by umpiremark » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:21 pm
Retch,
Since you think that youre making good points along the way here, lets resume this argument of which to date, you havent a clue to what my stance has been on this thread. In your tiny head you believe I want to abort all the current laws and insert crossbow hunting, now. Whereas, my point all along (repeated for the visually impaired ) MY POINT ALL ALONG, for the last time and again for a final time in which you wont understand the concept you show supporting data; Ive conceded that. But my illustration of the colored balls and the dark box, clearly illustrates why you do not have conclusive data. My illustration is simple Statistics, a college 101 course; simple in its explanation. All you have is data, none of which is conclusive.
Lets be clear about one thing going forward. You represent the WBH Association, not the bow hunters of WI. The WBH Association is not a bow hunters advocate; however it is a for-profit benefactor to protecting and endearing laws which benefit the WBH and their members, not WI bow hunters at large. The WBH will back - as well as fight for - those laws which are important to their membership, without regard to the body of bow hunters in WI as a whole. Lets be honest and clear about that.
Your comparison that the DNR listening sessions and MAJORITY of respondents are similar to any general election of governor is weak at best, lame at most. In a general election, every township, village, town and city offer the opportunity for those that do care and want to participate the opportunity to vote (called voting stations). If one chooses not to vote, that is their individual choice, but the means in which to vote is fairly presented to all who are eligible. The DNR listening sessions are scarce in number and remote in locations providing neither the means nor the opportunity for all who care to and want to participate to do so. Again, you fail to see the legitimacy of having conclusive data. If by some miracle you could grasp that, allowing the majority to vote their stance is different than claiming those that did participate and did respond as the majority. When the opportunities to hear the voice of the majority are limited in scope by the failure to provide ample opportunity, results can only be skewed and thus false (as a result of the WBH comprising the highest numbers in attendance).
Again, you talk about the exclusion of cross bows by the voting majority (those votes that count {your words}), I remind you that in ratifying vote after ratifying vote, most all of the southern states in the mid 1800s ratified slavery and voted to succeed from the Union. Not always are votes that count in favor of the popular majority, nor humanely correct in their assumptions. Just because the power to cast votes has been placed on the few who represent the many, cannot always guarantee that the many have been adequately heard. The WBH, with their legislative arm and for-profit rallying abilities to stuff the ballot boxes with their votes, usually wins out when the many cannot be heard. Lets also be clear about that.
So, here are my answers to your ridiculous questions, that have no bearing on the point at hand the one Im trying to make that you have supporting data only, and not conclusive data. When you figure out the difference between both subsets of data types, let me know. We can talk.
1) Crossbows are illegal in WI because that currently is the law. Why is it illegal for a player to grab a face mask and slam the runner to the ground? Because currently thats the law/rule. Because something is currently forbidden via rules or laws, that doesnt mean a shift in hunter sentiment cant change the current law.
2) Nothing has changed. Crossbows are becoming legal in more states across the nation, providing for better technology, increased sales and exposure. Cross bows, long bows compound bows, guns, muzzle loaders, rifles and shot guns all remain viable weapons in the ability to take and harvest deer and other big game animals.
3) See #1.
4) Convicted felons.
5) See #4.
6) Attempting to legalize both could be a possibility. But since crossbows of every size, type and associated accessories are readily available to the sportsman, crossbows would be the most logical avenue.
7) I doubt non-hunters or non bow hunters would turn out in droves buying bow licenses that they previously avoided because crossbows are now legal. If any, I would guess the increase in hunters with crossbows would be in the single digit percentages. No data you have supports any conclusion, here.
8) This is really what your war is about right? What perceptions of an increase in hunting of all kinds might jeopardize what you consider your bow hunting rights?
9) Yes, I am. So?
10) I favor a continual and unbiased examination of all facts, trends and statistics that allows for an enjoyable hunt for anyone who participates, wants to participate and wants to harvest deer in the manner in which their ethics, conscience and the law would allow, at that time. I favor a regulatory department who is open, not swayed by strong arm influence and are willing to learn, grow and adapt in an ever changing environment.
Again, I reiterate. None of these questions have any relevancy to my point all along that the WBH Association has supportive data without having conclusive data. You fail to acknowledge that point and I tire of trying to get you to understand that one and single - point on this thread.
One day my ship will come in!! My luck, I'll be at the airport.
