would be hard to pass in a state like Oregon.
We give the anti hunters way to much information to use against us on a forum like this, Be careful of the photos you post and the brags about all the limits you kill. Some people are not impressed. What do you think the nonhunter thinks when he sees a pile of dead birds or a deer that is killed for his rack. KIlling animals for sport is on the way out.
I can go to South Dakota pheasant hunting with a few of my kid and grand kids legally bring home 150 or more pheasants. That is nuts. nobody can eat 150 pheasants. The anti hunters use that. Nobody can eat 150 pheasants, If we expect hunting rights to last we need to clean up our act,
I am not in favor of killing contests where the most critters killed wins. For that matter why are fishing contests even legal, Why can they use our resources to
You have a heck of a big family to bring home 150 birds from SD. Limit is 3 a day for 3 days. I spend 2,000.00 in expense to got to SD and think it is ok to bring home 9 birds. Fishing contests throw the fish back. What is the problem there? Who kills the most critters wins contest? So you are opposed to NSTRA? Field trials are more humane? They just fire a blank cap and the coyotes get to eat the bird or they starve to death. Are you opposed to eating chickens also?? Are you also opposed to eating farm animals? Seems like Sharon thinks the same way with her agreement to your comment.