h2ofwlr wrote:So he is personally against the Teal season and you label him as an anti hunter?
Were Howling For Wolves not anti-hunters for being against the wolf season even though the science based management plan justified a season?
They certainly were.
How then is someone against a teal season that is also justified through a scientific based management plan not an anti-hunter?
It's a distinction without a difference.
Bottom line: If you openly and publicly lobby against hunting seasons without any data or scientific justification for why you're opposed.......especially after the season was postponed a year before without any concrete data making it the most conservative approach ever for that type of season to verify it'd be safe and all the numbers came back 'safer' than you asked for...........then how can you possibly label that as anything other than being anti-hunting?
If it was an anti-hunting group that was advocating against the teal season every hunter in the state and the DNR would have immediately opened a full 16 day season with a 6 teal daily limit. if you don't think that's reality then you're lying to yourself.
When hunters irrationally argue against a season based on emotion many of us call it "conservation."
When anti-hunters irrationally argue against a season based on emotion we all band together in support of said season to "shove it in their face."
Don't think I haven't taken notice and put this card in my deck.
h2ofwlr quit being so biased. Do you want me to illustrate this? I can go back and change all references of 'MWA' to 'PETA' or 'HSUS' as an example and then see how it reads. it's funny how words have different meanings when we've made an investment in the organization and people saying them. Those same exact words said by someone else we don't like and.....damn, they'll make our skin crawl.