By the way, my post #79 wasn't intended to denigrate Idahoans or your wildlife agency. I had hoped that I communicated that well in the thread.
Another poster opined that in his opinion that non-Idahoans have no skin in the game in Idaho concerns. I totally understand that thinking. Folks here are pretty protective of our state as well. No offense intended, friend.
My experience is that Wyomingites didn't have any skin in the silencer game, until we had skin in the silencer game. We became State number twenty eight to allow their use for hunting. The number of states that decided to have skin in the game after that rose to the current forty-two.
Issues in one state affect other states. It looks like Colorado is going to, by public referendum instead of sound wildlife practices, outlaw Mountain Lion hunting soon. Sounds like the California practice is gonna be the Coloradans experience. How are the mountain towns in Colorado that are loosing pets and livestock going to be impacted when hunting is no longer allowed?
I was sharing some of the resistance and arguments our WY Game and Fish Wardens Association used to object to allowing technology, in that case it was silencers, which hadn't been allowed for about 92 years, iirc.
In the last 11 years in WY I have not heard of a single wildlife taking violation using a silencer. It is a non-issue now, like concealed and Constitutional carry of firearms is here.
My point is/was that some humans are averse to hunting and will use any argument to restrict our abilities to consume wildlife. They are the groups who usually initiate the concerns about use of technology causing game and fish managers to have to put out questionnaires and hold public hearings. All of us should be vigilant for and adequately investigate the motives behind the concerns.
Eating an elephant starts with the first bite.
Thanks for letting me clarify what I intended to convey but might have just missed the goal.
